The Arian Heresy

[placebofactor]

The following can be found in any history book.
Did early 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century Christians believe that Jesus Christ is God? Yes! Following the first three centuries are the thinking and works of the early 4th-century Catholic Church. The early Catholic Church worshipped Jesus as God, but certain Bishops within the church began to reject this teaching.

One in particular, his name, Arius, a Deacon of Alexandria Egypt, born 250 A.D. died, 336. His teaching gave rise to a theological doctrine known as Arianism. He maintained that "The Son of God was not;" He stated that the Son of God could not be co-eternal, co-essential, and co-equal with the Father. He reasoned that it was inconsistent and impossible, since the Father, who begat, must be before the Son, who was begotten, therefore, the Son could not be eternal. This is the obvious conclusion anyone would draw if they reasoned without the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Athanasius was the chief opponent of the Arian doctrine. He is thought to be the author of the Athanasian Creed known in Latin as “Quicunque Vuit.” Athanasians fixed their reasoning on the sacred writer by scholastic terms, to which the Arians agreed, with various evasive exceptions.

Trinitarians assert that Jesus Christ is God. The Arians allowed it, but only in the same sense as holy men and angels are called, "gods" in Scripture, implying Jesus was not truly God, but a creation of the Father. Athanasius affirmed that Jesus was God, Arius said, "They are of God, of whom are all things."

In the early 4th century, Athanasian collected many texts, which amounted to evidence proving that the Son was of the same substance as the Father; Arians would admit only that Jesus was of like substance.
Arius was excommunicated as a heretic and banished to Illyricu. Several years passed when he and his followers were called back to Rome. The emperor insisted on his being received back into communion with the church of Alexandria. The church leaders refused to receive him, and in 326 Arius died suddenly.

As the years passed successive Emperors took opposing sides to this issue. The peace of the Catholic Church was in turmoil for many years, each side in their turn being excommunicated, fined, imprisoned, or banished depending on the emperor in power.

Eventually, the doctrine was accepted in Rome but considered heresy at Constantinople. Rome had divided into two, the Eastern and Western Empires, as did the Church, one in Rome, the other in Constantinople. Rome fixed the doctrine of the Trinity, while the African and Eastern Churches, supported Arianism or some of its subdivisions of articles.

The Arians were in no way unanimous but divided into various shades of thinking. From this came two distinctions, one being Arians, the other Semi-Arians. The Semi-Arians stripped the character of Jesus Christ into that of a mere creature, while the latter admitted everything except Jesus had absolute equality with the Father.

Little of Arianism was heard from until the 18th century. Arian and Semi-Arian teachings remained at odds with each other. Jesus was reduced to the rank of an angelic being. Does this sound familiar? Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Michael the archangel is Jesus Christ.

At the council of Nice in 325 A.D. the Catholic Church in Bithynia met for two months, intending to deal with the Arian heresy. Between 250 and 318 bishops of the church had gathered together. The Emperor Constantine attended, with Hosins, the bishop of Cordova Spain. He loved God, was a learned scholar, and elected to preside over the council. The profession of faith, or Nicene Creed was drawn up at Nice, and subscribed by all the bishops except a few Arian believers.

Many of the bishops in attendance had gone through some form of persecution at the hands of the Romans, most jailed or tortured in the name of Jesus Christ. Arian teaching is as old as the Catholic Church but is brought to the surface now and then by fringe groups, or individuals such as Taze Russel, the founder of the Jehovah Witnesses.

[placebofactor]

The following can be found in any history book.
Did early 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century Christians believe that Jesus Christ is God? Yes! Following the first three centuries are the thinking and works of the early 4th-century Catholic Church. The early Catholic Church worshipped Jesus as God, but certain Bishops within the church began to reject this teaching.

One in particular, his name, Arius, a Deacon of Alexandria Egypt, born 250 A.D. died, 336. His teaching gave rise to a theological doctrine known as Arianism. He maintained that "The Son of God was not;" He stated that the Son of God could not be co-eternal, co-essential, and co-equal with the Father. He reasoned that it was inconsistent and impossible, since the Father, who begat, must be before the Son, who was begotten, therefore, the Son could not be eternal. This is the obvious conclusion anyone would draw if they reasoned without the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Athanasius was the chief opponent of the Arian doctrine. He is thought to be the author of the Athanasian Creed known in Latin as “Quicunque Vuit.” Athanasians fixed their reasoning on the sacred writer by scholastic terms, to which the Arians agreed, with various evasive exceptions.

Trinitarians assert that Jesus Christ is God. The Arians allowed it, but only in the same sense as holy men and angels are called, "gods" in Scripture, implying Jesus was not truly God, but a creation of the Father. Athanasius affirmed that Jesus was God, Arius said, "They are of God, of whom are all things."

In the early 4th century, Athanasian collected many texts, which amounted to evidence proving that the Son was of the same substance as the Father; Arians would admit only that Jesus was of like substance.
Arius was excommunicated as a heretic and banished to Illyricu. Several years passed when he and his followers were called back to Rome. The emperor insisted on his being received back into communion with the church of Alexandria. The church leaders refused to receive him, and in 326 Arius died suddenly.

As the years passed successive Emperors took opposing sides to this issue. The peace of the Catholic Church was in turmoil for many years, each side in their turn being excommunicated, fined, imprisoned, or banished depending on the emperor in power.

Eventually, the doctrine was accepted in Rome but considered heresy at Constantinople. Rome had divided into two, the Eastern and Western Empires, as did the Church, one in Rome, the other in Constantinople. Rome fixed the doctrine of the Trinity, while the African and Eastern Churches, supported Arianism or some of its subdivisions of articles.

The Arians were in no way unanimous but divided into various shades of thinking. From this came two distinctions, one being Arians, the other Semi-Arians. The Semi-Arians stripped the character of Jesus Christ into that of a mere creature, while the latter admitted everything except Jesus had absolute equality with the Father.

Little of Arianism was heard from until the 18th century. Arian and Semi-Arian teachings remained at odds with each other. Jesus was reduced to the rank of an angelic being. Does this sound familiar? Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Michael the archangel is Jesus Christ.

At the council of Nice in 325 A.D. the Catholic Church in Bithynia met for two months, intending to deal with the Arian heresy. Between 250 and 318 bishops of the church had gathered together. The Emperor Constantine attended, with Hosins, the bishop of Cordova Spain. He loved God, was a learned scholar, and elected to preside over the council. The profession of faith, or Nicene Creed was drawn up at Nice, and subscribed by all the bishops except a few Arian believers.

Many of the bishops in attendance had gone through some form of persecution at the hands of the Romans, most jailed or tortured in the name of Jesus Christ. Arian teaching is as old as the Catholic Church but is brought to the surface now and then by fringe groups, or individuals such as Taze Russel, the founder of the Jehovah Witnesses.

Some of the bishops at the Council believed in the Arian view, but they were argued down by other bishops. The coup de gras came with Constantine siding with the non-Arian-believing bishops. It was strictly a political move. Constantine was not a true Christian, no matter what someone wants to believe. He allowed pagan traditions to remain and even murdered someone in his household.

I often hear from certain people that, "Constantine was not a true Christian." Hmmm! I thought the Bible taught that no man is to judge another. The Lord said, "Judgement is mine." A man can ask for forgiveness, from the moment he is thrown from the saddle of a horse until he hits the ground. I believe like Cyrus the Great, Nebuchadnezzar, and others, Constantine was a vessel unto the Lord, a King sent for a particular mission.

It is because of this pagan emperor that the Trinity is alive and breathing today.

Baloney! It's because of men like Aries that create confusion and doubt. Let's see, who is it that denies the Trinity? I. Jehovah's Witnesses. 2. Mormons. 3. Atheists.
I would say, "The company the Witnesses keep is not very good.

I think that the confusion was there before Arius.

What's your evidence? I provided mine.

He was bringing to others' attention the fallacies of the thinking that Jesus is God.

Do you say to your relatives that they are being compared by you to Mormons and atheists?

Yes, I have! One more thing, not only are the Witnesses compatible with atheists, and Mormons, but with the teachings of Mohammad who claim Jesus was a great prophet, but not God. The Muslims have their Isa (Jesus), like you have your Jesus, a creature of the creation.

[onewithhim]

Difflugia, I understand that there are those on this forum who reject Jesus as God, and the existence of the Holy Spirit. There are no more important matters than these. Millions of people are lost because they reject both teachings. There are times when only the history of these subjects may clear up incorrect teachings. History needs to be explained; I don't know of any shortcuts. I will do my best, but I will not leave any subject half-explained. To do so is nuts, we have too much of that nonsense in the Christian community today. Wishy, washy teachings leave too many questions. True understanding is all about details.

I'm not complaining about the amount of detail, but giving some advice about form. A suggested one is to put a question in an initial post, then put the explanation (however long and detailed) in an immediate followup post in the same thread.

Here are my questions:
Do you recognize Tazz Russell as the founder of the Jehovah's Witness?

I'm not a Witness, but yes. My understanding is that Charles Taze Russell founded the Watch Tower Society.

Did Tazz Russel follow the teaching of the Arian doctrine? He taught that Jesus is not God, but a god. He also rejected the doctrine of the Trinity.

Yes.

My personal view is that the Trinity as such is a harmonization of multiple distinct Christologies present in the New Testament. The Gospel of John isn't exactly trinitarian in the modern, orthodox sense, but Jesus and the Father are nontheless both Yahweh in hypostatic union. The Christology of John shapes the overall doctrine of the Trinity, which is imposed onto the rest of the New Testament writings. However, no two New Testament authors agree on the nature of Christ and they cannot be satisfactorily harmonized.

I'm also atheist.

There is nothing in the Gospel of John to "shape the overall doctrine of the Trinity." A reading of John shows the opposite---that God is Jesus' Father and only Him. Jesus and his Father are NOT both Yahweh. They ARE "one" in that they are in agreement with each other. They are one just as the disciples are one with them. (John 17th chapter) The NT authors do agree on the nature of Christ. There is no other teaching in any of their Gospels and letters, other than Jesus is God's Son.

[onewithhim]

I don't know where you get the idea that from 1879 to 1919 the Witnesses were "practicing a false religion, indulging in a personality cult." How do you come to that conclusion? How were JWs placing Russell's personality in the forefront?

Watchtower Online Library, The Watchtower, May 1, 1989, paragraph 10.

OK, I read it. There were SOME in the organization that clung to old ways of the churches that they came out of. They weren't placing Russell's personality in the forefront. There were some that would've liked him to be replaced. They eventually left the organization. I didn't see anywhere in that article that they said they were "practicing a false religion." Kindly don't add words to what you're quoting.

Were you ever one of Jehovah's Witnesses?

[Difflugia]

I didn't see anywhere in that article that they said they were "practicing a false religion." Kindly don't add words to what you're quoting.

"the Bible Students, as Jehovah’s Witnesses were then known, had to be released from a form of spiritual captivity to the ideas and practices of false religion"

Were you ever one of Jehovah's Witnesses?

No.

[Difflugia]

There is nothing in the Gospel of John to "shape the overall doctrine of the Trinity."

[...]

They ARE "one" in that they are in agreement with each other. They are one just as the disciples are one with them. (John 17th chapter)

So, there's nothing trinitarian in the Gospel of John, but you know without me having to tell you which elements of Johannine theology you have to harmonize away?

The NT authors do agree on the nature of Christ. There is no other teaching in any of their Gospels and letters, other than Jesus is God's Son.

• Mark's Jesus is God's adopted Son that will return soon to judge the wicked.
• Matthew's Jesus was born God's Son, who died as a substitutionary atonement for sin.
• Luke's Jesus was born God's Son, who was a messenger of divine forgiveness while alive and will return during the end times, but he wasn't a sacrifice in the sense of Matthew or John.
• John's Jesus was the preexistent, hypostatic Logos that mediates between the profane and divine worlds. As a hypostasis of God, he is himself God, but as a man, can also communicate directly with earthly humanity. He is offered as a cleansing atonement for sin and the final, perfect Passover sacrifice.

That's just the Gospels. There are fundamental differences as well between the Pauline Jesus, the Jesus of Hebrews, and the Jesus of Revelation. You're right, though, that they do all refer to Jesus as God's Son.

[onewithhim]

I didn't see anywhere in that article that they said they were "practicing a false religion." Kindly don't add words to what you're quoting.

"the Bible Students, as Jehovah’s Witnesses were then known, had to be released from a form of spiritual captivity to the ideas and practices of false religion"

Were you ever one of Jehovah's Witnesses?

No.

Some were holding on to the practices of false religion, but the Bible Students did not believe that their organization was false religion. Gradually these pagan practices were eliminated.

[Difflugia]

Some were holding on to the practices of false religion, but the Bible Students did not believe that their organization was false religion. Gradually these pagan practices were eliminated.

That's what placebofactor quoted from The Watchtower, yes.

[placebofactor]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #1]

A letter from Pliny to Trajan. Here is an eyewitness account of Christians in the second century who worshipped Jesus as God. Read the whole thing if you want the truth from those who lived at that time. Written by two enemies of the church.

Trajan was the emperor of Rome. He was renowned for his philosophic virtues, issued edicts against the Christians, turning the population against them, to wreak his vengeance on them, and destroying them at the people's pleasure. A violent persecution against the Christians raged in Bithynia.

Pliny, a governor of the province, addressed a letter to Trajan, giving his account of the Christians as a heathen of intelligence and honest sincere expression. From this persecution against Christians ensued. Pliny's letter was written in the year 106, or 107 A.D. soon after the death of John the Apostle.

I will quote parts of the letter, which has been preserved.

Pliny to Trajan.

"I never had the fortune to be present at any examination of Christians, before I came into this province. I am therefore at a loss to determine what is the usual object of inquiry or of punishment, and to what length either of them is to be carried." --- should "any distinction be made between the young and the old, the tender and the robust; whether room should be given for repentance, or the guilt of Christianity once incurred, is not to be expiated by the most unequivocal retraction whether the name itself, abstracted from any flagitiousness of conduct, or the crimes connected with the name, be the object of punishment. --- those who were brought before me as Christians. I asked them whether they were Christians. If they pleaded guilty, I interrogated them twice afresh, with a menace of capital punishment. In case of obstinate perseverance, I ordered them to be executed. ---- Some were infected with the same madness, whom, on account of their citizenship, I reserved to be sent to Rome, to your tribunal."

Some of the people had renounced their Christianity, so what happened?

"Persons who yet declared that they were not Christians then, nor ever had been; and they repeated after me an invocation of the gods and of your image, which for this purpose, I had ordered to be brought with the images of the deities. They performed sacred rites with wine and frankincense, and execrated (declare to be evil) Christ, which I am told, no Christian can ever be compelled to do. On this account, I dismissed them. Others, named by an informer, first affirmed, and then denied the charge of Christianity; declaring that they had been Christians, but had ceased to be so, some three years ago; others, still longer; some even twenty years ago. All of them worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and also execrated Christ." ---

"This was the account which they gave of the nature of the religion they once had professed; whether it deserves the name of crime or error, namely --- that they were accustomed on a stated day, to meet before day-light, and to repeat among themselves a hymn to Christ, as to a God, and to bind themselves by an oath, with an obligation of not committing any wickedness; but, on the contrary, of abstaining from thefts, robberies and adulteries; also of not violating their promise, or denying a pledge; after which it was their custom to separate, and to meet again at a promiscuous, harmless meal, from which last practice, however, they desisted, after the publication of my edict, in which agreeably to your orders. --- by torture, from two females who were said to be deaconesses, what is the real truth. But nothing could I collect, except a depraved and excessive superstition. Deferring therefore any farther investigation, I determined to consult you. For the number of culprits is so great, as to call for serious consultation."

Trajan to Pliny.

"You have done perfectly right my dear Pliny, in the inquiry which you have made concerning Christians. --- These people must be sought after. If they are brought before you and convicted, let them be capitally punished; yet with this restriction, that if any one renounces Christianity, and evidence his sincerity by supplicating our gods, however suspected he may be for the past, he shall obtain pardon for the future, on his repentance. ---"

From the letters, we learn that Christians flourished; that everywhere they worshipped Christ as God. That their morals were not only unimpeachable but of a high character; and that, because of the spirit of Christianity, the heathen temples were practically empty.

Also, in 107 A.D. Ignatius who presided in the church of Antioch, suffered martyrdom for the faith of Jesus.

Trajan said to Ignatius, "What an impious spirit art thou."
Ignatius answered, "Forasmuch as all wicked spirits are departed from the servants of God. But if you call me impious because I am hostile to evil spirits, I won the charge in that respect. For I dissolve all their snares through Christ, the heavenly king." ---- "for there is only one God, who made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is them; and one Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, whose kingdom be my portion. "

Polycarp was with Ignatius, who was the disciple of John the apostle. Polycarp was a pillar in the church of Smyrna. He chose death by fire rather than to renounce Jesus Christ. He said moments before his death,

"I bless thee that thou hast counted me worthy of this day, and this hour, to receive my portion in the number of martyrs, in the cup of Christ, for the resurrection to eternal life, both of soul and body, in the incorruption of the Holy Ghost, among whom may I be received before thee this day as a sacrifice well savored and acceptable, which thou the faithful and true God hast prepared, promised before-hand and fulfilled accordingly. I glorify thee by the eternal High Priest, thy well-beloved Son, through whom, with him in the Holy Spirit, be glory to thee, both now and forever. Amen.

Eleven brothers of Polycarp from the church of Philadelphia suffered with him because they worshipped Jesus Christ and not the Caesars of Rome.

[onewithhim]

There is nothing in the Gospel of John to "shape the overall doctrine of the Trinity."

[...]

They ARE "one" in that they are in agreement with each other. They are one just as the disciples are one with them. (John 17th chapter)

So, there's nothing trinitarian in the Gospel of John, but you know without me having to tell you which elements of Johannine theology you have to harmonize away?

Yes I know which verses in John have been mishandled and translated in ways that are substandard. Those verses are not "Johannine theology" but the result of men squandering truth for a lie when "translating" the verses. John wouldn't recognize those verses.

[Difflugia]

So, there's nothing trinitarian in the Gospel of John, but you know without me having to tell you which elements of Johannine theology you have to harmonize away?

Yes I know which verses in John have been mishandled and translated in ways that are substandard. Those verses are not "Johannine theology" but the result of men squandering truth for a lie when "translating" the verses. John wouldn't recognize those verses.

Of course. Do you have any evidence of these mistranslations, though? Other than your say-so and the NWT's paraphrases of those verses?