That is more correct, although Dynamic Monarchianism should not be confused with Arianism.June 26 2017 at 3:54 AM
|Tomas (Login TomasSedlacek)|
Response to Re: Christadelphians are not Oneness, Jesus Only Christians.
Dynamic Monarchianism was the ancient error of Adoptionism, preached by some Christians, maybe based on some faulty text of the New Testament, which claimed that when Jesus was baptized, God said he adopted him. Such a text has survived in Greek, but it is normally considered by conservative biblical scholars not to be authentic, but to be a later change. But there is no evidence that Arius or his followers ever taught adoptionism. Adoptionist Christians were different, in that they taught unitarianism, they taught that Jesus was a man, who did not preexist, who was created in Mary, and when John baptized him, he became the Son of God, as he was adopted by God. That is of course a faulty meaning of what it means for him to be the Son of God. He was God's Son already in his preexistence, for example Prov. 30:4 asks us if we know what is God's name and what is his Son's name. So the Son was God's Son already when he was created in the beginning, in anticipation that God would finally beget him, when he was begotten in Mary. Arius, while we do not have his writings, Catholics did not value and preserve his writings, he was not criticized for adoptionism, but for teaching correctly that Christ was created in the beginning, and for claiming that Christ was a lesser god. As far as I know, Arius was not criticized for any other doctrine. He believed that God is the Father, it is not very clear what he thought of the Holy Spirit, but then Catholic doctrine about the Holy Spirit was not yet codified by the council of Nicea, that he is the third person of the trinity, but that was decided by the next council. So it is likely that in general, on most doctrines, Arius agreed with the Catholics, and so he wanted his interpretation concerning Christ, to be recognized by the Catholic church, but at the council of Nicea, most bishops favoring his interpretation were persuaded to disagree with Arius, and agree that Christ is God, so almost all bishops at the council of Nicea voted against the Arian doctrine and even to condemn the Arian doctrine and expel Arius and his followers from the Catholic church, which was a very divisive decision, not loving, just creating a wrong division within the Catholic church. But the Adoptionists, also called Dynamic Monarchianists, were split from the Catholic church even earlier, as many Catholics had found the Adoptionist doctrine to be intolerable. So they were a totally different denomination from the Arian church. They were ultimately exterminated by the Catholics, when they took over the Roman empire and started persecution of other denominations. But a similar adoptionist doctrine survived for many centuries in the Paulician church. There has been some controversy about what exactly the Paulicians taught, they were accused by Catholic and Orthodox critics of preaching gnostic doctrines, including the heresy of docetism. Though much later a book has been found, which was allegedly a Paulician book, writing about their doctrines, and there was no trace of gnosticism or docetism there, though there was some adoptionism. So it seems that the Paulicians, even if they had been earlier clearly heretical and gnostic, they clearly became a much more respectable form of Christianity, judging from that book. Though a few researchers have speculated that the book was not from the Paulicians. Most sources I have read asserted that the Paulicians disappeared in the 18th or 19th century, though one source claims that the church is still alive in Bulgaria and Hungary, with several thousand members, though that source claims they are also called Bogomils, but that is strange, as the Bogomils were a clearly gnostic sect. At one point the Bogomil religion became the state church of Bosnia, though later it was suppressed by persecution, which is why when the Turks occupied Bosnia, many Bosnians, dissatisfied with Christianity, switched to the Muslim religion, so now about 40% of Bosnia is Muslim, it is the largest faith in Bosnia, larger even than the Serbian Orthodox church. With such religious divisions, a few years ago there was a civil war in Bosnia, with Serbia and Croatia also interfering and sending fighters there. It was tragic there. And even now, with the war over, there is still a lot of suspicion and even hate among members of the 3 main faiths there. Really sad. When I had visited Bosnia in the '80s, when it was still part of Yugoslavia, there were no signs that there was going to be a civil war later. The capital, Sarajevo, was preparing for the Winter Olympic games. Everything was peaceful. Yugoslavia was still ruled by the Communists, so it was a dictatorship, but things were peaceful, Yugoslavia was independent, not part of the Soviet block, so it tried to be friendly to all countries. So sad that the breakup of Yugoslavia was so violent. Very different from the situation in my native Czechoslovakia, where the Czech Republic and Slovakia peacefully separated, by an agreement, and they have stayed very friendly to each other. In opinion surveys, the Czechs felt usually that the Slovaks are the nationality most friendly to the Czechs. But most Czechs express hostility to the Gypsies and to the Muslims, which is sad. We should all love each other. Jesus told us to love even our enemies. But then most Czechs are no longer Christian. But even many Christian Czechs are hostile to Gypsies and to Muslims. It is sad.
| || |