Arianism - an interesting piece of hi... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 6 » Arianism - an interesting piece of history « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah

Post Number: 210
Registered: 1-2004


Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 9:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I know this is only partially related to Adventism, but I found this account of the death of Arius particularly interesting. It seems that God took great care to show what was the truth in this case.

Athanasius to Serapion, a brother and fellow-minister, health in the Lord.

I have read the letters of your piety, in which you have requested me to make known to you the events of my times relating to myself, and to give an account of that most impious heresy of the Arians, in consequence of which I have endured these sufferings, and also of the manner of the death of Arius. With two out of your three demands I have reapily undertaken to comply, and have sent to your Godliness what I wrote to the Monks; from which you will be able to learn my own history as well as that of the heresy. But with respect to the other matter, I mean the death, I debated with myself for a long time, fearing lest any one should suppose that I was exulting in the death of that man. But yet, since a disputation which has taken place amongst you concerning the heresy, has issued in this question, whether Arius died after previously communicating with the Church; I therefore was necessarily desirous of giving an account of his death, as thinking that the question would thus be set at rest, considering also that by making this known I should at the same time silence those who are fond of contention. For I conceive that when the wonderful circumstances connected with his death become known, even those who before questioned it will no longer venture to doubt that the Arian heresy is hateful in the sight of God.

2. I was not at Constantinople when he died, but Macarius the Presbyter was, and I heard the account of it from him. Arius had been invited by the Emperor Constantine, through the interest of Eusebius and his fellows; and when he entered the presence the Emperor enquired of him, whether he held the Faith of the Catholic Church? And he declared upon oath that he held the right Faith, and gave in an account of his Faith in writing, suppressing the points for which he had been cast out of the Church by the Bishop Alexander, and speciously alleging expressions out of the Scriptures. When therefore he swore that he did not profess the opinions for which Alexander had excommunicated him, [the Emperor] dismissed him, saying, `If thy Faith be right, thou hast done well to swear; but if thy Faith be impious, and thou hast sworn, God judge of thee according to thy oath.' When he thus came forth from the presence of the Emperor, Eusebius and his fellows, with their accustomed violence, desired to bring him into the Church. But Alexander, the Bishop of Constantinople of blessed memory, resisted them, saying that the inventor of the heresy ought not to be admitted to communion; whereupon Eusebius and his fellows threatened, declaring, `As we have caused him to be invited by the Emperor, in opposition to your wishes, so to-morrow, though it be contrary to your desire, Arius shall have communion with us in this Church.' It was the Sabbath when they said this.

3. When the Bishop Alexander heard this, he was greatly distressed, and entering into the church, he stretched forth his hands unto God, and bewailed himself; and casting himself upon his face in the chancel, he prayed, lying upon the pavement. Macarius also was present, and prayed with him, and heard his words. And he besought these two things, saying, `If Arius is brought to communion to-morrow, let me Thy servant depart, and destroy not the pious with the impious; but if Thou wilt spare Thy Church (and I know that Thou wilt spare), look upon the words of Eusebius and his fellows, and give not thine inheritance to destruction and reproach, and take off Arius, lest if he enter into the Church, the heresy also may seem to enter with him, and henceforward impiety be accounted for piety.' When the Bishop had thus prayed, he retired in great anxiety; and a wonderful and extraordinary circumstance took place. While Eusebius and his fellows threatened, the Bishop prayed; but Arius, who had great confidence in Eusebius and his fellows, and talked very wildly, urged by the necessities of nature withdrew, and suddenly, 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.

4. Such has been the end of Arius: and Eusebius and his fellows, overwhelmed with shame, buried their accomplice, while the blessed Alexander, amidst the rejoicings of the Church, celebrated the Communion with piety and orthodoxy, praying with all the brethren, and greatly glorifying God, not as exulting in his death (God forbid!), for `it is appointed unto all men once to die,' but because this thing had been shewn forth in a manner transcending human judgments. For the Lord Himself judging between the threats of Eusebius and his fellows, and the prayer of Alexander, condemned the Arian heresy, shewing it to be unworthy of communion with the Church, and making manifest to all, that although it receive the support of the Emperor and of all mankind, yet it was condemned by the Church herself.So the antichristian gang of the Arian madmen has been shewn to be unpleasing to God and impious; and many of those who before were deceived by it changed their opinions. For none other than the Lord Himself who was blasphemed by them condemned the heresy which rose up against Him, and again shewed that howsoever the Emperor Constantius may now use violence to the Bishops in behalf of it, yet it is excluded from the communion of the Church, and alien from the kingdom of heaven. Wherefore also let the question which has arisen among you be henceforth set at rest; (for this was the agreement made among you), and let no one join himself to the heresy, but let even those who have been deceived repent. For who shall receive what the Lord condemned? And will not he who takes up the support of that which He has made excommunicate, be guilty of great impiety, and manifestly an enemy of Christ?

5. Now this is sufficient to confound the contentious; read it therefore to those who before raised this question, as well as what was briefly addressed to the Monks against the heresy, in order that they may be led thereby more strongly to condemn the impiety and wickedness of the Arian madmen. Do not however consent to give a copy of these to any one, neither transcribe them for yourself (I have signified the same to the Monks also); but as a sincere friend, if anything is wanting in what I have written, add it, and immediately send them back to me. For you will be able to learn from the letter which I have written to the Brethren, what pains it has cost me to write it, and also to perceive that it is not safe for the writings of a private person to be published (especially if they relate to the highest and chief doctrines), for this reason;-lest what is imperfectly expressed through infirmity or the obscurity of language, do hurt to the reader. For the majority of men do not consider the faith, or the aim of the writer, but either through envy or a spirit of contention, receive what is written as themselves choose, according to an opinion which they have previously formed, and misinterpret it to suit their pleasure. But the Lord grant that the Truth and a sound faith in our Lord Jesus Christ may prevail among all, and especially among those to whom you read this. Amen.


Notice the humility of St Athanasius in not wanting to exult in the death of Arius, even though Arius was a heretic.

Jeremiah
Bobj
Registered user
Username: Bobj

Post Number: 133
Registered: 1-2006


Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 11:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jeremiah
I haven't studied this much, but I've heard that early Adventists, including James White, did not believe in the divinity of Christ. I think, but am not certain, that George Knight addresses this in one of his books. If this is so, why wouldn't God have revealed this heresy to Ellen (in one of her many visions) so she could straighten things out? Is something wrong here? Perhaps not believing in the divinity of Christ didn't bother the church founders.
Bob
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah

Post Number: 211
Registered: 1-2004


Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 11:45 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The Adventists were I think part of a general movement in the USA to reconstruct or restore the lost New Testament church. They were approaching things from the perspective of having to figure out for themselves what truth was, since it was taken for granted that there was no true church to join. So, everything was up for grabs... SDA's just decided Jesus being uncreated and completely God wasn't correct. Later on they changed their minds, or at least make it appear so.

As you can see, God already made clear to the church 1500 years earlier what the truth was.

Those who don't study history are sometimes doomed to repeat it.

Jeremiah
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 1752
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 11:47 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bob,

All of the early Adventists (including Ellen G. White) taught that Jesus had a beginning and was a lesser god than "the eternal Father." They rejected the Trinity, including the part of the Trinity doctrine that affirms that God is incorporeal (meaning that He is spirit and does not have a body by nature--John 4:24, Luke 24:39). Instead, they taught that God the Father has a body like Jesus' body. So, they taught that there were two separate physical divine beings (gods), which is called bitheism (two gods). Later they added in a third divine being (god), which they called "the Holy Spirit." That is called tritheism (three gods). Eventually, they started to say (or at least give lip service) that "Jesus" did not have a beginning and that he was equal with "the Father." They also deceptively started calling their view the "Trinity." But they still, to this day, have held onto the Trinity-denying heresies of three separate divine beings (gods), who each (or at least the Father and Jesus) have separate physical bodies. Instead of the biblical orthodox Trinity teaching of God being one infinite spirit Being (three persons in one indivisible Being), they have made "God" into a "group" of three separate physical beings!

The orginal SDA teaching was basically identical to the Jehovah's Witnesses' teaching. The current SDA teaching of the "Godhead" is basically identical to the Mormon teaching.

When Adventism says "Jesus is God," they do not mean that He is the one true God. They are actually using "God" as an adjective--despite the fact that that is incorrect English grammar! When they say "Jesus is God," they do not use "God" as a noun, meaning that He is "the God," or even that He is "a god"--but rather they simply mean that He is "divine" (an adjective). They mean that He is one third of "God," or the "Godhead," which is a group or club that is made up of three members. (So when they use "God" as a noun the word is not defined as a living Being, but is redefined to mean a "group.") Imagine a trio (a word actually used by EGW and SDAs) of three people that are united by common purposes--that is basically the SDA "trinity"! In actuality, their "Godhead" is Tritheism (three gods), which they sometimes--deceptively--call the "Trinity" (just as the Mormons also will call their tritheistic "Godhead" the "Trinity"). In reality, the SDA church believes in a "trio" (a group of three), rather than the Trinity.

When looked at closely, the SDA "trinity" bears no resemblance to the Trinity of Christianity.

The SDA church was founded on the non-Christian heresy of Arianism (which still continues to this day as described above), and therefore cannot possibly be a Christian church.

Jeremy

P.S. If anyone is interested in looking at this further, you can search past threads regarding this, where we've discussed the SDA view and looked at some of what they've written on this subject. Also, I am putting together a website on this subject which will hopefully be done sometime in the near future.
River
Registered user
Username: River

Post Number: 676
Registered: 9-2006


Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 12:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hey Jeremy, I look forward to your website. Be sure and let us know.
Thank you for the above, it is very interesting how they use the same language as Christian churches as you mentioned the trinity above.

AS I sat here and read the thought occurred to me that the Adventist have made attempt to hijack the evangelical churches and then make it into their own image.

It is kind of strange the the word "hijack" even entered my mind related to this.
What do you think of that?
River

(Message edited by river on April 18, 2007)
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 1756
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 12:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yep, I think you're right, River. In fact, one SDA theology professor even says that the SDA "Trinity" is a "biblical" view of the Trinity, as opposed to "creedal Trinitarianism."

In other words, "WE have the correct Trinity, and you Christian churches have a false Trinity"!

Jeremy
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 5702
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 12:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jeremiah, what an intereseting quote! Thank you so much!

Jeremy, your research into the SDA Trinity has been so interesting. Last Friday Richard attended his weekly leadership/theology class at Trinity church. He mentioned to Gary Inrig who was teaching that the Adventist church believes in a tritheism rather than the true Trinity. He gave as an example Ellen's assertion that Jesus had to go before the Father three times and plead to be allowed to come to earth a the sacrifice for sin. The Father relented after the third plea.

Of course, this flies in the face of the Biblical statements that Jesus was the Lamb slain from the creation of the world., etc. Gary was surprised and said that indeed this teaching not biblical (uh...true!). He then said an interesting thing; he said that many Christians are "functional tritheists". (He was not defending this functional tritheism—he was rather exposing it.) The misapprehension of God being Three Beings, apparently, is prevalent in many places. No wonder the Adventist heresy on this matter is not perceived in general.

Colleen
River
Registered user
Username: River

Post Number: 677
Registered: 9-2006


Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 12:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

P.S Jeremy, it's like they carefully orchestrated their language so as not to startle the evangelicals into stampeding away from them.

However when I first met them it was rather like a fox clucking like a chicken so as not to startle the chickens but alas old boy, a fox is a fox and chicken is a chicken and sheep is a sheep and this sheep wasn't asleep. A fox can't cluck like a chicken no matter how they hold their mouth.
River
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 1757
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 1:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Colleen, that may be the case to some degree, but considering the SDA view is basically identical to the Mormon "Godhead" doctrine--which is condemned and exposed by the Christian community--I think it probably has more to do with a lack of information regarding what Adventism teaches. Just like with other areas of Adventism.

That's an interesting conversation that Richard had with Pastor Gary. Thanks for sharing it!

Jeremy
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 5707
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 2:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You're right, Jeremy. I agree that the Adventist teaching really is different than the "functional tritheism" that is present in some places in Christianity. And lack of information is definitely the problem!

Colleen
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 5708
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 2:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jeremiah, can you give a source reference for your quotation above? I might want to use part of it at some point, and I'd like to be able to give a complete reference.

Thank you!
Colleen
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah

Post Number: 213
Registered: 1-2004


Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 3:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Colleen,

It comes from my CD purchased from Peter Kirby at earlychristianwritings.com but it originates from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library which is an online collection of the Church Fathers and other writings.

It's from the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series II volume IV and it's titled "Letter LIV. To Serapion, Concerning the Death of Arius."

Jeremiah
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 1028
Registered: 4-2000


Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 3:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks for sharing this documentation, Jeremiah. Indeed, there was absolutely no valid reason for the SDA pioneers to embrace a heresy that the Church had condemned many centuries before.

Dennis Fischer
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 5710
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 5:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thank you, Jeremiah.

You're right, Dennis. There was no valid reason for them to embrace Arianism.

Colleen
Mwh
Registered user
Username: Mwh

Post Number: 564
Registered: 4-2006


Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 2:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jeremy, can't wait for your new website on the trinity versus tritheism. Also if you ever write a good article on the matter, I would make sure to translate it to both Danish and Spanish, to expose this heresy.

Anyways if the SDA Church can't get Jesus right, teaching that he is Michael the Archangel, how on earth can they get the trinity right?

In His amazing grace,
Martin

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration