Re: Another heresy

From: Janice Matchett <>
Date: Sun Dec 11 2005 - 22:34:32 EST

At 08:26 PM 12/10/2005, George Murphy wrote:

>How does that affect the point that I made? (&
>in case you want more support for that point, Mt 5:44 should do.)

Vernon wrote: "..robust argument should not be
interpreted as incivility, impertinence or
personal malice. ASA, surely, is a forum for
grown-ups - and one in which plain speaking is encouraged..."

I responded: "Picture this: What if Athanasius
was on this list. No doubt even he would be
called, "unChristian" and offensive to some here: ..." [snipped examples]

You tried to change the subject with your
non sequitur "point", that's why I brought you back to it. :)

~ Janice

>----- Original Message -----
>From: <>Janice Matchett
>To: <>George Murphy ;
><>Vernon Jenkins
> ; <>Carol or John Burgeson
>Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 6:43 PM
>Subject: Re: Another heresy
>At 06:15 PM 12/10/2005, George Murphy wrote:
>>Yes, & you can find similar language from many
>>of the great theologians (as well as many not
>>so great) down through history. As one of my
>>seminary profs pointed out, many theologians
>>seem to have thought that the 8th Commandment
>>(9th for most Protestants) doesn't apply to
>>theological debate. It does. & that
>>commandment does not just forbid lying in the
>>elementary sense but also requires us to "put
>>the best construction on everything," as Luther
>>put it in the Small Catechism. (Unfortunately
>>Luther himself didn't always observe this in
>>theological polemic.) Theological error should
>>be called what it is (& of course on the issues
>>in question Athanasius was right & Arius
>>wrong), but that is no excuse for personal
>>ridicule, namecalling, attribution of the worst
>>motives possible, &c. Insinuations that a
>>person's Christian faith is defective or
>>lacking because he or she doesn't agree with
>>one on a peripheral religious matter is also included here.
>### So what if I wrote: "..[so and so on this
>list] has copied the weak and effeminate
>character of [so and so], writing..." :)
>How many do you know in today's feminized,
>politically correct, victimology-oriented
>society, who wouldn't call it "hate speech"?
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: <>Janice Matchett
>>To: <>Vernon
>>Jenkins ;
>>u ; <>Carol or John Burgeson
>>Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 5:50 PM
>>Subject: Re: Another heresy
>>At 05:13 PM 12/10/2005, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>>>robust argument should not be interpreted as
>>>incivility, impertinence or personal
>>>malice. ASA, surely, is a forum for grown-ups
>>>- and one in which plain speaking is encouraged.
>>Picture this: What if Athanasius was on this
>>list. No doubt even he would be called,
>>"unChristian" and offensive to some here:
>>"Arius himself has copied the weak and
>>effeminate character of Sotades, writing the
>>'Thalia'. He has emulated the dancing of
>>Herodias, dancing about and jesting in his
>>slanders against the Savior. The result is that
>>those who fall into heresy are perverted in
>>mind, act foolishly, and exchange the name of
>>the Lord of glory for 'the likeness of the
>>image of mortal man'. Thus, instead of
>>Christians they are called Arians and have this mark of impiety. (Ag. Ar. 1:2)
>>"How can non-Christians be Christians? Rather,
>>they are Ario-maniacs! How are those who have
>>shaken of the apostolic faith part of the
>>Catholic Church? They are inventors of new
>>evils; they have abandoned the words of Holy
>>Scripture, calling Arius's 'Thalia' a new
>>wisdom. They state this in fairness, for they
>>are announcing a new heresy. Therefore anyone
>>may have cause to wonder that although many
>>individuals have written many works and the
>>greatest number of homilies on the Old and New
>>Testaments, a 'Thalia' is discovered in none of
>>them. It is found not among the serious Greeks
>>but only among those who sing such things with
>>their drink, clapping and joking so that others
>>may laugh. The 'marvelous' Arius copied nothing
>>stately, not knowing the things of serious
>>individuals. He stole the greatest number of
>>things from other heresies and emulated the
>>jests of Sotades alone. What was more fitting
>>for him to do, wishing to dance against the
>>Savior, than indicate in loose and dissolute
>>songs his wretched words of impiety? As Wisdom
>>says, 'A man is known from the utterance of his
>>word.' Thus from Arius's words the unmanly
>>character of his soul and the perdition of his
>>thought should be known. (Ag. Ar. 1:4)
>>"But after this, as a successor of the devil's
>>reckless haste, Arius wrote in his 'Thalia',
>>"The Father is invisible even to the Son, and
>>the Word is able neither to see nor to know
>>perfectly and accurately his Father." … These
>>are the words this impious fellow spoke. He
>>said that the Son is distinct in himself and
>>that in all respects he does not share in the
>>Father. These are parts of the fables Arius
>>written down in a laughable document. (Ag. Ar. 1:6)
>>"Who, hearing such things and the melody of the
>>'Thalia', does not justly hate Arius's jesting
>>about such things as if he were on a stage? …
>>And who, reading his words one after another,
>>does not see his impiety as the serpent's error
>>into which that clever snake misled the woman?
>>Who is not astonished at such blasphemies? As
>>the prophet said, 'heaven was astounded, and
>>the earth shuddered at the transgression of the
>>law.' … Will not all human nature be struck
>>speechless at Arius's blasphemies and shut its
>>ears and close its eyes, so that it would be
>>able neither to hear such things nor to see him
>>who wrote these things? (Ag. Ar. 1:7)
>>"… is it not worthy to obliterate and expunge
>>both the other words and the Arian 'Thalia' as
>>an image of evil, filled with every impiety in
>>which anyone falling 'does not know that giants
>>perish with her and assemble at the trap of
>>hell'? … They profess the patronage of friends
>>and the fear of Constantius, so that those who
>>join them through hypocrisy and promise will
>>not see the filth of the heresy. Is not this
>>heresy worthy of hate for this very reason? (Ag. Ar. 1:10)
>>"It is necessary that the nature of the image
>>be of such a kind, such as is its Father, even
>>if the Arians, being blind, would see neither
>>the image nor anything else … Deprived of the
>>thoughts of their hearts, rather than of their
>>derangements, they take refuge again and again
>>in the literal sense of the Holy Scriptures,
>>but they fail, in their usual way, to understand even that." (Ag. Ar. 1:52)
>>"If a decision was made by the bishops, what
>>concern had the emperor with it? Or if it was
>>but a threat of the emperor, what need then was
>>there of the designated bishops? When in the
>>world was such a thing ever before heard of?
>>When did a decision of the Church receive its
>>authority from the emperor? Or rather, when was
>>his decree even recognized? (The Monks History of Arian Impiety, 52)
>>"What hell has vomited the statement that the
>>Body born of Mary is coessential with the
>>Godhead of the Word?, or that the Word has been
>>changed into flesh, bones, hair, and the whole
>>body, and altered from its own nature? Or who
>>ever heard in a Church, or even from
>>Christians, that the Lord wore a body
>>putatively, not in nature; or who ever went so
>>far in impiety as to say and hold, that this
>>Godhead, which is coessential with the Father,
>>was circumcised and became imperfect instead of
>>perfect; and that what hung upon the tree was
>>not the body, but the very creative Essence and
>>Wisdom? Or who that hears that the Word
>>transformed himself a passible body, not of
>>Mary, but of his own essence, could call him
>>who said this a Christian? Or who devised this
>>abominable impiety, for it to enter even his
>>imagination, and for him to say that to
>>pronounce the Lord's body to be of Mary is to
>>hold a tetrad instead of a Triad in the
>>Godhead?-those who think thus, saying that the
>>body of the Savior which he put on from Mary,
>>is of the essence of the Triad. Or whence again
>>have certain vomited an impiety as great as
>>those already mentioned, saying, namely, that
>>the body is not newer than the Godhead of the
>>Word, but was coeternal with it always, since
>>it was compounded of the essence of Wisdom? Or
>>how did men called Christians venture even to
>>doubt whether the Lord, who proceeded from
>>Mary, while Son of God in essence and nature,
>>is of the seed of David according to the flesh,
>>and of the flesh of Saint Mary? (Epistle to Epictetus, 9)
>>~ Janice :)
Received on Sun Dec 11 22:38:56 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 11 2005 - 22:39:01 EST