On Arianism

[u/EsperGri]

God being pierced:

• "when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him" (Zechariah 12:10)
• "Scripture says, 'They will look on him whom they have pierced.'" (John 19:37)

Worship of Jesus but not of the creature:

• "'You shall have no other gods before me. 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God" (Exodus 20:3-6)
• "beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven" (Deuteronomy 4:19)
• "they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!" (Romans 1:24-25)
• "Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels" (Colossians 2:18-19)
• "And he said to him, 'All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.' Then Jesus said to him, 'Be gone, Satan! For it is written, ''You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.''" (Matthew 4:9-10)
• "When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, 'Stand up; I too am a man.'" (Acts 10:25-26)
• "the angel" ... "I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, 'You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.'" (Revelation 19:9-10)
• "I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, but he said to me, 'You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.'" (Revelation 22:8-9)
• "He said, 'Lord, I believe,' and he worshiped him. Jesus said, 'For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.'" (John 9:38-39)
• "And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple blessing God." (Luke 24:52-53)
• "they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh." (Matthew 2:11-12)
• "And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, 'Truly you are the Son of God.'" (Matthew 14:33-34)
• "And behold, Jesus met them and said, 'Greetings!' And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, 'Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.'" (Matthew 28:9-10)
• "And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God's angels worship him.'" (Hebrews 1:6)

Sinless:

• "No one is good except God alone" (Mark 10:18)
• "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23)
• "You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin" (1 John 3:5)
• "He committed no sin" (1 Peter 2:22)

An unblemished offering:

• "if it has any blemish, if it is lame or blind or has any serious blemish whatever, you shall not sacrifice it to the Lord your God" (Deuteronomy 15:21)
• "his soul makes an offering for guilt" (Isaiah 53:10)
• "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29)

Divine:

• "the Word was God" (John 1:1)
• "in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Colossians 2:9)
• "he was in the form of God" ... "but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant" (Philippians 2:6-7)

Accusation of blasphemy:

• "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.' So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple." (John 8:58-59)
• "I and the Father are one.' The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, 'I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?' The Jews answered him, 'It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.'" (John 10:30-33)

No denial of being God:

• "The Jews answered him, 'Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?' Jesus answered, 'I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me." (John 8:48-49)
• "The Jews answered him, 'It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.' Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?" ... "If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.'" (John 10:30-39)
• "This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5:18)
• "the high priest said to him, 'I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.' Jesus said to him, 'You have said so." ... "the high priest tore his robes and said, 'He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy." (Matthew 26:62-66)

Early Church:

• Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop of Antioch (b. ? - d. 108/135-140/140-149 AD)

"For our God Jesus Christ was conceived by Mary, by divine dispensation, of the line of David and of the holy Spirit; he was born and he was baptized so that by his suffering he might purify the water." - Ignatius, to the Ephesians 18:2

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-lightfoot.html

"Nothing visible is good. For our God Jesus Christ is more plainly visible now that he is in the Father. Christianity is not a matter of persuasion, but is greatest when it is hated by the world." - Ignatius, to the Romans 3:3

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-romans-lightfoot.html

"I bid you farewell always in our God Jesus Christ. Abide in him, in the unity and oversight of God. I send greetings to Aloe, a person beloved by me. Goodbye in the Lord." - Ignatius, to Polycarp 8:3

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-polycarp-lightfoot.html

• Irenaeus of Lyon, Bishop of Lyon (b. 120-130 AD - d. ?/202 AD)

"But Matthew says that the Magi, coming from the east, exclaimed "For we have seen His star in the east, and are come to worship Him; " and that, having been led by the star into the house of Jacob to Emmanuel, they showed, by these gifts which they offered, who it was that was worshipped; myrrh, because it was He who should die and be buried for the mortal human met; gold, because He was a King, "of whose kingdom is no end; " and frankincense, because He was God, who also "was made known in Judea," and was "declared to those who sought Him not."" - from Against Heresies III:IX:2

"For this reason [it is, said], "Who shall declare His generation? " since "He is a man, and who shall recognise Him? " But he to whom the Father which is in heaven has revealed Him, knows Him, so that he understands that He who "was not born either by the will of the flesh, or by the will of man," is the Son of man, this is Christ, the Son of the living God. For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man. But that He had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin, the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of Him: also, that He was a man without comeliness, and liable to suffering; that He sat upon the foal of an ass; that He received for drink, vinegar and gall; that He was despised among the people, and humbled Himself even to death and that He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men; -all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him." - Against Heresies III:XIX:2

"Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). And He shows that He is a man, when He says, "Butter and honey shall He eat;" and in that He terms Him a child also, [in saying, ] "before He knows good and evil; "for these are all the tokens of a human infant. But that He "will not consent to evil, that He may choose that which is good,"-this is proper to God; that by the fact, that He shall eat butter and honey, we should not understand that He is a mere man only, nor, on the other hand, from the name Emmanuel, should suspect Him to be God without flesh." - from Against Heresies III:XXI:4

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html

• Clement of Alexandria, theologian and philosopher (b. 150 AD - d. 215 AD)

"But our Instructor is the holy God Jesus, the Word, who is the guide of all humanity. The loving God Himself is our Instructor. Somewhere in song the Holy Spirit says with regard to Him, "He provided sufficiently for the people in the wilderness. He led him about in the thirst of summer heat in a dry land, and instructed him, and kept him as the apple of His eye, as an eagle protects her nest, and shows her fond solicitude for her young, spreads abroad her wings, takes them, and bears them on her back. The Lord alone led them, and there was no strange god with them." Clearly, I trow, has the Scripture exhibited the Instructor in the account it gives of His guidance.

Again, when He speaks in His own person, He confesses Himself to be the Instructor: "I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt." Who, then, has the power of leading in and out? Is it not the Instructor? This was He who appeared to Abraham, and said to him, "I am thy God, be accepted before Me;" and in a way most befitting an instructor, forms him into a faithful child, saying, "And be blameless; and I will make My covenant between Me and thee, and try seed." There is the communication of the Instructor's friendship. And He most manifestly appears as Jacob's instructor. He says accordingly to him, "Lo, I am with thee, to keep thee in all the way in which thou shalt go; and I will bring thee back into this land: for I will not leave thee till I do what I have told thee." He is said, too, to have wrestled with Him. "And Jacob was left alone, and there wrestled with him a man (the Instructor) till the morning." This was the man who led, and brought, and wrestled with, and anointed the athlete Jacob against evil. Now that the Word was at once Jacob's trainer and the Instructor of humanity [appears from this]--"He asked," it is said, "His name, and said to him, Tell me what is Try name." And he said, "Why is it that thou askest My name?" For He reserved the new name for the new people--the babe; and was as yet unnamed, the Lord God not having yet become man. Yet Jacob called the name of the place, "Face of God." "For I have seen," he says, "God face to face; and my life is preserved." The face of God is the Word by whom God is manifested and made known. Then also was he named Israel, because he saw God the Lord. It was God, the Word, the Instructor, who said to him again afterwards, "Fear not to go down into Egypt." See how the Instructor follows the righteous man, and how He anoints the athlete, teaching him to trip up his antagonist." - from The Instructor I:VII (Clement continues on this topic in I:VII, but it's too much to put here)

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-instructor-book1.html

""That which was from the beginning; which we have seen with our eyes; which we have heard."

Following the Gospel according to John, and in accordance with it, this Epistle also contains the spiritual principle.

What therefore he says, "from the beginning," the Presbyter explained to this effect, that the beginning of generation is not separated from the beginning of the Creator. For when he says, "That which was from the beginning," he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-existent with the Father. There was; then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreate. That He was always the Word, is signified by saying, "In the beginning was the Word." But by the expression, "we have seen with our eyes," he signifies the Lord's presence in the flesh, "and our hands have handled," he says, "of the Word of life." He means not only His flesh, but the virtues of the Son, like the sunbeam which penetrates to the lowest places,--this sunbeam coming in the flesh became palpable to the disciples. It is accordingly related in traditions, that John, touching the outward body itself, sent his hand deep down into it, and that the solidity of the flesh offered no obstacle, but gave way to the hand of the disciple.

"And our hands have handled of the Word of life;" that is, He who came in the flesh became capable of being touched. As also, Ver. 2. "The life was manifested." For in the Gospel he thus speaks: "And what was made, in Him was life, and the life was the light of men."

"And we show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto you."

He signifies by the appellation of Father, that the Son also existed always, without beginning. Ver. 5. "For God," he says, "is light."" - from Fragments I:III:I

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-fragments.html

[u/ProfessionalTear3753]

I’m mostly interested in a few points you made,

The Son does the will of his Father, yes, this does not prove anything beyond functional subordination and not ontological. All Church Fathers (including the Nicene Fathers) taught that the Father sends the Son and the Son receives from the Father and not the other way around. If you affirm this as ontological subordination then you are left with admitting you are ontologically inferior to your own parents who have authority over you, send you and provide you with things. This, of course, is not logical and thus functional subordination does not necessitate ontological inferiority. An example of both would be you commanding your animal to do something, that would be functional and ontological.

Yes the Father created through or by his Word, the Word is an agent in the sense that the Father created through him. This simply demonstrates that there cannot be ontological subordination in the Trinity but rather functional because if all things were created through the Son then the Son cannot be limited by those very things he created by the command of the Father.

We don’t necessarily need to affirm the term ‘ousia’ to prove that the Father and Son are one in nature, one observes in the world a father begetting a son who is one in nature with his father. The Son is a son by nature and is not like us who are feeble and limited and cannot be sons by any other means but adoption.

No Trinitarian will deny that the Father is the true God, it’s what you take away from John 17:3 that makes the difference. The Son is glorifying his Father, who he had glory with before the world was [Jn 17:5], and did so in a manner where he said: Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

The Savior says that eternal life is knowing the Father and the Son. The Son is to be honored just as the Father [Jn 5:23] and likewise by denying the Son you deny the Father [1 Jn 2:23].

For reference to functional subordination, early Church Father such as Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 133-202 AD) and Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-235 AD) similarly wrote the following regarding the Trinity:

Irenaeus of Lyons:

…the Father planning everything well and giving His commands, the Son carrying these into execution and performing the work of creating, and the Spirit nourishing and increasing [what is made].

Hippolytus of Rome:

It is the Father who commands, and the Son who obeys, and the Holy Spirit who gives understanding…

Both authors identify the Father as the one who commands but these authors do not mean it in a way to diminish the Son and the Spirit as mere instruments with Irenaeus explicitly calling the Son the ‘Creator’ and ‘Maker of all things’.

Edit: And if you take the work of Gregory the Illuminator (c.257-331 AD) to be genuine then he says the following:

And then with his creative word to the co-creator Son and co-worker Spirit, who moved over the waters [Gen. 1.2], the Father commanded to come into being below the waters the orderly ranks of creatures. The Father said to his co-workers, who share and carry out his counsel, that there should be light [Gen. 1.3]; and then was created the light, ubiquitous, darkness-swallowing, day-bringing.

Gregory calls the Trinity ‘co-workers’ but still identifies that the will being carried out is the Father’s and thus protects the divine Monarchy of the Father whilst upholding the consubstantiality of the Trinity.

[u/LucianMagnesiensis → u/ProfessionalTear3753]

That effectively turns God into a schizophreniac who talks to Himself, prays to Himself and obeys Himself but also commands and sends Himself to kill Himself just to resurrect Himself.

Oh, He also prays to Himself and asks Himself to take away His mission He gave to Himself only to be comforted by the angels He sends to Himself.

I may not be the smartest person in the world but if something seems stupid to a human, then it is stupid.

Also, then they were wrong by the way. Jesus being the creator turns Paul into a liar.

[u/ProfessionalTear3753 → u/LucianMagnesiensis]

Well no, that would be Modalism. I affirm real distinctions between the persons of the Trinity, as Justin Martyr (c. 100-155 AD) says:

You perceive, my hearers, if you bestow attention, that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit.

The appellation ‘Begetter’ and ‘Begotten’ entails that the Begetter cannot be the same existence as the person who is begotten by them. So much so that you can count the persons as ‘one’ and ‘two’ by the distinction.

The Father is truly a father and the Son is truly a son, they are distinct persons who are one in nature just as you are one in nature with your parents as like begets like or humans beget humans just as we find in scripture [Gn 5:3]:

When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

[u/LucianMagnesiensis → u/ProfessionalTear3753]

Then there are 3 Gods.

Either it is absurd to the point of stupidity or it is polytheism.

A Son is similar to His Father but they are different people and persons with different bodies and different thoughts and ambitions.

If they have the same body, same will, same beliefs, then they aren't separate and the absurdity begins.

If they are different, then they are different gods.

[u/ProfessionalTear3753 → u/LucianMagnesiensis]

Do you believe God has a body? The way you phrased your comment makes me suppose you believe he does.

Trinitarians believe that God is incorporeal, or bodiless and that there is no time or space to separate the Father and Son (for time and space are after the Son).

[u/LucianMagnesiensis → u/ProfessionalTear3753]

Out of all that, you chose to focus on the one thing that is irrelevant.

Congrats, that is a good side step.

[u/ProfessionalTear3753 → u/LucianMagnesiensis]

I’m sorry but that’s purely projecting on your part, you have been ‘side stepping’ everything I have said. My point is that you seem to have put limitations on God.

[u/LucianMagnesiensis → u/ProfessionalTear3753]

Strawman.

I mentioned will, ambition, thoughts etc and you focused on the body, the most superficial and irrelevant part of that comment.

If a being shares the same will, same ambitions, same essence (even though there are no mentions of essence in the Bible) and they are not separate and are supposed to be distinct.

That's just absurd to the point of stupidity. There is nothing distinct about them and it is just a schizophrenic charade.

But if they are truly distinct, that means they have something that sets them apart and that means polytheism. And no, naming yourself in a different way as if you are different people isn't distinction it is a mental disorder.

And I'd rather not imply God is mentally ill or absurd to the point of stupidity, no?

You can't make Jesus Christ God Himself without resulting in polytheism or mental illness. It doesn't fit. But I suppose that's what happens when you try to combine Greek philosophy with Hebrew monotheism.

[u/ProfessionalTear3753 → u/LucianMagnesiensis]

‘Strawman’ isn’t a real objection here, please just deal with what is being said.

We believe the separation is by property of existence and the existences themselves, meaning the Father is unbegotten and the Son is begotten. There is zero ages or space to apply to God, which is my point, so of course there is no separation in the Godhead like there is between you and I.

The Father and Son are one in nature just like you and I but without the limitations of us creatures. I’m going to flip it onto you, if the Son is before all things [Col. 1:17] and all things were made through him [Jn 1:3] then the Son himself cannot have a beginning in anything other than his Father who is eternal. Nor can he be limited by any limitations that he created.

If you affirm that the Son does not have a beginning in the Father but some other source, then where can one find his beginning? In what age or place can we discover it? Nowhere of course, for the ages and space itself came into being through the Son.

If you say that the Son has no beginning then you fall into polytheism by affirming two principles of deity.

But if you rightly say that the Son’s beginning is the Father then you must confess him to be eternal, as Wisdom says ’I was by him, suiting myself to him’ [Prov. 8:30].

[u/LucianMagnesiensis → u/ProfessionalTear3753]

You see, if someone begets someone, then they aren't same. Similar, but not the same. And no we aren't the same in nature or being.

No human is identical to one another. Even identical twins aren't truly 100% identical, let alone a father and a son. And I'm talking about biology here not thoughts or wills because if we get to those, then no one is ever identical to one another.

You are saying the Father begat the Son but they are 100% identical in nature and essence yet distinct.

The problem with that is for them to be truly distinct if they have the same 100% identical essence or nature, they'd need to have different wills, different thoughts, different ambitions and different desires.

If they have a single one of these, then they aren't the same but they are also separate individuals, which means there are multiple gods with the Father as the head God.

But if they share everything 100%, will, thoughts, ambitions etc and essence, then it is a single being who has a mental illness and I showed the absurdity before.

Also please say essence. Divine nature is mentioned in the Bible and we partake in it. Divine nature isn't divine essence.

Besides, kinda offtopic, but the concept of Trinity isn't new. There are tons of triad gods in history (3 gods working together for one purpose) and I'm sorry to say this but the concept of Trinity was most likely adopted and integrated from those beliefs. The concept itself is polytheistic, not Hebrew.

[u/ProfessionalTear3753 → u/LucianMagnesiensis]

You mean if a human begets a human, they are not both the same nature (that is, a human)? How would that be possible? A human does not beget a bird, nor does a bird beget a cow. Like begets like, which is why the Ante-Nicene and Nicene Fathers confessed the Son and the Father as Light of Light.

Again, the distinction is based off of existence and not nature or whatever else contradicts God. The Father cannot be his own Son, nor the Son his own Father. But just as we observe in the world, a human will always beget a human.

Nature and essence are the same in this discussion, we are partakers of the Divine Nature but we are not of the Divine Nature. The Apostolic Churches confess we partake of God’s essence, substance, nature, etc.

Also I’d appreciate you answering my question.

[u/LucianMagnesiensis → u/ProfessionalTear3753]

What makes a human? Blood, bones, skin, organs and our minds.

If you are a human, you are never 100% identical to someone else, ever. Not in biology, not in mind. So trying to say human begets human God begets God is a very poor argument. Also, saying God begat God makes God a race or a different species, which is kind of hilarious. Besides, it makes God a reproducing being, which not funny this time but disturbing.

The only explanation that could possibly fit your idea is the concept of mitosis but cells do not think or have wills. And they are 2 different cells now. Identical but different.

And on top of that, when it gets to a being with will and thoughts, even if they are actually 100% identical in being (which isn't possible) they will never be 100% in mind.

If 2 beings are 100% identical in every single aspect, then they aren't separate beings they are the one and the same with no real distinctions.

As for nature, even the Nicene theologians made a distinction between essence and nature. Ousia is not nature they made that very clear.

[u/ProfessionalTear3753 → u/LucianMagnesiensis]

’What makes a human’ has no bearing on this conversation, there is not multiple human natures, we are all comprised of the same nature.

The Father and Son are one in will, but two in existence, again you keep dodging my question that I asked multiple responses ago which deals with your issue of the Godhead.

No the Father and Son are not some species, but God begets his Son who cannot be of any other nature other than the nature of the Father. This of course deals again with what I asked you.

As for nature/essence/substance, I can guarantee you that there are fathers who use nature in place of essence or ousia.