Why is arianism considered heretical?

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,200
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Pedrito, I do not advocate sola scriptura and feel no need to follow that particular heresy in my replies.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,653
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes

So Pedrito is not offended by Lämmchen’s statement in Post #76 on Page 8:

I'm not sure why you feel so compelled to insult people instead of just making your case and leaving it at that.


And Pedrito thinks that Rens’ original comment was fun.

My comment was based upon your flaming so there was no need for YOU to be the one to be offended. Flames won't make your case any stronger.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
At the heart of the issue of heresy in relation to Arianism is that it is contrary to Apostolic teaching and hence contrary to the teaching of Christ. One may gather bible verses and carefully select them to present a case that seems to be in keeping with Arius' teaching but is in fact only a collection of fragments to prove a doctrine arrived at quite apart from the teaching of Christ.


Of course, the only teaching of the Apostles that we know of is found in the biblical books of St. Paul and St. Peter (both Apostles).

The teachings are contrary to the teachings of God in His inscripturated words, as shown way back in post # 6.
 

Pedrito

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
1,032
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Pedrito consistently defends the Bible and its Wonderful, In-Context, Consistent Truth.

MoreCoffee (Post #81 on Page 9) stated [emphasis added]: “I do not advocate sola scriptura and feel no need to follow that particular heresy in my replies.

==============================================================================================

Pedrito is accused of flaming. (Post #82 on Page 9)

Nothing is said about MoreCoffee’s stated perspective of God’s Holy Scripture.

==============================================================================================

Does the Reader find that as incongruous as Pedrito does?
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,653
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Again,


In support of Scripture and Christianity against the horrible heretic, Arius


The TWO Natures of Christ.... FULLY God and man, inseparable.



1. Jesus is BOTH God/divine and man/human. BOTH. 100%. It's not either/or but both/and. True, his human nature is without sin but that in no sense makes it less human (it makes it more human - the humanity of Adam and Eve before the fall). 1 John 5:20, 1 Timothy 2:5-6.


2. These two natures are INSEPARABLE and UNITED - like two sides of the same coin. We may be only seeing one side at at given time; only one side might be active in some thing, but both sides are always present because they are inseparable. Two sides of the SAME coin. These are not merged into a new, third reality - but both remain, and both remain united. Where one "side" of the reality is, ergo so "is" the other.


3. While the Incarnation happened in time/space, this unity is beyond that. Read carefully John 1:1 ff, John 8:58, John 17:5, Hebrews 1:1-3 and 10-12, Matthew 18:20, Romans 9:5. Thus, we may speak of JESUS being at Creation and JESUS being with us always - and this JESUS has two inseparable natures: God and Man, divine and human. Note: it does NOT say, "The Son was present at Creation" it says "YOU (Jesus) were, etc.


4. There is not a sharp distinction in terms of duties or fruits or attributes or properties. See Luke 9:56 and Romans 9:5 and 1 Tim 2:5 and Hebrews 2:14 (humanity saving), with First John 1:12 and 1 Cor. 2:8 and Acts 3:15 and Galatians 2:20 (divinity saves), note that First John 1:14 contains both in the same verse. Note JESUS says he had us with us before the world was (John 17:5). JESUS is eternal (Hebrews 13:8), JESUS knows all things (John 21:17). Mary gives birth to GOD with us (Matthew 1:23). JESUS is everywhere (Matthew 18:20). JESUS knows all things (Colossians 2:3). JESUS is all powerful (Matthew 28:18). Miracles done by Jesus reveal HIS glory (John 1:14). Thus, it is unbiblical to insist that ONLY BY ONE NATURE can Christ be this or that.


5. God dwells in CHRIST - the flesh - "in fullness." Colossians 2:9. It's not a partial or sometime kind of thing.



SOME NOTES ......

1. Yet it seems possible for ONE nature to be involved without the others (as if looking at ONE SIDE of the coin - that side being the active side). The humanity of JEsus died on the Cross, God did not. Jesus says, "no one knows - not even the Son of man but only God" (an INTERESTING verse - because if taken literally, Jesus BOTH knew and did not know - suggesting some sense of a lack of communication?) Another case, Luke 2:52 - his humanity increases in knowledge even though his divine nature is all knowing always. The DIVINE nature MAY "communicate" with the human, the human does not communicate with the divine

2. The impeccability of Christ is interesting..... While Catholics (borrowing from Augustine) argue such (nondogmatically) from Jesus not having a human father (sin moving via male DNA) and Mary being without Original Sin just as a back up (lol), I've heard Lutherans argue (again, nondogmatically) that this is a fruit of the communication of attributes: his human nature is without sin by virtue of being "united" with his divine - the divine 'communicating' with the human.



EVEN MORE SCRIPTURES....


John 1:1-16 [1:1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] He was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. [4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [5] The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. [6] There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. [7] He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. [8] He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. [9] The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. [10] He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. [11] He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. [12] But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, [13] who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. [14] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. [15] (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) [16] For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. [17] For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. [18] No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.


John 8:58, "Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” Notice says, "I AM (I.... JESUS).... I WAS before Abraham. Not "The divine nature of me but not the human nature."


John 17:5, And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. Jesus says "that I - JESUS - I had." NOT, "that just my divine nature but not human nature had"


Hebrews 1:1-3 and 10-12, Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,.... And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” And to which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?
Note, God created the world through Jesus; Jesus is the "imprint" of God's nature, Jesus upholds the universe, Jesus made purifcation for sins, Jesus is the same.... NO distinction of natures, NO "The Son did this, the Flesh did that..."


Matthew 18:20, For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” Again, note that JESUS is among us, not "The Second Person of the Trinity but not me." Jesus is the God/Man - both/and.


Romans 9:5. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. Note: JESUS is over all.


Hebrews 13:8, Jesus Christ who is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. JESUS is eternal....


John 21:17, Lord, you (Jesus) know everything. JESUS is all-knowing


John 20:19, "On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” Note: NO FLESH can walk through walls and doors.... GOD of course can. JESUS (the God/Man did), indicating that what Jesus can do by one nature also involves his other nature. This seems important for the Reformed insistence that Jesus' human nature is in heaven and CANNOT thus be here for this would violate the properties of his human nature. Well..... this violated the properties of his human nature.


Matthew 1:23, They shall call his name Immanuel which means God with us. Note: JESUS' very title here means "God WITH us." Yes, GOD can be in all places at all times, no one disputes that. But Jesus says HE - JESUS - who is also HUMAN is with us. Thus, as in above, properties of one nature can "communicate" or in some way involve the other, since Nicea stressed his two natures are INSEPARABLE.


Matthew 18:20 Where two or three are gathered together, there I am among them. JESUS is omnipresent


Colossians 2:3 Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge


Matthew 28:18 All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me (JESUS)


Titus 2:13, "Our great GOD and Savior Jesus Christ who gave himself for us" JESUS is God. And He - God - gave himself for us on the Cross.


John 1:14 The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory of the only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth (all referring to JESUS)




A blessed New Year...


- Josiah
 

Pedrito

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
1,032
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
In Post #85 on Page 9, Lämmchen stated:
Speaking to the topic and idea is not flaming. Addressing a member or members is flaming. That's the difference, Pedrito. I invite you to read my Examples of Flaming thread: http://www.christianityhaven.com/sho...les-of-Flaming

Intrigued, Pedrito looked “flaming” up in a number of dictionaries. dictionary.com had the most meaningful entries.

verb (used without object): Computer Slang. to post an angry, critical, or disparaging electronic message, as an online comment.

verb (used with object): Computer Slang. to insult or criticize angrily in an online post or comment.


Pedrito was even more intrigued after that, because he had always strived to be rather dispassionate in his approach.

==============================================================================================

Pedrito then reviewed Lämmchen’s Examples of Flaming thread, as invited.

http://www.christianityhaven.com/sho...les-of-Flaming

Pedrito was so in agreement with what was presented that he gave that post of Lämmchen’s a “Like”. Pedrito does not issue “Likes” lightly. In fact, Pedrito believes that that “Like” is the only one he has ever issued.

But he remained puzzled.

==============================================================================================

As stated above, Pedrito has always strived to remain dispassionate and logical in his posts.

Therefore, the basis for Lämmchen’s “My comment was based upon your flaming so there was no need for YOU to be the one to be offended. Flames won't make your case any stronger. ” in Post #82, which appears to imply habitual transgressions in that regard, was difficult to comprehend.

Consequently, with the dictionary.com definitions in mind, and in the interest of Pedrito picking off any thorns or peeling off any raspy flesh he may unconsciously have in this regard, Pedrito requests of Lämmchen that she provide three clear and pointed examples of misdemeanour regarding each of the examples in the Examples of Flaming thread, where Pedrito stands accused of transgression.

Once those clear examples of emotional impropriety are presented, Pedrito will have the knowledge he needs to understand, and to help him lift his game wherever his shortcomings may lie.
 
Top Bottom