The New Arians

“In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God … And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw His glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.”

                                                                                                                                                        John 1: 1-2, 14

A Theological Paper or an Apologetics:

This is neither a theological paper nor an apologetics because the undersigned holds no ecclesiastic title and never even worthy or eligible of aspiring for one, but is merely just a believer of the Christian Faith; and inspiringly trying to proclaim it, for faith without action is a dead one. We have used the passage or reading of John 1:1-2, 14 since we believe this would explain everything briefly and authoritatively.

The theme “The New Arians” which we wish to study is not denoting to ethno-linguistic side or that which talks on race. The “Arians” we are referring too are the believers of the doctrine of Arius. But, first of all, we would try to study who Arius was and his teachings.

The Beginning of Arianism:

Arius (260-336) was a priest or pastor at a Baucalis Church at Alexandria in Egypt. In 318 he had a great quarrel with the Bishop of Alexandria because he was preaching in his sermons, letters and songs that Jesus Christ was not true God. According to him, Christ was neither eternal nor omnipotent, he was only created by time, an imperfect one and capable of suffering. But he was a superior being than humans, so he was regarded as half-God (demiurge), thus he was not in himself divine.[1]

Arius teaching was heretical, so in the Synod of Alexandria in year 318-319 or in 323, he was excommunicated and ejected from Christianity for his denial to believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ as God.[2]

Broken-hearted in Alexandria being excommunicated and an outcast due to his heretical doctrine, he went to Antioch, a city in north Syria in the Mediterranean since he had good friends there who were ready to adopt him; and one of them was Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. Not much longer, he returned to Alexandria and it created great chaos as anti-Arius groups lodged their protests in the streets, which went even to riots against him and his heretical teachings.

The Imperial Synod of Nicaea in 325 and the subsequent Councils:

Constantine the Great assumed Emperorship of the Roman Empire, and he intervened because strategically he wished to make Christianity as a springboard to unite all his subjects; and he was in disbelief that there was some confusion in its doctrines.

In May 325, the First Imperial Synod of Nicaea met through Constantine’s initiatives. The reports for the numbers of participants vary; some say 220, according to Historian Eusebius of Caesarea it was 250, while others say there were 318. Most of the attending bishops were from the East or from the Eastern Roman Empire. Pope Sylvester in Rome was not able to attend because of strenuous travel considering that he was already very old; and only five bishops from the Western part of the Empire attended.

Arius was there too and he defended his doctrine. Seventeen bishops supported him including the Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia; nevertheless, majority of the bishops were against of Arius point of views. Debates were lengthy and the orthodox party [those against Arius] won. The Nicene Creed or the Creed of Nicaea was formulated, the exact doctrine was defined: Jesus Christ was “the only begotten Son from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father.”[3]  

Emperor Constantine declared Arius and his followers as the worst enemies of the True Faith; he was ousted from the church and exiled; and the Emperor ordered all his writings to be burned. The Christian world was informed of the Emperor’s order, for he made it known.

But not long thereafter, in 328 Constantine changed his mind and recalled Bishop Eusebius, who was on exile to be back to his ecclesiastical post in Nicomedia. Arius was likewise permitted to return and even was restored to his position through imperial decree after he signed formally the Nicene Creed thereby affirming the exact doctrine of the synod; though surely this was just a ploy because his twisted belief never was strengthened. He was backed again in Alexandria, however Bishop Athanasius did not admit him; and it displeased the emperor, for which the Bishop – the defender of the Nicene Creed was exiled.

Constantine died in 337 at Whitsundie probably this place was in Turkey because Constantinople was the set of the Roman Empire in the East. He accepted Christianity as his religion, but it was an Arian Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia who baptized him, shortly before he died.

From year 337 the Emperorship was passed from various rulers, from his sons Constantius (337-361) together with his brother, Constans (337-350); Emperor Julian, 361-363; Jovian, 363-364; Gratian 375-383 in the Western Roman Empire; Theodosius the Great 379-394 (Eastern part) then from 394-395 in the whole Roman Empire, raised Christianity exclusively as the legitimate religion of the Roman Empire.

On the part of Arius, he died in year 336 ahead than Constantine, but his heretical doctrine continued to root in the minds of twisted ecclesiastics. His heretical doctrine not only questioned the Godhead or Divinity of Jesus Christ, but it did as well indirectly question the existence of the Blessed Trinity and the Church’s Doctrine of Salvation. These concerns were the issues during those times and have to be addressed through ecumenical councils and synods.

 So in 381 Emperor Theodosius summoned the General Council of Constantinople, which actually was the second, to end up the Arian controversy. It was in this council that the Doctrine of the Trinity had come to a specific conclusion. Three Cappadocian Fathers: Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa clearly had seen the distinction between the three persons as existing solely in their inner divine relations. The Cappadocian Fathers said there is only one nature, but three carriers: One Godhead in three persons. Likewise, the Godhead of the Holy Spirit was emphasized. Thus, the Nicene Creed of 325 was supplemented with the following:

                 

                “. . .  and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the life-giver, who proceeds from the Father,                 who with the Father and the Son is together worshipped and together glorified, who        spoke through the prophets . . .”[4]

The issue on the Doctrine of Trinity was ended, but another issue had to be resolved and it was on the divine and human natures of Christ. Some heretical teaching said, the human nature of Christ was next only to the divine that only a rather superficial connection between the two remained. Another thought said, the Divine Logos (God) had lodged in the man Jesus as in a temple.

Furthermore, a heretical doctrine sprouted that Mary (Blessed Virgin Mary) could not be called as the “God-bearer” (Theotokos), but merely had been the “Christ-bearer”, since she had given birth to only a human being Jesus.”[5] This was what Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople believed. For this, the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 was convened and it ruled out after lengthy debates that Christ has two natures on a hypostatic union. It likewise affirmed the doctrinal statement that Mary is the “God-bearer” (Theotokos).

Patriarch Nestorius was condemned by the attending bishops as heretic and expelled to Upper Egypt, where it is believed that he died there in 451. Nonetheless, the followers of Nestorius were successful in founding the Nestorian Church.

The Council of Chalcedon in 451 convened to address an uprising heresy with regards to the natures of Jesus Christ since it was still a hot issue even after Ephesus in 431 had doctrinal statement about it. The heresy says that the human nature of Christ appeared completely absorbed by the divine one. Meaning the human nature of Christ was cancelled or overshadowed, or somehow dominated by his divine nature (Monophysitism). The council worked hard to resolve the issue crafted by Eutyches, an Abbot of a monastery near Constantinople. There was a good attendance of bishops, 350 bishops were there, with Pope Leo the Great presiding. The Pope issued an epistle (Ep. ad Flavianum), it defined and further declared it as dogma[6] that:

               

                “In Christ two natures without confusion and division are united in one person or         hypostasis. . . Without confusion the divine and human natures of Christ retain their,                 identity; they are not separated from one another and are indissolubly united in the            person of the divine Logos.”[7]

From then on the Arian controversy and other heresies were considered closed by the Christian Church because Ecumenical Councils and Synods had already declared those doctrines as heretical. However, the adherents of those beliefs kept on propagating it and it grows.

Arianism in the Present Times:  

In the present times, there are sects or cults that do not accept the Divinity or Godhead of Jesus Christ and we could not call them Christians because they do not believe in Him. They say Christ was just sent by the Father to atone for our sins, but he is not God and it is only the Father.

If these are their views, obviously they are in in this old heresy pioneered or in line with the twisted doctrinal teachings of Arius. Why Christ is not considered God and it is only the Father? If they believe that it is only the Father who is God, then they too do not believe in the Blessed Trinity? They could not believe in the Trinity, because the Doctrine of Trinity speaks off One Godhead in three persons and Jesus Christ is the second person. The General Council of Constantinople in 381 was clear on this.  It supplemented the Nicene Creed of 325 was with the addition that “. . .  and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the life-giver, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is together worshiped and together glorified, who spoke through the prophets . . .”

They never could prove to anyone that Christ is not God because, the Synod of Nicaea in 325 unanimously declared that Christ is God, in fact 250, 218 or 300 bishops were in attendance and they formulated the Nicene Creed in great objection of Arius heresy. Even today the Nicene Creed is said during masses to proclaim the foundation of the Catholic Faith; and Jesus Christ is “the only begotten Son from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father.”

It was in the Synod of Nicaea in 325 when Arius was ousted from the church. If in 328 he was reinstated by Emperor Constantine to his post, the latter was not in authority to do so because Constantine was just the emperor and he had nothing to do in the decision making relative to formulation of dogmas and church canons. If he had reinstated Arius, such was just a political function and never as an ecclesiastic one; and that was why Bishop Athanasius of Alexander vehemently refused to admit Arius to his diocese, despite there was a decree from the Emperor. Indeed, the emperor was displeased with Bishop Athanasius.

Moreover, no religion in the world which honors the Sacred Scripture as word of God could ever say that Christ is not God. The readings of John 1:1-2, 14 says that “In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God … And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw His glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.”  And it went on “I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30)

Henceforth, it is clear that in the beginning of time, Christ was there already with the Father. He became human, and He is the only Begotten Son of the Father, who lived with us.
“God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him might not perish but might have eternal life. God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. Whoever believes in Him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:16-17 & 18).

                                                                                                                                                                        

So why would He not be God and why do they not consider Him as God when Jesus Christ said, “I am the way and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) He also said, “I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in Me and I in Him will bear much fruit, because without Me you can do nothing.” (John 15-5) Furthermore He said, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in Me and I in him.” (John 6:56 on Holy Eucharist)

One could never gain prominence by twisting the truth even if the world would consider him great. Prominence, greatness, riches and everything would be certainly nothing even if he gains the whole world, but losses his soul. Christ told us, “. . . everyone who acknowledges Me before others, the Son of Man will acknowledge before the angels of God. But whoever denies me before others will be denied before the angels of God.” (Luke 12:8-9)

Why would we deny the Godhead of Christ? If we continue to deny His Divinity and conditioned our hearts and minds that He was just only a messenger sent by God the Father who is more omnipotent than Him to the world to do something, perhaps we would prepare ourselves for accountability, after all it was not Luke who said it, but God and God’s word never falters.

While there is time under the heat of the sun, more so for Roman Catholics, who turned into apostates, try to reconsider your views. Though it is true that no religion could save us, it is through professing, proclaiming and believing in Christ and acceptance of baptism that one could be saved. (Mark 16:16) It is only through repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ that sins would be forgiven and one receives the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

Perhaps, we would end this paper now brother, but please try to reflect on this question – Would I make myself a New Arian? The answers are already presented for you to consider, but still the decision is yours and not ours.

A reading from the Book of Sirach 3:24 says, “Where the pupil of the eye is missing, there is no light, and where there is no knowledge, there is no wisdom.” Let us always remember that many have gone astray because they relayed much in their own personal opinions, which always mislead them from the truth.

Today there is a theme saying “Know the Truth”. We hope it would mean directing to the correct Way, towards the Truth and blissful Life, for there is no reason for denial anymore, or any thought of an iota of doubt because the Truth is Christ is indeed God.

                                                                            ooo

---

I wish to extend my never ending gratitude to Fr. Juliano Retiquez, SSJV, Archdiocese of Cagayan de Oro, for his work on Catholic Apologetics “Katoliko! Ikaw ang Matuod nga Born Again”, indeed it helped me much.

RexRValmores

Balingasag, Misamis Oriental

July 30, 2014

NOTES

[1] August Franzen and John Dolan, A History of the Church, pp. 70-71.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., p. 72.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid., p. 76, Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople since 428 had this conclusion in 431 at the ecumenical council of Ephesus.

[6] The epistle of Pope Leo the Great, Ep. ad Flavianum became the first infallible ex-cathedra decision of a Pope. ___A. Franzen and J.P. Dolan, A History of the Church, p. 78.

[7] Ibid., p. 79.