A theology question.?

Question

What was Arius' position with regard the divinity of Jesus Christ? Why was this position condemned? How did the Council of Nicea answer the Arian heresy?

Answer 1

Arius formulated the following doctrines about Jesus:

1. that the Logos and the Father were not of the same essence (ousia);
2. that the Son was a created being (ktisma or poiema); and
3. that though He was the creator of the worlds, and must therefore have existed before them and before all time, there was a "time" [although Arius refused to use words meaning time, such as chronos or aion] when He did not exist.

This link will tell you

Answer 2

Arius taught that Christ was a creature made by God. By disguising his heresy using orthodox or near-orthodox terminology, he was able to sow great confusion in the Church. He was able to muster the support of many bishops, while others excommunicated him.
Arianism was solemnly condemned in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea, which defined the divinity of Christ, and in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople, which defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit. These two councils gave us the Nicene creed, which Catholics recite at Mass every Sunday.
Peace and every blessing!

Answer 3

A quick summary - 90% of your modern Christians would not be able to tell Arianism from Orthodoxy. Arius was using standard Church doctrine to argue FOR the Deity of Jesus Christ, not against it.

Arius argued that the Father and Son were of identical essence, following the Aristotelian definition of 'essence.' In Platonic thought, essence was a universal that was shared among all members of a single category. The early Church took the Aristotelian position, and argued that Plato's essences were really just intellectual categories. In other words, according to the early Church, each individual being had its won essence, and all the individual essences were identical. All humans, for example, had identical essences.

Sabelius argued that the Trinity was of the same essence. According to the Aristotelian Church, this denied the Trinity altogether by making them one being. Sabelius was condemned as a heretic, along with his definition "of the same essence" (or 'homo-ousios'). Arius responded by asserting the only theological alternative: that the Father and the Son were two different beings, with like essences.

In Alexandria, the bishop disagreed with Arius' definition, and convened a local council to deal with the issue. The local council condemned Arius, and deposed him from the priesthood. Arius decided to go above the council's head, and appealed to Licinius for an interview in Nicomedia. At that time, Licinius was the co-ruler of the Roman Empire, and acted as Constantine's eastern equivalent. Licinius talked to the bishop of Nicomedia, and they convened a local council. The bishop, Eusebius (of Nicomedia) found in favor of Arius. After that, Arius visited Caesarea, where the bishop Eusebius (of Caesarea) convened a local council, and also sided with Arius.

Arius, thus reinstated under two legitimate bishops, returned to Alexandria and demanded his reinstatement there. Bishop Alexander refused on the grounds that the Alexandrian Synod was well within its rights to depose Arius.

Constantine, in the mean time, decided to send in an arbiter to deal with issue. Hosius of Cordova, a Latin theologian from Spain, went to Alexandria to settle the dispute. Unfortunately, the theological argument was too subtle, and Hosius could not reach a solution. After a second attempt a year later, Constantine invited all the bishops of the Empire to attend a world-wide Synod in Nicea. Constantine's problem was that the Roman Empire offered certain benefits to Christian Churches, but they needed an official definition of Christianity before the make the allotments.

The bishops gathered in Nicea. At first, the arguments seemed to go nowhere. Then Constantine, under prompts from Hosius, suggested that the Platonic essence could resolve the conflict. The bishops were opposed to that suggestion initially, because the word 'homo-ousios' had been condemned as Sabelianism. Athanasius, a 25 year old deacon, took the floor and argued that the Trinity had to be of the same essence - otherwise the incarnation of Christ could not have allowed an energetic union between God and Man.

Following the arguments of Athanasius, the Synod decided to apply the term 'homo-ousios' after all, but redefined it as a Platonic essence. In other words, they maintained that the Father and Son were one in a universal sense, but two in an individual sense. However, they maintained that because God is not divided by space or time (being omnipresent), the essence of God was the only Platonic universal that was actually real in an ontological sense. The Fathers of the Synod agreed, and the vote came in 318 to 2 in favor of Athanasius and the new and improved 'homo-ousios.'

Despite the decisions of the Synod, many bishops were still skeptical. Before the Synod of Nicea, every bishop was completely independent of every other bishop. By accepting the decisions of the Synod, the bishops were essentially agreeing that an Ecumenical Synod held greater precedent than any individual bishop. Several Churches, including Jerusalem, remained technically Arian for several decades more. By 381 AD, most of the Churches had abandoned Arianism altogether, and agreed to embrace the "Orthodox" position. The only exception were the Christians among the Germanic tribes in Europe - many of those tribes remained Arian for several centuries more, and only abandoned Arianism when Orthodoxy became a prerequisite for imperial titles.

Answer 4

Apparently Arian raised the question that Jesus was a creation, not really "God Incarnate". He tried to establish some sort of timeline, stating that if God was the Father, then that made him finite. And if God was finite, he couldn't have been around forever. And then he also stated that Jesus was inferior to God?
He based his findings on logic. And since logic was not allowed, his theory was not acceptable.
He actually ticked off the guys at Nicea so much, I think they burned all of his "documents" and sent him packing.

Answer 5

Arius once stated this:

"If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing."

Basically stating that Christ was of a less divine nature that God, and was not fully God as the Father was fully God.

This position was condemned because it made Christ less than God, and countermanded many of Pauls teachings, which the church held strongly too.
The Nicean Council answered this by creating a creed of churches official statement "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;


it goes on from there, but that deal with what your asking. They basically stated that Jesus was as much God as the Father is God.

Answer 6

why don't you Wikipedia that one...it's a long topic.