The debate concerning the Trinity has been a constant debate throughout history. This debate has continued on through modern day. As we study the different opinions and beliefs on God the Father and His Son, we can see a pattern were the Trinity is not fully understood by many. In this paper, I will discuss The Arian Controversy. I will describe what Arius believed concerning God and His Son. Then I will share my thoughts and facts that will show what Arius taught was not correct.
The Bible has so much information about God and his Son. There really should not be any confusion or controversy over who they are and how they function. But we would be living in a fairy tale land if everyone agreed on this subject. “There is no …show more content…
Now that we have some understanding of what Arius was teaching. I will now begin to defend against his view of God and the Son. Let’s begin with addressing that fact that the Son was not a creature. The Son was God in the flesh. He walked upon earth to spread the gospel and bring salvation to a sinful world. The prophet Isaiah even writes about the Son before he was born. “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6). The Son was more than flesh, he was the fullness of God. Let’s look at the subject of creation. Arius believes that the Son did not exist during creation. I tend to disagree with his observation. “Jesus Christ is viewed as the creator and the savior of humanity and nature” (Langdon, 2015, p. 455). Since God and the Son are one and can’t be divided, then He would have to be present at creation. I believe that the Son and the Holy Spirit both have been with God since the beginning. According to John 1:1-2, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning”. This verse alone is pretty clear on the fact that the Son was with God during creation. The last statement I will address concerning Arius’s teachings, will be that the Son is changeable. According to Arius, “the Word has a
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
The Libyan born Presbyter and theologian, Arius (d. 336), believed that Jesus was created by god and therefore not eternal. He taught many things in his church in Alexandria and he attempted to address complexities such as the divinity of Christ in relation to God according to monotheism. Perhaps God had a reason for the work of Arius in the Empire. Until now the church hadn’t resolved an issue of this magnitude and Arius brought it to the main stage. Perhaps Arius was meant to argue for the sake of change within the church according to God’s ultimate design, saving the dissolution of the Roman Empire. In this paper I will describe the beliefs held by Arius on eternity and the divinity of Jesus, as well as the issue of Monotheism in both points of view and the controversy that enveloped. I will then talk about the views and response of the church to Arius’ teachings and the reasoning behind the formation of the Council of Nicaea, as well as attempt to prove that Arius was wrong in his belief. Lastly I will discuss the influence of Emperor Constantine in the formation of the council and the politics within the church in regards to the growing issue that Arius started, as well as explain the role of argumentation that Arius had (knowingly or unknowingly) in the preservation of the church according to God’s ultimate plan for Christianity.
I will like to crave your indulgence to the fact that "Nicene concept of Trinity" is never stated in the Bible, and it is that early Christians as well as the scriptures clearly points out the fact that Jesus was fully divine and pre-existent. For the fact that, none of the early Christian theologians fully asserted the doctrine of the Trinity, not even a speculation about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. According to the father of the paganism description of Trinity "God can in no way be described." (Schindler 148).
Hebrews 1:2-3 says, “But in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven” (NIV). In an article in The Christian Crier, author Jack Wellman gives a great description of Jesus.
Following the creation of new doctrines came the need to counteract against them and maintain the stable outlook on Christianity. Various debates went on to resolve this issue. “The critical concern was the Son’s essence and his relationship to the Father.”4 The debate Arius vs. Alexander’s point of views had become too critical to leave alone. The ending result was
Arius was highly criticized for his belief of Jesus Christ divinity. In this writing Arius argues that there is a level difference between the Son and the Father. However, like everything else, the Son derives from the same source that other creatures derive from (God). Unlike other creates he makes it clear that there is a distinction of rank between the Son and other creatures, including human beings.
The Arian Controversy started around the fourth century, with its main “father” being Arius who “was a popular Presbyter in the Church of Alexandria”(262). The Arian view was seen as against the church to most people out of the movement, this is because the Arian’s seemed to have a very different view point of Jesus. “Arianism is an absolute monotheism, so that the Son cannot be an emanation of the Father, or a part of his substance or another being similar to the Father, for any of these possibilities would deny either the unity or the immaterial nature of God”(262). To put it in lament terms Jesus is not of the same substance as God. Arian’s seem to use the argument that “the son cannot be without a beginning, for then he would be a ‘brother’ of the Father and not a Son”(262). The Arian’s also seemed to believe that Jesus was a “creature”(263) created by God.
In this paper I will argue about the struggles John Donne, Emily Dicks, and Michael Obi with the idea of believing and follow God. The speaker in Holy Sonnet 14 struggles with not deserving to have a relationship with God. Emily Dickson fights with if there is an afterlife and if it is real (Poem 501). Michael Obi struggles with whole ideas of religion and looking to the past since he is all about the looking forward (Death Men’s Path). The themes that are underlines is the desire to reconnect with God, believing in a God, but with some doubts, and completely not wanting a relationship with God at all.
Before this, Christians simply believed God and Jesus Christ were one in the same. Most people belonging to the Christian faith believed Christ was identical to God. Arius suggested “The Son was not eternal, but came into being when the Father “begot” him; there was a time when he was not” (Placher). The word begot is past tense of beget meaning to be created or generated. This suggests that Jesus Christ was of similar substance (homoiousios) with the
Jesus is said to posses the full nature of man and its attributes and the full nature of God and its attributes. It is logical for the creator to understand his creation very well and very hard for the created creature to fully, understand his creator due to the disadvantage of being a creature and so being limited (J.P.Moreland and W. L. Craig 2003). This is the explanation
The Gospel of John tells us that Jesus is the Son of God. Many miraculous signs that Jesus performed in the Book of John prove it. In today’s scripture, the miracles of the loaves and fishes and of walking on the Sea of Galilee also show us that Jesus is the Son of God. Many theologians match today’s scripture to the Old Testament, Moses’ story. For example, as we know that God gave the Israelites manna and quail in the wilderness, Jesus fed a large crowd who followed him. Also, as God allowed the Israelites to go across the Red Sea by dividing the water, Jesus walked on the Sea of Galilee and controlled the rough wave and the strong wind. We can see that Jesus is the son of God through the Gospel of John. Now, let us see and keep focusing on who Jesus is, today.
Athanasius acknowledges that his conception of the generation of the Son carried implications inappropriate to deity. In frustration he complains that the Arians were only interested in “how God begets and what is the manner of His begetting.” In order to clarify his arguments Athanasius focuses on the nature of the beings involved and the manner in which generation takes place. His solution is that God is beyond human conception and therefore there must be a distinction between words and realities. The Arian party already held that “to create” or “to beget” could be equally used since both successfully distinguish him from all other beings. This was exacerbated by the chronology implicit in the language of ingenerate-ness (αγεννετος or αγενετος) attributed to the Father and the begotten-ness (γεννετος and γενετος) of the Son. In the Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia Arius declares:
The Bible is one of the most important religious book. According to the book of the Twelve Theories of Human Nature, there are two distinct theories of human nature in the study of the Bible. One is the Hebrew (or Judaic) theory of human nature and the second is the Christian theory. Although these two theories are found in our study of the Bible, Judaism and Christianity are not just simple theories, but they are living religions that depict and guide the lives of their specific believers. In addition, both theories are not attributable just to a single thinker. Judaism and Christianity are not just a mere religions that we all can easily understood, for there are too many rival versions and interpretations of these traditions that people made, causing some controversies and questions which make it impossible to pacify and make everyone happy in this study. Almost every single person has their own understanding and believe of these theories. It is not clear from the opening verses of the Bible whether God is one (monotheism) or God is many (polytheism). Although God might be represented differently in the Bible according to both religions, both the Jews and Christians believe in the monotheist conception of God. According to the Judaic-Christian Conception of God, God is described as the creator, the standard of goodness and value, the moral authority and judge, the God who communicates with people, transcendent, immanent, and a person. In the first
Since the Nicene Council church patriarchs and theologians have toiled to communicate the principle of the Trinity as a doctrine in the Christian church. Our class readings from Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Karl Barth, and Elizabeth Tanner reveal the necessity for discussion about the trinity to evolve throughout the last 1500 years of Christian theology in order for the doctrine to be modernized to the lexical and social understanding of contemporary Christians. Although Augustine may be one of the Fathers of Trinitarian Theology, his fifth century Trinitarian theology has not progressed compatibly in regards to twenty-first century linguistics, rhetoric, and philosophy. In order to understand the limitations of Augustine’s doctrine of the trinities, we will study Augustine’s teachings lexically, allegorically, and relationally.
Like most of the other ante-Nicene Fathers, Athenagoras maintained the supremacy of the Father, who was “‘unbegotten and eternal’ [and who] created all things by his Logos, or Reason” (p. 122). To Athenagoras, the Holy Spirit was “something flowing out from God, as rays flow from the sun, and are re-absorbed,
According to Justin, the Son was the God who appeared to the patriarchs and was an agent in creation. All the theophanies, the visible appearance of God, in the Old Testament “belong to the Logos, or Christ, not to the Supreme God, whose visible personal appearance upon earth he [Justin] regarded as impossible and absurd” (p. 86).