Re: Another heresy

From: Janice Matchett <>
Date: Mon Dec 12 2005 - 09:45:56 EST

At 07:49 AM 12/12/2005, George Murphy wrote:

"I wouldn't have replied to Vernon's post itself
but your long citation of Athanasius went well
beyond "robust argument" about the theological
issues in dispute & descended to just the type of
personal attack I referred to. All quite sequitur. ..." ~ Shalom George

### You just proved my point!! My "citation
of Athanasius" had nothing to do with
"theological issues in dispute". (I was not
commenting on his UNorthodox numerology ideas, which I in no way agree with).

My post was clear (see below) - I was only
commenting on Vernon's complaint about being
perceived on this board as being uncivil,
impertinent, and malicious, and merely made the
point that even Athanasius' words would be
perceived that way by some on this list.

Athanasius isn't the only one whose personal
choice of words would be unacceptable to leftist
fascists who would try to silence him - many of
them are even trying to get "the Word of God", itself banned as "hate speech".

~ Janice

>----- Original Message -----
>From: <>Janice Matchett
>To: <>George Murphy ;
><>Vernon Jenkins
> ; <>Carol or John Burgeson
>Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 10:34 PM
>Subject: Re: Another heresy
>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

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. ~ Shalom

### 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"? ~ Janice

>----- Original Message -----
>From: <>Janice Matchett
>To: <>Vernon
>Jenkins ;
> ; <>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 Mon Dec 12 09:48:10 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 12 2005 - 09:48:11 EST