An Arian proof-text

[Amazing Rando]

I've been studying the church history of the period of the council of Nicea, and one of the interesting things I've learned is the scriptural case the Arians tried to build for themselves.

For those who don't know, the Arians believed that Jesus was not coeternal with the Father- that he and the Father were not of one substance. They believed that Jesus was the first of God's creations- but that he was just that- one of God's creations and not of one substance with God himself.

Here's one of the prooftexts they used to support their claim:

12 "I, wisdom, dwell together with prudence;
I possess knowledge and discretion.
13 To fear the LORD is to hate evil;
I hate pride and arrogance,
evil behavior and perverse speech.
14 Counsel and sound judgment are mine;
I have understanding and power.
15 By me kings reign
and rulers make laws that are just;
16 by me princes govern,
and all nobles who rule on earth.
17 I love those who love me,
and those who seek me find me.
18 With me are riches and honor,
enduring wealth and prosperity.
19 My fruit is better than fine gold;
what I yield surpasses choice silver.
20 I walk in the way of righteousness,
along the paths of justice,
21 bestowing wealth on those who love me
and making their treasuries full.

22 "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works,
before his deeds of old;
23 I was appointed from eternity,
from the beginning, before the world began.
24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth,
when there were no springs abounding with water;
25 before the mountains were settled in place,
before the hills, I was given birth,
26 before he made the earth or its fields
or any of the dust of the world.
27 I was there when he set the heavens in place,
when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
28 when he established the clouds above
and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
29 when he gave the sea its boundary
so the waters would not overstep his command,
and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
30 Then I was the craftsman at his side.
I was filled with delight day after day,
rejoicing always in his presence,
31 rejoicing in his whole world
and delighting in mankind.

They believed that since Jesus was the Logos, or "word," of God, that he was also the same wisdom spoken about in Proverbs. That led them to look at proverbs 8 in which Wisdom is personified. They siezed upon phrases like "I was given birth" and "the LORD brought me forth as the first of his works" to suggest that Jesus was a created being, not coeternal with the Father.

The Council of Nicea was convened by Constantine largely to address this particular matter and to come to a consensus on exactly who Jesus was and what it meant to affirm the Lordship of Jesus while still maintaining the ardent Jewish Monothiesm.

Anyhow, it was just interesting to learn about why the Arians thought the way they did. It was cool to have a human face put on them rather than just thinking of them as faceless heretics.

[Amazing Rando]

On a related note- do you believe that God was acting through the Council of Nicea in helping them reach the conclusions they did? I do. Trinitarian thought as stated explicitly goes back even further than Nicea- it was first argued explicitly by Tertullian, but I'd be willing to argue that it goes back even farther than that, only implicitly.

[Ron Macy]

Amazing Rando,

On a related note- do you believe that God was acting through the Council of Nicea in helping them reach the conclusions they did? I do. Trinitarian thought as stated explicitly goes back even further than Nicea- it was first argued explicitly by Tertullian, but I'd be willing to argue that it goes back even farther than that, only implicitly.

No, I think satan was working through that council. But, that is just my opinion.

Things implied are in the mind of the reader and not necessarily in the intent of the author. That is why I would rather find explicit definitions of trinity in the Bible than rely on what might be implied.

I am still waiting for anyone to provide me with explicit definitions in the scripture of multi-person beings and/or an explicit definition of God as a multi-person being. No one has provided that, yet.

It is my opinion without such explicit scriptural definitions, there is no foundation for believeing God is a trinity.

Ron

[Amazing Rando]

Amazing Rando,

No, I think satan was working through that council. But, that is just my opinion.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinions. :smile: Have you ever read the writings of Tertullian?

Things implied are in the mind of the reader and not necessarily in the intent of the author. That is why I would rather find explicit definitions of trinity in the Bible than rely on what might be implied.

I am still waiting for anyone to provide me with explicit definitions in the scripture of multi-person beings and/or an explicit definition of God as a multi-person being. No one has provided that, yet.

To me, the gospels all scream homoosious. I could give you some examples if you'd like. I believe that it was in the gospel writers' minds that Jesus is an incarnation of the Living God.

It is my opinion without such explicit scriptural definitions, there is no foundation for believeing God is a trinity.

Ron

Well tell me to keep this post on target, do you agree with the Arians as regards Proverbs 8 as I mentioned above?

[Jaltus]

Frankly, I find Wisdom Christology problematic. I know JPH is a big proponent of it, I just happen to think that the OT does not allow for such a reading.

[Ron Macy]

Where am I? Did I just faint? Oh,... I remember.

Jaltus,

Frankly, I find Wisdom Christology problematic. I know JPH is a big proponent of it, I just happen to think that the OT does not allow for such a reading.

I completely and whole-heartedly agree with you. I think that is why I fainted. I believe JPH makes a huge, unjustified leap from personification to personhood.

Amazing Rando,

Well tell me to keep this post on target, do you agree with the Arians as regards Proverbs 8 as I mentioned above?

I agree that logos in John 1 relates to wisdom in Proverbs 8 (and similar Proverb chapters), but I don't believe that makes logos or wisdom a person. I believe they are abstract concepts personified.

I believe God created the universe with wisdom or a plan. The opposite would be to say God created the universe with stupidity (at least that is what I see as the opposite) or as a random, unplanned act.

I continually stress God had the whole of the salvation plan worked out before the first words of creation were spoken. God created everything with the idea creation would point toward His characteristics (Romans 1:18-20). God used the whole of the OT revelation to point to the work of Jesus. God brought Jesus into the world through Jesus birth to Mary (Jesus did not exist as a person until His birth.) as the focal point of the salvation plan. Jesus is the one who can bring us to God's ultimate goal, the eternal Kingdom of God. I believe this teaching is completely consistent with the scriptures.

So, to answer your question, Amazing Rando, if the Arians believed Jesus (as logos or wisdom) was a person who existed before the creation of the world or before His birth to Mary, then, I do not agree with them.
If they believe logos and wisdom were personifications of attributes of God which Jesus represented after His birth, then I agree with them.

Ron

[Amazing Rando]

Amazing Rando,

I agree that logos in John 1 relates to wisdom in Proverbs 8 (and similar Proverb chapters), but I don't believe that makes logos or wisdom a person. I believe they are abstract concepts personified.

Despite saying that "the Word became flesh?" That word for "became flesh" is a crude, almost vulgar word that most commentators agree nessesarily implies humainy here.

I believe God created the universe with wisdom or a plan. The opposite would be to say God created the universe with stupidity (at least that is what I see as the opposite) or as a random, unplanned act.

I don't think anyone here would dispute that.

I continually stress God had the whole of the salvation plan worked out before the first words of creation were spoken. God created everything with the idea creation would point toward His characteristics (Romans 1:18-20). God used the whole of the OT revelation to point to the work of Jesus. God brought Jesus into the world through Jesus birth to Mary (Jesus did not exist as a person until His birth.) as the focal point of the salvation plan. Jesus is the one who can bring us to God's ultimate goal, the eternal Kingdom of God. I believe this teaching is completely consistent with the scriptures.

So thus, Jesus was a created being in your view, yes? The Arians believed this also, but believed that Jesus was created before all other things. The Nicean creed was written directly in response to this idea. The Arians "slogan" so to speak, was "There was a time when He was not." The Nicean Creed directly condemns this though, saying that the Son was "begotten, not made."

So, to answer your question, Amazing Rando, if the Arians believed Jesus (as logos or wisdom) was a person who existed before the creation of the world or before His birth to Mary, then, I do not agree with them.
If they believe logos and wisdom were personifications of attributes of God which Jesus represented after His birth, then I agree with them.

Ron

[Ron Macy]

Amazing Rando,

Despite saying that "the Word became flesh?" That word for "became flesh" is a crude, almost vulgar word that most commentators agree nessesarily implies humainy here.

Yes, I agree this is a reference to the humanity of Jesus. It does not follow that Jesus was a person before His birth.


So thus, Jesus was a created being in your view, yes? The Arians believed this also, but believed that Jesus was created before all other things. The Nicean creed was written directly in response to this idea. The Arians "slogan" so to speak, was "There was a time when He was not." The Nicean Creed directly condemns this though, saying that the Son was "begotten, not made."

Yes, I believe Jesus is a created being. Yes, there are similarities between my understanding and Arian teaching, but similarity is not identity.

"Begotten, not made." Please forgive me if I express my doubt about how someone can be "begotten" and "not made." I believe their wording is simply double talk. They have redefined the words to suit their doctrine rather than allowing the definition of the words to define their doctrine. That's just my opinion.

Ron

[Magdalenbrother]

On a related note- do you believe that God was acting through the Council of Nicea in helping them reach the conclusions they did? I do. Trinitarian thought as stated explicitly goes back even further than Nicea- it was first argued explicitly by Tertullian, but I'd be willing to argue that it goes back even farther than that, only implicitly.How does one know that God acted through this particular council?

Do you know that the biggest ecumenical council was Arian?

With hindsight, when the Nicean clique had won the debate, one says God sided with the winners.

God loves success. Obviously.

On the question of the wisdom text, I would like to point out that the Arian interpretation is perfectly legitimate. The fact is that the Bible doesn't tell one how its words should be construed. Construed precisely and theologically, that is. What you have here is poetry. And should have remained poetry. Why not understand it the Trinitarian way? Why not? As long as you leave alone those who want to understand it differently, I have no objections, although I could give you several reasons for not making Jesus God on the basis of this Biblical passage.

So the Bible doesn't speak. The Bible doesn't interpret itself. It is people who intepret the Bible. Authority rests with people. You believe what you believe because of what the church hierarchy has told you. This is no big secret. The Orthodox say: "One can't read the Bible alone, one needs the Church to understand the Bible." I say that the Orthodox are honest: they aren't hypocrites like the Protestants who claim that authority is from the Bible alone. As I said above, books don't speak.

So it's a question of more or less blind faith from a to z. I believe that Jesus is God because my pastor says He is and he interprets the NT that way. First there is the interpretation, the theological bias, then and only then you have the scriptural arguments based on reason and logic.

And my pastor believes because his predecessors also believed that, all the way back to Justin martyr and Athanasius. So belief in Jesus as God and belief in the infallibility and holiness of the Church are inseparable.

But how does one believe that the Church is holy and infallible in view of all the divisions and abominations that plague it?

[Xavier]

Frankly, I find Wisdom Christology problematic. I know JPH is a big proponent of it, I just happen to think that the OT does not allow for such a reading.

Could you elaborate a bit?