Arianism

[apeiron_gaia]

So, what are the arguments against Arianism? The only one that I've read is "If Arianism is true, then we've been worshipping a creature all the time, and that is unacceptable to believe that." It seems as though there is scripture to support both points of view

Comments

[aefenglommung]

What other arguments, other than faith, scripture, and fear of having been wrong, are there against Arianism?

How many more do you need?

[apeiron_gaia]

Well, one that seems valid. If both arguments use scripture as argument, then scripture is removed as a valid argument, and doing something just because that is the way it is always been done does not make it true. And either one can say "I have faith that my opinion is true", and both are equally valid.

So, yeah. One that validates one over the other.

[messybuu]

Anything can be used against anything, which means that everything is invalid. Just try to think of anything that can't be twisted to support the other side of something. Let's not forget that there are actually people who can twist evidence to prove there wasn't a Holocaust!

[apeiron_gaia]

I've never seen evidence for the Holocaust not happening. The only argument I've heard is the "lack" of evidence or a great conspiracy, which is balogna.

[messybuu]

Fear of having been wrong isn't a fear I have. If it was, then I wouldn't be struggling with whether or not I should be a Roman Catholic or a Protestant.
However, what else, besides Scripture (and even Tradition), is valid to show that Arianism is wrong?
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.

[dvdslr]

Except John 1:1-2 isn't talking about scripture, it's talking about Jesus. A better passage is 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

[ysgawen]

It's precisely because it refers to Jesus that it can be used to refute Arianism. It says that Jesus was with God and was God.

Arianism is just another attenpt to make God smaller. If Jesus was not God, He was a liar. That is pretty much the end of Christianity. Therefore, Arian Christian is an oxymoron. The best way to find out whether something called heresy is true or not is simply to ask God. Get it straight from the horse's mouth.

[dua]

Though the trouble with Arianism as I understand it is that it doesn't say that Jesus isn't God, rather that Jesus is God but somehow lesser than the Father, because he was created. So it's not quite that straightforward, which is why it's (potentially) still an issue.

I do agree that John 1:1-2 is a good refutation of aryanism though, because it says that Jesus wasn't created as the world was but was with God before creation. It's also worth bearing in mind that I think most of the verses used to back up arianism are on somewhat shaky ground...

[etruth]

Part of it is a belief in one "catholic" church and a belief in a tradition of orthodoxy. That the Trinitarian interpretation "won out" in both terms of what was decided at the council of Nicea and history. Scripture is the only infallible authority, though not the only authority that helps us understand doctrine.

[ysgawen]

Scripture is not infallible. For one thing, the two versions of creation in Genesis contradict each other. I could list errors and contradictions all day.

[golodhgwath]

You should be able to find, at least on Amazon, a great book called "The Message of the Bible," by George Cronk. For Orthodox Christians, the Bible infallibly communicates the saving message of Christ to those who are in the Church. This doesn't mean that it is infallible in all of its apparent (and irrelevant) material claims, nor in just any interpretation

[gunslinger33]

If scripture is fallible, then you have nothing to base your faith as a Christian on except what someone told you, which is certainly fallible.

Scripture is the ONLY thing that a true christian can fully and completely rely on as a source of objective truth. Everything ELSE is fallible.

[ohsimba]

What is it?

[ktl]

What other arguments, other than faith, scripture, and fear of having been wrong, are there against Arianism?

There's the historical argument (prior to Arius, there was a general consensus about Jesus's being the uncreated Son of God, the first century Church shows no signs of Arianism. It would be odd for the truth about Jesus to only come out several centuries *after* he rose from the dead and was being worshipped).

There's the argument from authority (the people who decided this debate probably knew better than we do).

There's the argument from popularity (the Arians were elitist intellectuals, Orthodoxy was more popular, and elitist intellectuals almost always are wrong).

And finally, there's the argument from other existing doctrines (everything depends on Jesus being truly God -- our understanding of salvation assumes it).

That said, if you rule out faith and scripture, I wonder what business one has being *either* and Arian or an orthodox Christian.