Theology Explained: Arianism

Рет қаралды 801

Жыл бұрын

Welcome to my series titled, "Theology Explained"! This is where I break down different terms and concepts of theology for the everyday person. These videos are meant to be short, sweet, and to the point so that everyone can understand. In this video, I am breaking down Arianism, an old heresy that seems to be reviving itself.

Пікірлер: 24

@MissAnnaDominique 12 күн бұрын

very good

@thiest1205 Жыл бұрын

Excellent presentation 👏 Thank you 👍

@jdwagman Жыл бұрын

Hello Jayni How much do you know about the history of Christianity between the years 325 to 380? The reason I am asking is because of your statement about Arianism being declared a heresy at the Council of Nicaea 325. Which is true, or at least half true. The historical record shows that within months after the council that it flipped back to Arius's view and he was reinstated back into the church. Some years after that Athanasius of Alexandria was expelled and banished a long with the other Nicene Christians. They were reinstated back into the Church by Emperor Julian (the Apostate) sometime circa 365. But Nicene Christianity was still not the orthodox teaching of the Roman Universal (Catholic) Church. So Arian and the bishops that agreed with his views were the orthodox church teaching until 381. Did you know that? But what is even more interesting is that about a year before the church flipped to Nicene Christianity in 381 that the Roman Emperors pass a law that Nicene Christianity was to be the only religion allowed in the Roman Empire. All others were to either convert or be punished with up to the death penalty. It is known as the "The Edict of Thessalonica", issued on 27 February AD 380. So basically the Trinity Doctrine was imposed on the church by Roman Emperors and did not come from revelations or the Holy Spirit. For me this is a big game changer.

@srich7503 Жыл бұрын

…and just a couple years later, the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage settled the issue of the canon of scripture, namely the 27 books of the NT also. Point being, the Trinity as you point out above, actually only began to develop as there was much more to come later in subsequent councils, was “imposed”, your word not mine, just as the 27 books of the NT was and by the same body of bishops. 👍🏻

@dok9024 5 ай бұрын

@@srich7503 Canon was mostly accepted prior. We just don’t have a record of the list till then. But to think that these councils were led by God is presumptuous. Nicea was put together by Constantine who wanted a unified church creed so he could have a national religion. Only a small fraction of the bishops were in attendance. The church had no business trying to define God with a creed and call all others heretic which later led to tortured and killing and even wars. I am not Unitarian, but I think God is bigger than that. That’s probably why God never gave anybody His true name. We need to accept that Gods divinity is a mystery.

@srich7503 5 ай бұрын

@@dok9024 “Mostly” is the key word in your statement. I dont think a Bible with “most” of the books in it is sufficient is it as a complete Bible? So once you get to the 100% mark, at point… my point will stand.

@dok9024 5 ай бұрын

@@srich7503 It’s not so simple. This is what Wikipedia says: Although the list of what books constituted the canon differed among the hundreds of churches in antiquity, according to ancient church historian Eusebius there was a consensus that the same 27 books constituting the canon today were the same 27 books generally recognized in the first century.[3]. As you can see the church did not decide on the canon. A historian just listed what was generally accepted. The church did not officially canonize the Bible till the seventh century. Which there are still some that disagree with the canon. So the canon was made not by authority of church but by the general consensus of the people. And the books that were in question were the small books such as Jude, second and third Peter. Just because they were small and not as commonly circulated.

@srich7503 5 ай бұрын

@@dok9024 no its not so simple, so why not look WAY beyond the simple Wikipedia… You will have to do much more digging than this sir. There are many other writings you will have to uncover, because “its not so simple”. There are hundreds of other writings of the early church fathers that need to be considered… History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their list of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved it by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us, show us, who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?

@hosea4660 9 ай бұрын

Arians do not deny the divinity of Christ, if you want to learn what a arian believes listen to an arian.

@ChrisMusante Ай бұрын

I would add the fact that how can anything be 'begotten' as the context of the sentence is that something has to 'not exist' in order to be 'begotten'. One who is 'led by the spirit' is 'begotten... as Paul says plainly. We are already 'like' Him - but only as a 'choice' of which 'father' to serve.

@jahtruthdefender 3 ай бұрын

I would like to know where the information is from that Arius that "he asserted that since Jesus had a beginning being born of Mary" or "that since Jesus lived and died that means he is not immutable" At 3:56 it is stated there are Hebrew text and I quote "seems to affirm the Trinity" Well yes, I recognise anyone can make the bible "seem" to say anything they want. No text implicitly or explicitly teaches the Trinity and the only way to prove it is to infer this doctrine into scripture.

@petegww 3 ай бұрын

If someone tells you to sit next to them, wouldn't you be obeying that commandment, garnering the speaker a higher place of authority

@Pimping9167 5 ай бұрын

None of the scriptures that you mentioned actually supported the trinity doctrine…the scriptures are not in alignment with the trinity doctrine

@siddislikesgoogle 13 күн бұрын

Hear o Israel, the Lord is ONE.... Even Jesus recognized the primacy of this as the greatest commandment.

@ChrisMusante Ай бұрын

The son IS NOT 'created' by the Father, He was MADE by the Father. Peace is made, and evil is 'created'. See Isaiah 45:7 in the King James Version). I can explain what the trinity is... but it is a 'lost' teaching that explains with good reasons what the Apostles were teaching, and why Jesus should NOT have been crucified - as the Apostle Paul professes in 1st Corinthians 2:8. Because of this revelation, I actually hold the keys of peace between all of the Abrahamic faiths and only wait to have this information recognized. In a nutshell, the 'son of man' is not a person - but a door or gateway to a relationship with God. There are many passages that mention 'the' "son of man", but not all are complimentary to God in their context - see Job 25:6, and Numbers 23:19 - the later which reads... "Is God a man, that He should lie? Or a 'son of man' that He should repent?" This strictly implies that the 'son of man' can have (2) different relationships one with Gid the Father, and the other with the devil - the Father of Lies. Jesus ALWAYS and without exception refers to this 'son of man' in the 3rd person - ALWAYS. So then, if we look at Ezekiel 2, we can see how this works. In the first 2 chapters of Ezekiel 2 (and know that I am strongly opposed to these fragmentations of scripture as they have turned bread into bread crumbs) we find that Ezekiel is called by the Lord, and is told to "stand' and THEN the Lord would speak to him. Then Ezekiel points out that the spirit 'enters' him - which causes him to be set on his feet, and THEN he could hear. Again, we see the concepts of blameless and 'upright' all throughout scripture. So then, this 'son of man' in being a 'door'or 'gate' is for 'sheep' - who are strictly obedient to God - vs. goats who are sacrificed for 'sin'. Grace then is associated with the 'rod' (vs. the 'staff') and should be understood as a way in which evil is used for 'good' as it it certainly evil to disobey God. So the phrase 'salvation by grace' is then the role of a 'suffering servant' vs. an obedient one. Notice what is said about the 'suffering servant'... numbered amongst the transgressors (sinner), nobody to be esteemed (sinner), and so on. By this understanding one can see that ALL are ALREADY 'serving' God from either of these (2) perspectives - and is simply 'Sovereignty of God '. As such, the only way to 'win' against evil, is to not DO 'evil'. It is the fight that cannot be won by fighting and why the Lord of Glory (Jesus the Christ) taught as He did. To always ow forward, to love each other as we are ALL 'brothers', and as such, allowing the dead to bury the dead. I know that I am a prophet as I have called these times like a football game that I wish I never would have been born to witness with my eyes. And I also know 'how' Isaiah 52:15 is to be fulfilled... while I humbly admit that I - as a simple man - do not feel that I am worthy to do it. But again, the truths are in the writings and they do say... "Elijah was just a man, like you and I." Shalom.

@Time_and_Chance 5 ай бұрын

Its not heresy. Just read Proverbs 8, 1 Corinthians 1

@AndrewRusherLDS 9 ай бұрын

It funny how a doctrine that wasn't believed or taught by Jesus Christ nor the Apostles & didn't exist until the 4th century AD somehow was the Biblically orthodox view of God in the 1st to 3rd century Church but doctrines that fit perfectly within the Scriptures are heresies. If the doctrine of the Trinity was a fundamental belief in Christianity, why didn't Jesus Christ or the Apostles teach it? Jesus Christ & the Apostles teach about fundamental & non-fundamental matters so why didn't they bring up the most fundamental belief in Christianity according to Trinitarians?

@Pimping9167 5 ай бұрын

Because it is the invention of the catholic religion