toledo_jesus Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Is Arius' heretical view of Christ's nature rationally superior to the orthodox view? I would at first say yes, rationally it is. Can somebody help me formulate a better argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FutureSoror Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Are you talking about the Arian heresey that denied the nature of Christ as being both God and man? The Orthodox believe that He has both natures, don't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted April 28, 2005 Author Share Posted April 28, 2005 [quote name='FutureSoror' date='Apr 27 2005, 09:16 PM'] Are you talking about the Arian heresey that denied the nature of Christ as being both God and man? The Orthodox believe that He has both natures, don't they? [/quote] yes, that Arius. He denied that Christ was both fully God and fully Man at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilgrim Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Here's a quick and simple breakdown of why Arius' view can't work: -Arius believed that Jesus was neither fully God, nor fully human, but somewhere in between... kind of super-human. Theological argument against his view: 1. All agree that we are saved by Christ. 2. All agree that [i]only God [/i]can save. 3. Therefore Christ is God. If Jesus is not God, [i]then we are not saved[/i]. Liturgical arguement against his view: 1. All Christians are baptized in the name of the Father, [i]Son[/i], and Holy Spirit. 2. We cannot baptize in the name of a creature, even if it is a "Super-human" creature. We only baptize in the name of God. 3. Therefore the Son is God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted April 28, 2005 Author Share Posted April 28, 2005 nice. Is it as simplistic as Christ being a 'superhuman' though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 [quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Apr 27 2005, 08:17 PM'] yes, that Arius. He denied that Christ was both fully God and fully Man at the same time. [/quote] More specificly Arius believed that Christ was just a creature, the highest of all creatures but still just a creature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 The Arian view of the nature of Christ has been historically viewed as being rationally superior to the generally accepted orthodoxy. Simpler is not better. Simpler is also not true. One of the reasons this and other heresies spread so quickly is that they are "rationally superior" ie simpler. See Belloc's book "The Great Heresies" for an example of this thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted April 28, 2005 Author Share Posted April 28, 2005 Thank you. I agree with you God Conquers. I was going to use that argument for my paper, but I didn't know where to look to back it up. Belloc...thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted April 28, 2005 Author Share Posted April 28, 2005 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dspen2005 Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 [quote name='Pilgrim' date='Apr 27 2005, 08:59 PM'] Here's a quick and simple breakdown of why Arius' view can't work: -Arius believed that Jesus was neither fully God, nor fully human, but somewhere in between... kind of super-human. Theological argument against his view: 1. All agree that we are saved by Christ. 2. All agree that [i]only God [/i]can save. 3. Therefore Christ is God. If Jesus is not God, [i]then we are not saved[/i]. [/quote] this might be semantics... but it is important that a distinction be made b/w "by" and "through"... we are saved THROUGH Christ.... using 'by' can open the door to various heretical arguments and also can lead to confusion.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 [quote name='dspen2005' date='Apr 28 2005, 08:56 AM'] this might be semantics... but it is important that a distinction be made b/w "by" and "through"... we are saved THROUGH Christ.... using 'by' can open the door to various heretical arguments and also can lead to confusion.... [/quote] I don't think it's trivial at all as it completly invalidates the proposed syllogism, further the syllogism is fairly weak anyway, there is no reason why God could not have made a creature with the express pupose of using him as a sacrifce to cleanse the world, no reason at all, logicaly speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoketos Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Apr 28 2005, 09:09 AM'] I don't think it's trivial at all as it completly invalidates the proposed syllogism, further the syllogism is fairly weak anyway, there is no reason why God could not have made a creature with the express pupose of using him as a sacrifce to cleanse the world, no reason at all, logicaly speaking. [/quote] Logically speaking I think that there is a reason that a creature could not be used: Namely sin is an infinite offense against and infinite God demanding infinite satisfaction. Man can only effect a finite sacrafice, though it is man who has to do the offering. Thus, Christ who is the God-man and infinite, must become man, so that a Man could offer the infinite sacrafice. Or did I miss the question... Also, the Heresy is not more rational or reasonable, this is why is a heresy. At best it could have a valid conculsion but be based on false pemises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Once you have accepted the omnipotence of God there are no limitations on the power of His creation. Therefore he could have created an appropriate sacrafice. Further there is no reason that the Sacrifice had to be infinite sin is finite, there is no reason it could not have simply been proportional to the finite ammount of sin that would exist in the entire life of the world. This is not to defend Arius just a point of logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilgrim Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 [quote]this might be semantics...[/quote] You're right, it might seem like just a play on words, but it was actually the formula established at the Council of Nicea to battle the Arian heresy. Interestingly, it's also the reason The Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman converted to Catholicism. When he studied the Arian problem, he realized that the early Church was just a [i]hairsbreadth [/i]away from falling into Arianism. Had it not been for the primacy of the Pope during the Council of Nicea, the bishops would have fallen on the side of Arius, and we all would now be Arians, too. Even Constantine himself was leaning toward the Arian side. But Pope St. Sylvester put his foot down and asserted that Christ could not be a mere creature, but was indeed divine. The little 1-2-3-formula above was what finally convinced the bishops that Christ had to be God if we are to be saved. When Cardinal Newman realized that we would all be Airans now had it not been for the primacy of the Pope, he converted to Catholicism. Just a bit of trivia for you. I found it interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 I'd like to see it in latin. The word issue may not exist there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now