Is it? In 325 the early Church had to answer what was perhaps its greatest controversy ever: the question of the Divinity of Christ. 2000 years later, one would think that a very clear answer came from Scripture – of course Christ was divine, of course the Trinity was a reality, of course Jesus was the second person of the Trinity. But this was a major battle in the Church. A priest named Arius and many of Eastern bishops believed that Jesus was not equal with God, and they had numerous Scripture passages and logical arguments that seem to strongly support that notion. Jesus Himself said many things that seemed to make it clear that he was lesser than the Father: the Father knew things that he did not, He did the will of the Father, Jesus prayed to the Father (was he talking to Himself?), etc. Also, logic seems to fight against the Trinitarian view: the eternal God of the universe was born as a baby, grew in knowledge, worked, obeyed his parents, went to the bathroom, got hungry and tired and so forth?
Christian positions (like the Trinitarian view) were not self-evident. In other words, while a strong argument for the Divinity of Christ could be made from Scripture. One could not pretend that it was the only possible interpretation. Indeed, Arius was not a monster; he was a generally well-liked priest that was genuinely concerned that the Church not misconstrue Jesus and His work. (The Jehovah’s Witnesses say the same thing today – using Scripture). The question is simply one of “anchor passages” – passages by which other passages are to be interpreted. We would point to John 1 (“The Word was God”) as clear evidence of the Divinity of Christ, but others would say that that is a heavily spiritual passage, and, given the clear indications from other verses that seem to show that Jesus is lesser than God, perhaps John 1 should be understood as meaning that The Word – this man who was born as a person – was “one with God” in some way. It all depends on which verses are considered “anchors.” If John 1 is an “anchor passage” (and I have interpreted it correctly), then the “Jesus as lesser being” passages should be interpreted as consistent with the “anchored” view that Jesus is God (i.e., is equal with the Father). But the reverse is also true – perhaps the “Jesus as lesser being” passages are the “anchors.” This raises the question: who gets to authoritatively decide which passages are the “anchor passages,” and what those passages mean in the first place?
Many, many gospels, books and letters were written by many people over the first few centuries. And the various churches had varying copies and disagreements about which should be considered “inspired.” There was some general agreement as to some of the books and letters. However, some churches considered certain books and letters inspired that were later considered not to be, by the Church. And some churches rejected certain books and letters later considered to be inspired by the Church. Who gets to define which are the “essential” beliefs? How did we got the NT? Who decided which books should be in the Canon of Scripture ... and ... by what authority did they make that determination?
What Church boasts not only here but all over the world? "We brought you the Bible." Really? I thought it was the Word of God. His Word not Catholics word. Then we hear talk of authority (Cartman complex?) and tradition and councils, etc . . . Did God not use Balaams donkey for His purpose? Boasting is unseemly.
“Is it? In 325 the early Church had to answer what was perhaps its greatest controversy ever: the question of the Divinity of Christ. 2000 years later, one would think that a very clear answer came from Scripture “
This actually reveals your ignorance of the scripture, since Christ’s divinity is quite clear there.
Isa_9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Joh_1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
“A priest named Arius and many of Eastern bishops believed that Jesus was not equal with God, and they had numerous Scripture passages and logical arguments that seem to strongly support that notion.”
And Augustine didn’t?
“They who have said that our Lord Jesus Christ is not God, or not very God, or not with the Father the One and only God, or not truly immortal because changeable, are proved wrong by the most plain and unanimous voice of divine testimonies; as, for instance, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. For it is plain that we are to take the Word of God to be the only Son of God, of whom it is afterwards said, And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, on account of that birth of His incarnation, which was wrought in time of the Virgin. But herein is declared, not only that He is God, but also that He is of the same substance with the Father; because, after saying, And the Word was God, it is said also, The same was in the beginning with God: all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made. Not simply all things; but only all things that were made, that is; the whole creature. From which it appears clearly, that He Himself was not made, by whom all things were made. And if He was not made, then He is not a creature; but if He is not a creature, then He is of the same substance with the Father. For all substance that is not God is creature; and all that is not creature is God. And if the Son is not of the same substance with the Father, then He is a substance that was made: and if He is a substance that was made, then all things were not made by Him; but all things were made by Him, therefore He is of one and the same substance with the Father. And so He is not only God, but also very God. And the same John most expressly affirms this in his epistle: For we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us an understanding, that we may know the true God, and that we may be in His true Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.” (Augustine, On the Holy Trinity)
What stupid attack is this against logic and scripture? Do you think that there is some substance to the false logic of the Arians? Having debated many of these infidels myself, their primary method is to ignore the scripture altogether that disproves them. How is that Sola Scriptura?
Scripture was generally accepted by that date.
They hadn’t read scripture?
“and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace”
“and the word was with God and the word was God”.
“and the word became flesh”
How many more should I list? Maybe they were to concentrated on developing their traditions of man? People who put their faith in the RCC really need to "come out of her".
“Christian positions (like the Trinitarian view) were not self-evident. In other words, while a strong argument for the Divinity of Christ could be made from Scripture. One could not pretend that it was the only possible interpretation.”
No, those positions are quite self-evident, but only to those of us who have “eyes to see, and ears to hear”. Surely, there are mysteries in Scripture that aren’t well understood even by true Christians, but those aren’t serious matters of doctrine that are important to us in our lives right now.
The reason that there was so much disputation on these matters, even in the early church, is because apostacy and heresy was already happening even while the apostles were still alive, as they attested in the NT. So, you cannot assume any conclave was composed purely of Christians led by the Holy Spirit. One must assume that there were a fair number of imposters among any group of Christians, at any time, and they are the most likely culprits for misinterpretations of Scripture, since they don’t possess the essential tools for understanding it.