Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

14

It would be the heresy of monophysitism (or, pushed to an extreme docetism) to deny Jesus' free will. The classic text on the matter is in this matter is Luke 22:42 - "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." If Jesus had no free will, this statement has no meaning. Additionally, Hebrews 4:15 states: ...


13

From Arius' own hand: We believe in one God the Father Almighty, and in the Lord Jesus Christ his son, who was begotten of him before all ages, God the Word through whom all things were made, both things in heaven and on earth; who descended, and became human, and suffered, and rose again, ascended into heaven, and will again come to judge the living and ...


11

Some background regarding Arianism To answer the question, it is important to understand that Arianism is a Trinitarian heresy that denies the divinity of the Second Person of the Trinity. Specifically, Arius held that the Son, or the Word, was created out of nothing, and that there was a time when He did not exist. The Son was, therefore, the ...


6

Fr. Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary gives this definition of Semi-Arianism: The teaching of certain theologians who, after the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325), sought a compromise between Arianism and the doctrine of Christ's consubstantiality with the Father. They were led by Basil, Bishop of Ancyra, and their sympathies were toward orthodoxy, although ...


5

To answer this, one must first define what Arianism is. Any denomination which holds that Jesus Christ is a subordinate entity to God. He is not one with the Father. Christ is not truly divine but a created being can be considered as 'Arian'. In Arius's words, "there was [a time] when he (the Son) was not." Holy Arian Catholic and Apostolic Church in claims ...


5

I don't see why this should be complicated. Soteriology is the study of salvation (Greek σωτηρία). Succinctly stated, Arianism posits that the Lord Jesus Christ is not "the only true god" (ὁ μόνος ἀληθινὸς θεός; cp. John 17:3), Yahveh (cp. Isa. 44:6), but rather, a creation of the one true god (i.e., a creature). According to Isa. 43:11 (cp. Isa. 45:21; ...


5

If I'm understanding you correctly, this is your central claim: If God's λόγος was created, then it did not exist before it was created. The corollary is that God at one point lacked λόγος, or was ἄλογος. The Greek word ἄλογος means "without reason, logic; irrational; illogical." Yeah. No. It doesn't quite work like that. God is God. Immutable. ...


4

In the early fourth century, many Christians were divided over how best to understand the relationship between God and Jesus. Emperor Constantine called for an ecumenical council of bishops to settle the matter: the Council of Nicea, in 325 AD. The result was a condemnation of 'the Arian heresy'. Letter to Emperor Constantine A few years later, in 327 ...


4

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin. (NIV Hebrews 4:15) the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me (NIV John14:30) Jesus had free will, but not the ability to sin, that is considered impossible by many ...


2

There is no evidence that Arius was influenced by Revelation 3:14 or Psalms 8:5-6, but he appealed to Bible verses such as Jesus saying that the father is "greater than I" (John 14:28), and "The Lord created me at the beginning of his work" (Proverbs 8:22). He was also influenced by Origen. Richard Smoley says in Forbidden Faith, page 45, Origen held an ...


2

First of all, there was no Arianism prior to Arius because Arianism started with Arius.Arius began to teach a new teaching. He taught that the Logos had a beginning of existence.Although some scholars like Alexander Vasiliev refers to Lucian as the Arius before Arius.This merely shows that Lucian hold onto a proto-Arianism (source). Arius was condemned ...


1

The earlier fathers did sometimes make statements that later came to be recognized as formally heretical. But since no one called them on those statements during their lifetimes, we didn't get to see the debate play out. They didn't have a chance to say, "Oh yeah... good point," and explain, revise or qualify their statements. And on the negative side, they ...


1

I would just like to add some nuance to Geremia's excellent answer. We have to keep in mind that the intention of the Council Fathers at Nicaea (325) was not so much to defend the term ὁμοούσιος (homoousios, consubstantial; the term is derived from οὐσία, which means "essence" or "substance") as to refute the heresy of Arius. (For those who are not ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible