So it goes ...
- Reaction score
- London UK
OK, the Unity position ...no, the way i understand it - it renders Him a COMPANION, and a trail breaker...
If so, why bother arguing such an anachronism? In those days, people wanted their gods to be gods, not their best pal.
Remember Arius accepted Christian Doctrine, he believed Jesus Christ was the Son of God, he believed in the Holy Trinity, he believed in the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, he was a priest of the Church, and by all accounts, he was a good one, and popular in what I imagine to be a tough parish (the docks in Alexandria). I would also suggest that the fact that someone with noble connections, who was educated, handsome and personable (even his detractors allow him that!) did not use those connections to get him a cushy position, says a lot for his character. He was something of an ascetic, too, and part of his success, apparently, was his composition of catechetical ditties that the men could sing while working on the boats!
All in all, a good churchman, a good presbyter, and a thoroughly nice bloke! Athanasius, on the other hand, was the better theologian, a monk, and a bit of a handful ...
Arius was not the first theologian to take a stand against orthodoxy, nor will he be the last. Like many who do, he was a great loss to the Church.
Unlike you however, he does not disagree with everything, and when people do, it's a clear sign, to me at least, they're just looking round for something to handbag the church with. When that doesn't work, the look for something else.
As with Andrew, I don't argue with you to convince you, just to correct your errors, for the benefit of others here who are interested in dialogue.
The 'Big Problem' is that Scripture can be argued in support of both positions — 'the Father is greater than I' (John 14:28) says Christ, then 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30) — He speaks of Himself as the Son, then says 'before Abraham was, I am' (John 8:58).
Most of the bishops, throughout the dispute, were in the middle, undecided, because there was no clear Scriptural assertion either way. Most of the bishops were not theologians, either (same today), and were loathe to affirm anything that did not have an indisputable Scriptural argument.
Athanasius tried to win the middle ground by theological argument. Arius tried to win it by political means ... a bad move, and it cost him. Not only was the imperial authority rejected by a church which was not prepared to hand over its independence and authority to outsiders, but Arius himself was soon lost and forgotten when the real underlying cause of the dispute was power.