I have 3 questions

[toledo_jesus]

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?

[FutureSoror]

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?

[toledo_jesus]

[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.

[Pilgrim]

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.

[toledo_jesus]

nice. Is it as simplistic as Christ being a 'superhuman' though?

[Don John of Austria]

[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.

[God Conquers]

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.

[toledo_jesus]

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.

[toledo_jesus]

bump

[dspen2005]

[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....

[Don John of Austria]

[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.

[Theoketos]

[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.

[Don John of Austria]

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.

[Pilgrim]

[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.

[Don John of Austria]

I'd like to see it in latin. The word issue may not exist there.

[Pilgrim]

[quote]I'd like to see it in latin. The word issue may not exist there. [/quote]

Unfortunately all of the original Greek documents have been lost to antiquity. All we have left are a few letters between Eastern bishops and fragments of a synodal decree and creed (the Nicene Creed).

You're entirely right; I imagine a good theologian would phrase the 1-2-3 formula more carefully. But as a paraphrased explanation it seems to work well in a pastoral setting for us common folk.

Edited April 29, 2005 by Pilgrim

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Apr 28 2005, 09:36 AM'] [/quote]
[quote]Once you have accepted the omnipotence of God there are no limitations on the power of His creation.[/quote]

At the same time He would not do anything contrary to His nature

[quote]Therefore he could have created an appropriate sacrafice. [/quote]

Unless it was contrary to His nature. I hope to prove this to my worthy opponent in a sec.


[quote]Further there is no reason that the Sacrifice had to be infinite. Sin is finite.[/quote]

Attonement and compensation is not based on the offending but the offended. (This from Anslem)

[quote] 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.[/quote]

This is not to deny the Valid Logic of Arius as advocated (obviously with out support) by John the Don of Austria, but to show the falsness of the premises.

Well, I want to post more, but I do not have the time. Look forward to more later.

[Theoketos]

This is from the Dialogue between Jesus and St. Catherine of Sienna
The Dialogue, 3:

Do you not know, my daughter, that all the sufferings the soul bears or can bear in this life are not enough to punish one smallest sin? For an offense against me, infinite Good, demands infinite satisfaction. So I want you to know that not all sufferings given in this life are given for punishment. but rather for correction, to chastise the child who offends. However it is true that a soul's desire, that is, true contrition and sorrow for sin, can make satisfaction. True contrition satisfies for sin and its penalty not by virtue of any finite suffering you may bear, but by virtue of your infinite desire. For God, who is infinite, would have infinite love and infinite sorrow.

The infinite sorrow God wills is twofold: for the offense you yourself have committed against your Creator, and for the offense you see on your neighbors' part. Because those who have such sorrow have infinite desire and are one with me in loving affection (which is why they grieve when they sin or see others sinning), every suffering they bear from any source at all, in spirit or in body, is of infinite worth, and so satisfies for the offense that deserved an infinite penalty. True, these are finite deeds in finite time. But because their virtue is practiced and their suffering borne with infinite desire and contrition and sorrow for sin, it has value.


So the glorious apostle Paul taught: "If I had angelic tongue, knew the future, gave what is mine to the poor, and gave my body to be burned, but did not have charity, it would be worth nothing to me." Finite works are not enough either to punish or to atone unless they are seasoned with loving charity.

PS Today is the feast day of St. Catherine