There are two things that come to my mind when I see the annual memes around Christmas time about Saint Nick punching the heretic Arius. First, I have yet to see anyone prove definitively from the Bible that Jesus has always existed alongside Yahweh--there is certainly possible evidence for Arianism, and, second, the Bible condemns assault of the type Saint Nick engaged in (Exodus 21:18-19). The people who continue to circulate these memes around December probably don't derive their Christological doctrines purely from a rationalistic analysis of the Bible.
Theological Arianism holds that Jesus is not a being that has always existed uncaused like Yahweh ("the Father"). Despite the horror of many evangelicals at such a suggestion, logic requires only one uncaused cause, so any attempt to prove that Christian theology teaches that more than one uncaused causes exist must be rooted in the Bible, and the Bible does not explicitly teach this. Most people I've met who deny Arianism are Trinitarians. The people who literally believe that Jesus and Yahweh are identical need to realize that one has a body, the other doesn't, that one knew when the other would return and the other didn't, and that one had to submit his will to the other, an impossible thing if they are truly the same. This does not prove Arianism, but it does refute popular Christology. Jesus is not the same as Yahweh. They have the same mission and the same moral nature, but they are distinct beings with their own minds and wills. This, of course, means that Jesus doesn't have to exist uncaused by logical necessity, like Yahweh does.
Interestingly, the very phraseology of the words "Son" and "Father" can imply that the former was brought into existence by the latter, and Christ is called God's "begotten" (John 3:16), also being called the "firstborn of all creation" in Colossians 1--which could simply be a title of rank, but it could also be a reference to Christ having a finite beginning. I am not saying that these things prove Arianism, only that they serve as evidence for it that is often overlooked by those I have met who reject Arianism. The people who get upset when I suggest this do not seem to realize that Arianism, if true, changes nothing about Biblical moral obligations, the necessity of Yahweh existing as an uncaused cause, or the divine nature of Christ (a beginning-less deity can create another deity that is identical in nature except in the fact that it has a beginning). People who call Arius a heretic simply because past theologians have don't have a rational basis for doing so.
Now, as for the punch Saint Nick allegedly gave to Arius, what the hell makes Christians think that this is morally acceptable according to Mosaic Law? If they think that Arius deserved to be punched (if he even was a heretic to begin with), they are using a standard of morality different than the one revealed in Scripture, meaning that they are actually heretical since they believe in extra-Biblical morality when the Bible itself condemns extra-Biblical moral claims (Deuteronomy 4:2). The Bible never says to punch someone for denying that Jesus always existed alongside Yahweh, much less that punitive measures should be taken without a trial. What the Bible does say is that someone who assaults another person with his or her fists (without the altercation resulting in permanent injuries, which is punished differently--Exodus 21:23-25) must pay the victim and ensure that the victim recovers (Exodus 21:18-19). So people who approve of Saint Nick's assault contradict the Bible, making them heretics if they actually believe that there is a moral standard above or contrary to that of Scripture, which is primarily revealed in Mosaic Law.
In short, the people who repost the memes about punching Arius every year are probably theologically misguided and irrational people--no surprise there! I hope to look into Arianism more in the near future and see if Scripture truly does teach it. Just because Arianism is a minority belief does not mean it is false. After all, the consensus of the majority never once proves anything except that the majority is in agreement, in no way establishing that the majority is correct.
No comments:
Post a Comment