The Trinity: Genesis of a doctrine

My mother was an Anglican. She prayed to Jesus as God. My father was a Catholic. He prayed to Jesus as God. My sister thinks Christ was Jesus surname. They are consigned to flames and have no helper? Your whole point in all these threads, is to prove that trinitarian are polydeist. Of course Arius himself said no such thing.

You keep saying you are using reason and logic?

You of all people after all these threads should be the one to understand and recognise the subtlety, but you just continue deliberately to misunderstand and keep on stomping Christian belief

 

All the facts all the arguments all the documents have been exhibited and displayed before you in these threads, but you keep wanting to turn it all back to square one and start again. I believe you're overplaying your hand here

 

I shall answer the question..
I do not believe that anybody roasts in hell for no reason.
I'm not sure about my father, as he did not want me anywhere near him when he passed away.

I'm very happy about my mother, and I believe that she died as a good Christian .. possibly trinitarian .. I did not bully her.
We had great respect for each other, and I believe that she will go to heaven. We buried her 3 years ago.

As to your mother and father, I would rather not comment.
I have not even met you in person, and what do I know?

Warnings in the Bible and Qur'an about people going to hell are just that .. warnings.
Only God knows what is really going on inside our hearts .. often, we are not even totally aware ourselves.

I have no idea what is going to happen to ME, let alone anybody else.

 

I enjoy watching "Inspector Morse" and such like on TV.
They always go back and revisit "the scene of the crime" if they are not getting anywhere

 

1 I will extol you, O Lord, for you have drawn me up and have not let my foes rejoice over me.
2. O Lord my God, I cried to you for help, and you have healed me.
3. O Lord, you have brought up my soul from Sheol;
you restored me to life from among those who go down to the pit.

4. Sing praises to the Lord, O you his saints, and give thanks to his holy name.
5. For his anger is but for a moment, and his favor is for a lifetime.
Weeping may tarry for the night, but joy comes with the morning.
- Psalms of David, 30 -

 

OK. Actually, yes, I can agree with that.

My initial hesitation is that my personal theology doubts one can claim a divinity 'not as great as' – but now we're beyond the remit of Arius, so for simplicity sake, I let that go.

I do wonder how one can quantify 'divinity', and thus how one can say one is greater or lesser than.

I wouldn't go that far. Both were scholars, it seems.

 

That's what you think, not necessarily what they thought ... I thought we'd been through this?

 

That you don't get it does not mean it's 'mumbo-jumbo' or that it's not 'serious theology'.

 

I don't subscribe to this attitude that the Arians were idiots.
It is not just obvious to me that an eternal Father [ God ] and a non-eternal Son cannot be one and the same.

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=honorsprojects p 27

 

Were they idiots enough to believe/limit God as literally Father and Christ literally Son? Didn't they go deeper?

 

Arius believed the Son was begotten of the unbegotten Father before time began. He wrote that. It's not simplistic.

It is obvious Christians believed the divinity of Christ long before Arius? Arius was trying to sort it out theologically -- not do away with it? Later Arians may have taken it and ran with it, but without really understanding the complexity?

Sorry. I'm not trying to be rude

 

IMO you need to try to step away from your pre-decided conviction that Trinitarian Christianity is wrong and illogical and work of satan, instead debate with an open mind, which means not rejecting historical evidence you don't agree with. No personal offence intended.

Anyway this really has to be my last post in this thread.

 

I know you aren't .. as I say, it's a difficult topic.
It is not just a case of reason and logic .. it is also a case of shattering what we have believed for perhaps
all of our lives!.

 

Think about it!
Cheers
God bless

 

A note for anyone else following this thread:

@muhammad_isa has made comments that could be read to imply there was a degree of violence and bloodshed between disputants over the Arian controversy, or around the Trinitarian doctrine. This is a somewhat fanciful exaggeration.

In 313AD Arius nominated himself to become Bishop of Alexandria, but Alexander was chosen instead. Alexander was happy to have Arius continue in his role as presbyter, until the dispute broke out. It was very much a 'war of words', with letters flying back and forth as both sides sought the support of the wider church in settling the dispute.

Constantine, who had just taken possession of the eastern half of the empire, unifying it once more under his sole command, was rather disconcerted to find a dispute in full swing. Unable to dampen it down, he called a council. The outcome of Nicea was the exile of Arius and five others. That's it. No witch-hunts, no purges. Within a couple of years, the exiles had been forgiven and invited home.

Theological debate was mainly about the divinity of the Son, however, because Nicaea had not clarified the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, He too became a topic of debate.

Theodosius became sole emperor in 380AD, and began a campaign to bring the Eastern Church back to Nicene Christianity, with Constantinople solidly Arian. To complicate matters, there were disagreements among the Nicenes, 'almost to the point of complete animosity' centred on the schools of Alexandria and Antioch.

On his accession to the imperial throne, Theodosius offered to confirm Demophilus as bishop of the imperial city on the condition of his accepting the Nicene Creed. Demophilus refused, and was ordered to give up his churches and leave Constantinople. Arians were dismissed from their churches in other Eastern cities, thus re-establishing Nicene orthodoxy in the East.

Throughout this period, I'm not sure there was any bloodshed over Arianism or the Trinity whatsoever ... might be wrong, but a quick glance of various sources offers nothing.

 

Oh, I have thought about it.
Professor Rowan Williams has obviously also thought about it.

Many Anglicans disliked what he was saying on this topic.
However, he is highly qualified and sincere. Is he supposed to hide what he thinks is the truth?
Scores of people didn't like what Jesus was saying as they wanted to "carry on as normal".

38 And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces,
39 And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts:
40 Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.
41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.
- Mark 12 -

 

While on the topic of Arius in J.N.D. Kelly – an upshot –

"Arius had, of course, discarded certain of Origen's ideas, notably his doctrine of eternal generation. and he had carried his subordinationism to radical lengths, reducing the Son to a creaturely status. ln doing so he was following, despite his consciously Biblical starting-point, a path inevitably traced for him by the Middle Platonist preconceptions he had inherited." (Kelly, p231 emphasis mine).

In the evolution of doctrine, there was always a fine line between Platonising Christianity, and 'baptising Plato'. As soon as the Fathers sought to reason and justify their faith, they Platonised, as one theologian put it. Plato was the language of the philosophical discourse. Sometimes they slipped off the line, and this is the mistake that Arius made.

 

I know what you are saying .. that Nicene Christianity was established peacefully.
Whether it was or wasn't is hardly the point.

- Ramsay MacMullen, Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, Yale University Press, September 23, 1997 -

 

More "illusion", I'm afraid...
Was Arius a distinguished scholar of Lucian & Origen or not?

Unfortunately, we will never know what Origin truly believed, as very little of his original work in greek exists. What a surprise!

 

I will not step back and let you dessimate half-truths in attempt to mislead people. Have you read Rowan Williams' book on Arius? The fact he wrote a book on Arius does not make him an Arian. Does the Archbishop of Canterbury reject the divinity of Christ? Or have you just read the wiki blurb?

You need to answer the question.