I really do not want this to become one of those “religious political” blogs, where i sling mud at the right or left. Ill sling it wherever it needs to be slung. So I don’t want this post to be critical of Mr. (Rev.?) Grabiec’s person, or even his logic.
In his article “Time for a Christian Truce”, Mr. (Rev.?) Grabiec states that we can never truely know anything about our faith, and that it is time for Christians to settle their differences and preach the gospel. I could not agree more with him on this point. In specific he referenced the dispute between the Anglican Church in Canada and the Anglican Network in Canada. Indeed I would love it if Anglicans, or Christians for that matter, would stop warring over minute things and propagated the gospel. But I do have a problem with his thinking, and it is a very common train of thought, and it can have very real effects on the message that we preach.
In the article, Grabiec uses the example of the Arius controversy in the 300’s. Arius argued that Christ was a created being that God the Father gave some sort of divinity. This was condemned as heresy, and rejected. Grabiec seems to say that such beliefs are secondary to the bigger message of God.
I disagree. I think that if we are going to preach the Gospel, we should be fairly clear about what we believe, and make sure that it makes sense.
Arius’ argument didn’t check with the facts. There are two ways that Christ could have been a created being (please tell me if there are others). Way 1: He was a normal human whom God enabled to be sinless and amazingly wise, possessing healing powers. Way 2: He was below God, but above humanity, a sort of Angle or super angel. Each sounds plausible, but each makes it impossible for salvation to work.
We are told that the wages of sin is death, and the only way to atone for sin is through a Human sacrifice. If this is the case, than a Divine-Human Christ’s death would have atoned for the sins of one man. (I swore earlier tonight, sorry guys). A super-human being Christ would have saved no one but himself, because it is clear that what is to be saved, must be assumed. Thats why it must be a human sacrifice, nothing else would have legitimately worked.
This is why Arianism was rejected, it did not fit the understanding of the faith. This is just a small example amongst the myriad of disputes. My point is that we as a Christian community do need to have some unity in the faith that we profess. Its a shame that so many disagreements have divided us so much. But If we say that “anything is possible, really don’t know” to everything, we won’t have much of a faith to profess.
And That would be a larger shame unto itself
+Alex Resurgent
Eighth Sunday After Pentecost
