- biblical basis - What Scriptures did Arius use to support teaching that . . .
Thirdly, Arius described the Son as not part of this universe: If the Son created all things (the universe), then He is not part of this universe Furthermore, Arius and the Arians claimed time and again that the Son was begotten “before times and before aeons” (RH, 7) In other words, the Son was begotten before time even existed
- What are the similarities and differences between Origen and Arius . . .
Arius' insistence on the Son as an individual existing at God's will and receiving grace ironically makes it easier for him to treat the Son as both object and subject of worship ” (Hanson, p 144) “Origen … anticipates developed fourth-century orthodoxy in this at least, that he comes close to saying that the Father-Son relationship is
- history - Arius death was it miraculous or was he poisoned . . .
Arius, in the language of Scripture, `falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst,' and immediately expired as he lay, and was deprived both of communion and of his life together Such has been the end of Arius Could he have been poisoned instead? Perhaps but if so, the manner of his death was probably exaggerated
- trinity - From whom or what did Arius learn his theology . . .
Evidence that Arius was a follower of Lucian “A figure to whom many scholars have looked in order to explain the origins of Arius' thought is Lucian of Antioch:” “Arius describes Eusebius of Nicomedia, to whom he is writing, as 'a genuine fellow-disciple of Lucian'” (RH, 80), implying that Arius himself was a “disciple of Lucian ”
- christology - What was the stance of Arius on John 1:1? - Christianity . . .
For Christ, in Arius stance, would be greater than inanimate matter, plants, animals, men and angels It seems that for Arius, he would be so great as to be "almost" as true God (but as Aquinas says above, for Arius he lacks eternity and omnipotence and thefore would not be equal to God)
- trinity - Why is the controversy of the fourth century called the . . .
“Arius evidently made converts to his views … but he left no school of disciples ” (RW, 233) “Arius’ role in ‘Arianism’ was not that of the founder of a sect It was not his individual teaching that dominated the mid-century eastern Church ” (RW, 165) “Arius was not accepted as leader of a new movement ” (RH, xvii-xviii)
- trinity - What was the real issue between Arius and Bishop Alexander at . . .
Much that went on long before Arius was born, and much that went on centuries after Arius had died, must be considered If people cherry-pick ancient literature to claim a Christian taught against what has come to be known as the Trinity doctrine, when full examination of those writings shows the opposite, then one has to wonder what's going on
- On what grounds was Arius refuted at the First Council of Nicaea?
It may help to understand that Arius wasn't stupid, but he also wasn't the source of the idea he championed; that is, that Christ had a beginning, that there was a time when Christ did not exist To put it bluntly, he taught that Christ was a creature, not the Creator Arius was after all a presbyter of the Church at Antioch at the time He
|