Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Arius's death and the church's response to it
78 views
Skip to first unread message
Steve Hayes
Jan 24, 2012, 6:04:13 AM1/24/12
to
After the Divine Liturgy on Sunday a member of out parish came to me and said
she was upset about the Church's reponse to the death of Arius. The church,
she said, rejoiced in his death and gloated over it, and this struck her as
mean, nasty, vindictive and un-Christian, and she was not sure that she wanted
to belong to a church like that.
This had come about because she had been reading a book on Arius by Rowan
Williams, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury.
And I wonder if anyone else has read that book, and what their response to it
is.
When I got home I checked on a couple of things, and this is what I wrote to
our parishioner - comments anyone?
=== begin quoted text ===
After our chat about Arius on Sunday I thought I should follow up a few
things.
You mentioned a book on Arius by Rowan Williams, which I assume is this
one:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/217281.Arius
I haven't read it, and am not sure whether the picture you painted of the
death of Arius and the Church's response to it was the way Williams
described it but it sounded very strange to me, so I didn't want to say
anything, until I'd checked a couple of things.
If I recall correctly you mentioned several things, which I assume are
points that Williams made in his book.
1. Arius's teaching was not all that new and Tertullian and Origen had
made similar points beforehand.
2. Arius went to the Emperor, and told him he accepted the Creed of
Nicaea, thus indicating his desire to be reconciled to the church.
3. The Patriarch said, in effect, that he would rather die than give Arius
communion, thus rejecting Arius's gesture of reconciliation.
4. Before Arius could receive communion, he went to the loo and died when
his guts fell out.
5. The church rejoiced and gloated over Arius's death and the manner of
it.
6. Arius was probably poisoned.
I don't know if that is a fair reflection of what Williams said, because I
haven't read his book, but it does seem to me to be a pretty one-sided
account of what happened.
1. I'm not sure whether Arius's teaching had precursors in the thinking of
Tertullian and Origen or not, but I do know that neither Tertullian nor
Origen are regarded as being among Fathers of the Church by the Orthodox,
and their teachings have been regarded as suspect. Tertullian ended up as
a Montanist. Origen's teaching was rejected by one of the later councils,
I forget which one.
Western thologians have a thing about Tertullian and Origen, and for some
unaccountable reason seem to regard Origen as typifying Eastern Church
thinking. Perhaps Williams was no exception in this. There is no doubt
that they were both learned men and in many ways original thinkers, but
originality is more admired in the West than in the East.
2. Arius's repentance.
According to Athanasius's account (admittedly second hand, but Williams's
one cannot be better than third hand), the Emperor was not entirely
convinced by its sincerity, and basically said that if it was sincere, it
was a good thing, and if it wasn't, God would judge him.
Arius's supporters, it seems, then planned to have a little demo at the
cathedral to celebrate their victory as he went to receive communion. That
in itself casts doubt on the sincerity of repentance -- it looks more like
a political power play and ecclesiastical power games.
I'm sure that both sides in the controversy engaged in a fair bit of such
power games, so the anti-Arians were not altogether innocent of such
things.
But the thing that strikes me here is that if Arius was sincere repenting
of his errors and wanted to show that he accepted the true faith, why did
he go to the Emperor rather than to the bishop? Of course if he had gone
to the bishop, then his buddies could not have had their planned victory
demo.
5. Did the church rejoice and gloat when Arius died?
That isn't apparent from Athanasius's response. The response seems to have
been rather what the Emperor had said -- if it was not sincere, let God
judge, and since he died by no man's hand, and in a manner reminiscent of
the death of Judas Iscariot and perhaps Ananias, it did seem to many to be
the judgement of God.
When P.W. Botha had his stroke, opening the way for F.W. de Klerk to take
over, an agnostic friend said to me, "The Lord sleepeth not." And I too
rejoiced, not at his illness, but at the removal of the obstacle that he
represented. And I'm sure many would feel something similar if Mad Bob
Mugabe was removed in similar fashion. I'm not so sure about my agnostic
friend -- I think he was a bit more vindictive.
6. Was Arius poisoned?
Does Williams have any evidence for this?
Here, for what it's worth, is Athanasius's letter to Serapion:
Personal Letter LIV: to Serapion, Concerning the Death of Arius by
Athanasius in 358 | translated by Payne-Smith
Description:
In this missive, Athanasius, by describing the death of Arius, refutes the
notion that the heretic had been reconciled to the Church. The details
were furnished him by his presbyeter Macarius, who was at Constantinople
when Arius passed away while Athanasius was himself in exile at Treves.
(Quasten)
Provenance:
Serapion had been superior of a colony of monks before he became bishop of
Thmuis, a town of Lower Egypt. He was the recipient of a number of
important epistles from Athanasius, his "brother and fellow minster".
(Quasten)
Athanasius to Serapion, a brother and fellow-minister, health in the Lord.
I have read the letters of your piety, in which you have requested me to
make known to you the events of my times relating to myself, and to give
an account of that most impious heresy of the Arians, in consequence of
which I have endured these sufferings, and also of the manner of the death
of Arius. With two out of your three demands I have reapily undertaken to
comply, and have sent to your Godliness what I wrote to the Monks; from
which you will be able to learn my own history as well as that of the
heresy. But with respect to the other matter, I mean the death, I debated
with myself for a long time, fearing lest any one should suppose that I
was exulting in the death of that man. But yet, since a disputation which
has taken place amongst you concerning the heresy, has issued in this
question, whether Arius died after previously communicating with the
Church; I therefore was necessarily desirous of giving an account of his
death, as thinking that the question would thus be set at rest,
considering also that by making this known I should at the same time
silence those who are fond of contention. For I conceive that when the
wonderful circumstances connected with his death become known, even those
who before questioned it will no longer venture to doubt that the Arian
heresy is hateful in the sight of God.
2. I was not at Constantinople when he died, but Macarius the Presbyter
was, and I heard the account of it from him. Arius had been invited by the
Emperor Constantine, through the interest of Eusebius and his fellows; and
when he entered the presence the Emperor enquired of him, whether he held
the Faith of the Catholic Church? And he declared upon oath that he held
the right Faith, and gave in an account of his Faith in writing,
suppressing the points for which he had been cast out of the Church by the
Bishop Alexander, and speciously alleging expressions out of the
Scriptures. When therefore he swore that he did not profess the opinions
for which Alexander had excommunicated him, [the Emperor] dismissed him,
saying, 'If thy Faith be right, thou hast done well to swear; but if thy
Faith be impious, and thou hast sworn, God judge of thee according to thy
oath.' When he thus came forth from the presence of the Emperor, Eusebius
and his fellows, with their accustomed violence, desired to bring him into
the Church. But Alexander, the Bishop of Constantinople of blessed memory,
resisted them, saying that the inventor of the heresy ought not to be
admitted to communion; whereupon Eusebius and his fellows threatened,
declaring, 'As we have caused him to be invited by the Emperor, in
opposition to your wishes, so to-morrow, though it be contrary to your
desire, Arius shall have communion with us in this Church.' It was the
Sabbath when they said this.
3. When the Bishop Alexander heard this, he was greatly distressed, and
entering into the church, he stretched forth his hands unto God, and
bewailed himself; and casting himself upon his face in the chancel, he
prayed, lying upon the pavement. Macarius also was present, and prayed
with him, and heard his words. And he besought these two things, saying,
'If Arius is brought to communion to-morrow, let me Thy servant depart,
and destroy not the pious with the impious; but if Thou wilt spare Thy
Church (and I know that Thou wilt spare), look upon the words of Eusebius
and his fellows, and give not thine inheritance to destruction and
reproach, and take off Arius, test if he enter into the Church, the heresy
also may seem to enter with him, and henceforward impiety be accounted for
piety.' When the Bishop had thus prayed, he retired in great anxiety; and
a wonderful and extraordinary circumstance took place. While Eusebius and
his fellows threatened, the Bishop prayed; but Arius, who had great
confidence in Eusebius and his fellows, and talked very wildly, urged by
the necessities of nature withdrew, and suddenly, in the language of
Scripture, 'falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst,' and
immediately expired as he lay, and was deprived both of communion and of
his life together.
4. Such has been the end of Arius: and Eusebius and his fellows,
overwhelmed with shame, buried their accomplice, while the blessed
Alexander, amidst the rejoicings of the Church, celebrated the Communion
with piety and orthodoxy, praying with all the brethren, and greatly
glorifying God, not as exulting in his death (God forbid!), for 'it is
appointed unto all men once to die,' but because this thing had been shewn
forth in a manner transcending human judgments. For the Lord Himself
judging between the threats of Eusebius and his fellows, and the prayer of
Alexander, condemned the Arian heresy, shewing it to be unworthy of
communion with the Church, and making manifest to all, that although it
receive the support of the Emperor and of all mankind, yet it was
condemned by the Church herself. So the antichristian gang of the Arian
madmen has been shewn to be unpleasing to God and impious; and many of
those who before were deceived by it changed their opinions. For none
other than the Lord Himself who was blasphemed by them condemned the
heresy which rose up against Him, and again shewed that howsoever the
Emperor Constantius may now use violence to the Bishops in behalf of it,
yet it is excluded from the communion of the Church, and alien from the
kingdom of heaven. Wherefore also let the question which has arisen among
you be henceforth set at rest; (for this was the agreement made among
you), and let no one join himself to the heresy, but let even those who
have been deceived repent. For who shall receive what the Lord condemned?
And will not he who takes up the support of that which He has made
excommunicate, be guilty of great impiety, and manifestly an enemy of
Christ?
5. Now this is sufficient to confound the contentious; read it therefore
to those who before raised this question, as well as what was briefly
addressed to the Monks against the heresy, in order that they may be led
thereby more strongly to condemn the impiety and wickedness of the Arian
madmen. Do not however consent to give a copy of these to any one, neither
transcribe them for yourself (I have signified the same to the Monks
also); but as a sincere friend, if anything is wanting in what I have
written, add it, and immediately send them back to me. For you will be
able to learn from the letter which I have written to the Brethren, what
pains it has cost me to write it, and also to perceive that it is not safe
for the writings of a private person to be published (especially if they
relate to the highest and chief doctrines), for this reason;—lest what is
imperfectly expressed through infirmity or the obscurity of language, do
hurt to the reader. For the majority of men do not consider the faith, or
the aim of the writer, but either through envy or a spirit of contention,
receive what is written as themselves choose, according to an opinion
which they have previously formed, and misinterpret it to suit their
pleasure. But the Lord grant that the Truth and a sound faith in our Lord
Jesus Christ may prevail among all, and especially among those to whom you
read this. Amen.
Taken from "The Early Church Fathers and Other Works" originally published
by Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. in English in Edinburgh, Scotland, beginning
in 1867. (NPNF II/IV, Schaff and Wace). The digital version is by The
Electronic Bible Society, P.O. Box 701356, Dallas, TX 75370, 214-407-WORD.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=2260
=== end quoted text ===
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
she was upset about the Church's reponse to the death of Arius. The church,
she said, rejoiced in his death and gloated over it, and this struck her as
mean, nasty, vindictive and un-Christian, and she was not sure that she wanted
to belong to a church like that.
This had come about because she had been reading a book on Arius by Rowan
Williams, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury.
And I wonder if anyone else has read that book, and what their response to it
is.
When I got home I checked on a couple of things, and this is what I wrote to
our parishioner - comments anyone?
=== begin quoted text ===
After our chat about Arius on Sunday I thought I should follow up a few
things.
You mentioned a book on Arius by Rowan Williams, which I assume is this
one:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/217281.Arius
I haven't read it, and am not sure whether the picture you painted of the
death of Arius and the Church's response to it was the way Williams
described it but it sounded very strange to me, so I didn't want to say
anything, until I'd checked a couple of things.
If I recall correctly you mentioned several things, which I assume are
points that Williams made in his book.
1. Arius's teaching was not all that new and Tertullian and Origen had
made similar points beforehand.
2. Arius went to the Emperor, and told him he accepted the Creed of
Nicaea, thus indicating his desire to be reconciled to the church.
3. The Patriarch said, in effect, that he would rather die than give Arius
communion, thus rejecting Arius's gesture of reconciliation.
4. Before Arius could receive communion, he went to the loo and died when
his guts fell out.
5. The church rejoiced and gloated over Arius's death and the manner of
it.
6. Arius was probably poisoned.
I don't know if that is a fair reflection of what Williams said, because I
haven't read his book, but it does seem to me to be a pretty one-sided
account of what happened.
1. I'm not sure whether Arius's teaching had precursors in the thinking of
Tertullian and Origen or not, but I do know that neither Tertullian nor
Origen are regarded as being among Fathers of the Church by the Orthodox,
and their teachings have been regarded as suspect. Tertullian ended up as
a Montanist. Origen's teaching was rejected by one of the later councils,
I forget which one.
Western thologians have a thing about Tertullian and Origen, and for some
unaccountable reason seem to regard Origen as typifying Eastern Church
thinking. Perhaps Williams was no exception in this. There is no doubt
that they were both learned men and in many ways original thinkers, but
originality is more admired in the West than in the East.
2. Arius's repentance.
According to Athanasius's account (admittedly second hand, but Williams's
one cannot be better than third hand), the Emperor was not entirely
convinced by its sincerity, and basically said that if it was sincere, it
was a good thing, and if it wasn't, God would judge him.
Arius's supporters, it seems, then planned to have a little demo at the
cathedral to celebrate their victory as he went to receive communion. That
in itself casts doubt on the sincerity of repentance -- it looks more like
a political power play and ecclesiastical power games.
I'm sure that both sides in the controversy engaged in a fair bit of such
power games, so the anti-Arians were not altogether innocent of such
things.
But the thing that strikes me here is that if Arius was sincere repenting
of his errors and wanted to show that he accepted the true faith, why did
he go to the Emperor rather than to the bishop? Of course if he had gone
to the bishop, then his buddies could not have had their planned victory
demo.
5. Did the church rejoice and gloat when Arius died?
That isn't apparent from Athanasius's response. The response seems to have
been rather what the Emperor had said -- if it was not sincere, let God
judge, and since he died by no man's hand, and in a manner reminiscent of
the death of Judas Iscariot and perhaps Ananias, it did seem to many to be
the judgement of God.
When P.W. Botha had his stroke, opening the way for F.W. de Klerk to take
over, an agnostic friend said to me, "The Lord sleepeth not." And I too
rejoiced, not at his illness, but at the removal of the obstacle that he
represented. And I'm sure many would feel something similar if Mad Bob
Mugabe was removed in similar fashion. I'm not so sure about my agnostic
friend -- I think he was a bit more vindictive.
6. Was Arius poisoned?
Does Williams have any evidence for this?
Here, for what it's worth, is Athanasius's letter to Serapion:
Personal Letter LIV: to Serapion, Concerning the Death of Arius by
Athanasius in 358 | translated by Payne-Smith
Description:
In this missive, Athanasius, by describing the death of Arius, refutes the
notion that the heretic had been reconciled to the Church. The details
were furnished him by his presbyeter Macarius, who was at Constantinople
when Arius passed away while Athanasius was himself in exile at Treves.
(Quasten)
Provenance:
Serapion had been superior of a colony of monks before he became bishop of
Thmuis, a town of Lower Egypt. He was the recipient of a number of
important epistles from Athanasius, his "brother and fellow minster".
(Quasten)
Athanasius to Serapion, a brother and fellow-minister, health in the Lord.
I have read the letters of your piety, in which you have requested me to
make known to you the events of my times relating to myself, and to give
an account of that most impious heresy of the Arians, in consequence of
which I have endured these sufferings, and also of the manner of the death
of Arius. With two out of your three demands I have reapily undertaken to
comply, and have sent to your Godliness what I wrote to the Monks; from
which you will be able to learn my own history as well as that of the
heresy. But with respect to the other matter, I mean the death, I debated
with myself for a long time, fearing lest any one should suppose that I
was exulting in the death of that man. But yet, since a disputation which
has taken place amongst you concerning the heresy, has issued in this
question, whether Arius died after previously communicating with the
Church; I therefore was necessarily desirous of giving an account of his
death, as thinking that the question would thus be set at rest,
considering also that by making this known I should at the same time
silence those who are fond of contention. For I conceive that when the
wonderful circumstances connected with his death become known, even those
who before questioned it will no longer venture to doubt that the Arian
heresy is hateful in the sight of God.
2. I was not at Constantinople when he died, but Macarius the Presbyter
was, and I heard the account of it from him. Arius had been invited by the
Emperor Constantine, through the interest of Eusebius and his fellows; and
when he entered the presence the Emperor enquired of him, whether he held
the Faith of the Catholic Church? And he declared upon oath that he held
the right Faith, and gave in an account of his Faith in writing,
suppressing the points for which he had been cast out of the Church by the
Bishop Alexander, and speciously alleging expressions out of the
Scriptures. When therefore he swore that he did not profess the opinions
for which Alexander had excommunicated him, [the Emperor] dismissed him,
saying, 'If thy Faith be right, thou hast done well to swear; but if thy
Faith be impious, and thou hast sworn, God judge of thee according to thy
oath.' When he thus came forth from the presence of the Emperor, Eusebius
and his fellows, with their accustomed violence, desired to bring him into
the Church. But Alexander, the Bishop of Constantinople of blessed memory,
resisted them, saying that the inventor of the heresy ought not to be
admitted to communion; whereupon Eusebius and his fellows threatened,
declaring, 'As we have caused him to be invited by the Emperor, in
opposition to your wishes, so to-morrow, though it be contrary to your
desire, Arius shall have communion with us in this Church.' It was the
Sabbath when they said this.
3. When the Bishop Alexander heard this, he was greatly distressed, and
entering into the church, he stretched forth his hands unto God, and
bewailed himself; and casting himself upon his face in the chancel, he
prayed, lying upon the pavement. Macarius also was present, and prayed
with him, and heard his words. And he besought these two things, saying,
'If Arius is brought to communion to-morrow, let me Thy servant depart,
and destroy not the pious with the impious; but if Thou wilt spare Thy
Church (and I know that Thou wilt spare), look upon the words of Eusebius
and his fellows, and give not thine inheritance to destruction and
reproach, and take off Arius, test if he enter into the Church, the heresy
also may seem to enter with him, and henceforward impiety be accounted for
piety.' When the Bishop had thus prayed, he retired in great anxiety; and
a wonderful and extraordinary circumstance took place. While Eusebius and
his fellows threatened, the Bishop prayed; but Arius, who had great
confidence in Eusebius and his fellows, and talked very wildly, urged by
the necessities of nature withdrew, and suddenly, in the language of
Scripture, 'falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst,' and
immediately expired as he lay, and was deprived both of communion and of
his life together.
4. Such has been the end of Arius: and Eusebius and his fellows,
overwhelmed with shame, buried their accomplice, while the blessed
Alexander, amidst the rejoicings of the Church, celebrated the Communion
with piety and orthodoxy, praying with all the brethren, and greatly
glorifying God, not as exulting in his death (God forbid!), for 'it is
appointed unto all men once to die,' but because this thing had been shewn
forth in a manner transcending human judgments. For the Lord Himself
judging between the threats of Eusebius and his fellows, and the prayer of
Alexander, condemned the Arian heresy, shewing it to be unworthy of
communion with the Church, and making manifest to all, that although it
receive the support of the Emperor and of all mankind, yet it was
condemned by the Church herself. So the antichristian gang of the Arian
madmen has been shewn to be unpleasing to God and impious; and many of
those who before were deceived by it changed their opinions. For none
other than the Lord Himself who was blasphemed by them condemned the
heresy which rose up against Him, and again shewed that howsoever the
Emperor Constantius may now use violence to the Bishops in behalf of it,
yet it is excluded from the communion of the Church, and alien from the
kingdom of heaven. Wherefore also let the question which has arisen among
you be henceforth set at rest; (for this was the agreement made among
you), and let no one join himself to the heresy, but let even those who
have been deceived repent. For who shall receive what the Lord condemned?
And will not he who takes up the support of that which He has made
excommunicate, be guilty of great impiety, and manifestly an enemy of
Christ?
5. Now this is sufficient to confound the contentious; read it therefore
to those who before raised this question, as well as what was briefly
addressed to the Monks against the heresy, in order that they may be led
thereby more strongly to condemn the impiety and wickedness of the Arian
madmen. Do not however consent to give a copy of these to any one, neither
transcribe them for yourself (I have signified the same to the Monks
also); but as a sincere friend, if anything is wanting in what I have
written, add it, and immediately send them back to me. For you will be
able to learn from the letter which I have written to the Brethren, what
pains it has cost me to write it, and also to perceive that it is not safe
for the writings of a private person to be published (especially if they
relate to the highest and chief doctrines), for this reason;—lest what is
imperfectly expressed through infirmity or the obscurity of language, do
hurt to the reader. For the majority of men do not consider the faith, or
the aim of the writer, but either through envy or a spirit of contention,
receive what is written as themselves choose, according to an opinion
which they have previously formed, and misinterpret it to suit their
pleasure. But the Lord grant that the Truth and a sound faith in our Lord
Jesus Christ may prevail among all, and especially among those to whom you
read this. Amen.
Taken from "The Early Church Fathers and Other Works" originally published
by Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. in English in Edinburgh, Scotland, beginning
in 1867. (NPNF II/IV, Schaff and Wace). The digital version is by The
Electronic Bible Society, P.O. Box 701356, Dallas, TX 75370, 214-407-WORD.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=2260
=== end quoted text ===
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
nickk - not the imposter
Jan 24, 2012, 11:33:18 AM1/24/12
to
Arius was a tall, good-looking, very proud personality. It was said
that everyone noticed his presence. He had physical charisma and
intellectual charisma. He was well-trained theologically and Origen
was his master. Arius based his assumptions on the theological
statement, "the Son was begotten of the Father" and therefore, there
must have been a time when the Son was not. The Trinitarians disagreed
and said there was never a time when the Son did not exist. Homo-ousia
(Father & Son of the same substance) If God always existed and the Son
& Father are of the same substance, then they could not, by
definition, have a beginning.
Well, Arius had a big following and it did turn into a huge power
struggle of who was right and who was wrong. The controversy was
splitting the Church and Arius INSISTED he was right. Well,
mysteriously Arius' bowels gushed out when he was relieving himself
and Arianism was squashed.
We have modern day Arians in the Jehovah Witness', the Mormons and
others.
If the Holy Spirit truly guides the Church, then Arius was wrong. Same
happened with the Iconoclasts who smashed and burned icons for decades
before this was ultimately also corrected.
The Church always allows and insists on repentance when we are wrong.
Arius refused to sincerely repent and his theology and following was
destroying the Church itself. Going up against the Emperor Constantine
wasn't extremely bright - Arius lost!
(Almost reminds me of Lucifer's fight in Heaven)
that everyone noticed his presence. He had physical charisma and
intellectual charisma. He was well-trained theologically and Origen
was his master. Arius based his assumptions on the theological
statement, "the Son was begotten of the Father" and therefore, there
must have been a time when the Son was not. The Trinitarians disagreed
and said there was never a time when the Son did not exist. Homo-ousia
(Father & Son of the same substance) If God always existed and the Son
& Father are of the same substance, then they could not, by
definition, have a beginning.
Well, Arius had a big following and it did turn into a huge power
struggle of who was right and who was wrong. The controversy was
splitting the Church and Arius INSISTED he was right. Well,
mysteriously Arius' bowels gushed out when he was relieving himself
and Arianism was squashed.
We have modern day Arians in the Jehovah Witness', the Mormons and
others.
If the Holy Spirit truly guides the Church, then Arius was wrong. Same
happened with the Iconoclasts who smashed and burned icons for decades
before this was ultimately also corrected.
The Church always allows and insists on repentance when we are wrong.
Arius refused to sincerely repent and his theology and following was
destroying the Church itself. Going up against the Emperor Constantine
wasn't extremely bright - Arius lost!
(Almost reminds me of Lucifer's fight in Heaven)
JamesD
Jan 24, 2012, 1:21:37 PM1/24/12
to
On 1/24/2012 8:33 AM, nickk - not the imposter wrote:
> Arius was a tall, good-looking, very proud personality. It was said
> that everyone noticed his presence. He had physical charisma and
> intellectual charisma. He was well-trained theologically and Origen
> was his master. Arius based his assumptions on the theological
> statement, "the Son was begotten of the Father" and therefore, there
> must have been a time when the Son was not. The Trinitarians disagreed
> and said there was never a time when the Son did not exist. Homo-ousia
> (Father& Son of the same substance) If God always existed and the Son
> Arius was a tall, good-looking, very proud personality. It was said
> that everyone noticed his presence. He had physical charisma and
> intellectual charisma. He was well-trained theologically and Origen
> was his master. Arius based his assumptions on the theological
> statement, "the Son was begotten of the Father" and therefore, there
> must have been a time when the Son was not. The Trinitarians disagreed
> and said there was never a time when the Son did not exist. Homo-ousia
> & Father are of the same substance, then they could not, by
> definition, have a beginning.
>
> Well, Arius had a big following and it did turn into a huge power
> struggle of who was right and who was wrong. The controversy was
> splitting the Church and Arius INSISTED he was right. Well,
> mysteriously Arius' bowels gushed out when he was relieving himself
> and Arianism was squashed.
>
> We have modern day Arians in the Jehovah Witness', the Mormons and
> others.
>
> If the Holy Spirit truly guides the Church, then Arius was wrong. Same
> happened with the Iconoclasts who smashed and burned icons for decades
> before this was ultimately also corrected.
>
> The Church always allows and insists on repentance when we are wrong.
> Arius refused to sincerely repent and his theology and following was
> destroying the Church itself. Going up against the Emperor Constantine
> wasn't extremely bright - Arius lost!
> (Almost reminds me of Lucifer's fight in Heaven)
Thanks for the history lesson, Nick. Much appreciated.
> definition, have a beginning.
>
> Well, Arius had a big following and it did turn into a huge power
> struggle of who was right and who was wrong. The controversy was
> splitting the Church and Arius INSISTED he was right. Well,
> mysteriously Arius' bowels gushed out when he was relieving himself
> and Arianism was squashed.
>
> We have modern day Arians in the Jehovah Witness', the Mormons and
> others.
>
> If the Holy Spirit truly guides the Church, then Arius was wrong. Same
> happened with the Iconoclasts who smashed and burned icons for decades
> before this was ultimately also corrected.
>
> The Church always allows and insists on repentance when we are wrong.
> Arius refused to sincerely repent and his theology and following was
> destroying the Church itself. Going up against the Emperor Constantine
> wasn't extremely bright - Arius lost!
> (Almost reminds me of Lucifer's fight in Heaven)
Steve Hayes
Jan 24, 2012, 7:29:38 PM1/24/12
to
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:33:18 -0800 (PST), nickk - not the imposter
<nick...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks very much for the comments.
>The Church always allows and insists on repentance when we are wrong.
>Arius refused to sincerely repent and his theology and following was
>destroying the Church itself. Going up against the Emperor Constantine
>wasn't extremely bright - Arius lost!
>(Almost reminds me of Lucifer's fight in Heaven)
I don't think Arius was called "impious" because he failed to perfectly
understand the relationship between the persons of the Holy Trinity or the
concept of eternity. After all, we baptise infants, who also fail to
understand such things, and the Cappadocian fathers and others imply that it
is impossible for creatures to know the essence (ousia) of God.
I think he was rather called impious because of his contumaciousness and
refusal to repent, and his attempts, and those of his supporters, to make a
political issue of it.
<nick...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks very much for the comments.
>The Church always allows and insists on repentance when we are wrong.
>Arius refused to sincerely repent and his theology and following was
>destroying the Church itself. Going up against the Emperor Constantine
>wasn't extremely bright - Arius lost!
>(Almost reminds me of Lucifer's fight in Heaven)
understand the relationship between the persons of the Holy Trinity or the
concept of eternity. After all, we baptise infants, who also fail to
understand such things, and the Cappadocian fathers and others imply that it
is impossible for creatures to know the essence (ousia) of God.
I think he was rather called impious because of his contumaciousness and
refusal to repent, and his attempts, and those of his supporters, to make a
political issue of it.
Steve Hayes
Jan 25, 2012, 4:38:14 AM1/25/12
to
>Well, Arius had a big following and it did turn into a huge power
>struggle of who was right and who was wrong. The controversy was
>splitting the Church and Arius INSISTED he was right. Well,
>mysteriously Arius' bowels gushed out when he was relieving himself
>and Arianism was squashed.
And I think it was the insisteence, and the manner of it, that was the reason
>struggle of who was right and who was wrong. The controversy was
>splitting the Church and Arius INSISTED he was right. Well,
>mysteriously Arius' bowels gushed out when he was relieving himself
>and Arianism was squashed.
for his excommunication .
The parishioner who was concerned about this has now given a web site that has
the kind of gloating and rejoicing that concerns her:
http://tinyurl.com/744n3oj
0 new messages