“Show Me the Verse!” – Arian “Biblicism” and the Heretic Next Door

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, . . .

We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. and his kingdom will have no end.[1]

Christ will come, . . .  in the person of the Holy Spirit, not again in the flesh.^[2]

This year marks the 1700^th anniversary of the Nicene Creed.[3]  That creed addressed and affirmed Trinitarian orthodoxy[4] – and in doing so settled core matters relating to Christ:  His person and His nature, among other things.  And, in robustly defending Trinitarian Orthodoxy, this Creed faithfully set forth Scripture’s teaching – and thereby, the Church’s understanding – of Christian truth – truth for all peoples in all places at all times.  Truth to be affirmed often, if not daily.[5]  Albert Mohler recently commented about Nicaea’s import:

All this is importantly clarified in what’s called Nicene Orthodoxy, the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity within Christianity. And the Council of Nicaea, by the way, was 1,700 years ago this year. And it’s probably important that we do our best to say all of it all the time, or at least enough of it all the time. And I appreciate so much the fact that those Christians at Nicaea made very clear that the Son came, as the Nicene Creed says, “For us and for our salvation, he came down from heaven.”[6]

Denying this creed or any part of it places one objectively outside Christian orthodoxy.  Is Nicaea a dusty relic, a curio better left in a museum, or is it decidedly relevant today?  Let’s get to the gist.

Nicaea:  A Theological Smack Down

The controversy that led to the Nicene Creed was anything but a product of beard-stroking academic postulation.  Constantine directed the Church leaders to convene a council to engage with teachings that caused schism within the Christianity.  The source of those disputes – and in fact, the champion of those disputes – centered on a church leader, a Bishop named Arius.[7]

Arius’ motive was good:  He sought to preserve monotheism contra to modalism and the rank pagan polytheism that still lurked in culture and the church.  Arius’ method also seemed good:  he quoted and invoked Scripture profusely – he proof-texted nearly every major assertion he made.  However, he used Scripture to sustain his heretical message that because God is One, Jesus simply could not be God, but rather, was a created being upon whom the Spirit rested – the power of God, not the third member of the Trinity – thereby making Jesus, the created being, special.

These theological deliberations were not the abstract purview of “propeller heads.”[8] Rather, these debates erected great cleavage in the church.  The followers of Arius, known as Arians, especially on the northern African continent, zealously attacked those holding orthodox views.  In fact, Christians were banished, maimed, or even killed for holding and advocating the orthodox doctrinal formulations.[9]

God in His providence raised up a young deacon (later a bishop) named Athanasius to combat this diabolical heresy over the course of several decades.[10]  He had been banished five times during these disputes, yet his view ultimately prevailed as being faithful to Scripture’s witness.  Though he died in 373, the Council of Constantinople tightened the Nicene Creed’s language in 381 to finally eradicate Arianism as an orthodox option.  To affirm Arianism is to deny Christ and thereby to stand outside of the redemptive covenant.

While this story exhibits many fascinating facets, I want to focus on Arius’s profuse citation of Scripture – to support his heretical views.[11]  Why?  Because “Satan doesn’t serve spinach” – meaning that it’s far easier to dupe Christians by invoking the Bible.  Christians tend to let their guard down when heretics use “Jesus talk” and cite the Bible.[12]  And, when the heretical view is opposed, the advocate often defensively intones “I’m just asking questions.”  Then the real red flags begin to wave;  “Show me a verse; I’m not interested in the creeds.”[13]

The Anti-Nicene Pagans in the Pews

Sadly, this sort of anti-Creedal “Arian biblicism” has arisen in patches of Reformed and evangelical circles.  In particular, a heretical view known as “full preterism” holds – contrary to both Scripture and the Creeds – that Jesus’ Second Advent already occurred – that the blessed hope “appeared” and all the prophecies concerning it were fulfilled in conjunction with the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.  This is what’s been called the error of Hymenaeus.[14]  Paul spares no words in condemning this error:

But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some.[15]

Holding this error which jettisons Trinitarian orthodoxy leads to heretical Gnosticism.  Consider this recent example extolling full preterism.  Note particularly the attributes of Arian methodology used by these authors:  cite scripture, assert a portion of truth (The Incarnation is physical and material), then pivot to assert a heretical conclusion (the Second Advent is “spiritual” and not physical, bodily, nor material).  Concerning the Incarnation, the authors assert:

Christ’s incarnation, which was under the Old Covenant order [citation omitted] perfectly fit the bill for the nature of the Covenant order because Old covenant order was “natural” and “earthy” (made of dust).  It was physical.  It was material.  It was visible.  It was bodily.  Christ came in that form because He had to have a human body to be able to die to make atonement for sin [citations omitted].[16]

So far, so good.  However, note the Gnostic turn that quickly follows, which begins by casting doubt on historical, implicitly creedal, formulations:

But here is where it really gets serious.  With all due respect, I believe that the institutional Church had made a serious mistake by teaching that the parousia of Christ is going to take place in His same physical/material, visible, and bodily form.  [Based on prior contentions], I am left to reply “No, it is not for the simple redemptive-historical and covenantal reason that the parousia, unlike Christ’s incarnation does not belong to the Old covenant order.  It belongs to New Covenant order![”]  The nature of the New Covenant order is in, of, by, and through the Spirit.  Therefore, the form or manner of the Parousia (presence) of Christ will change with the transition of the covenantal orders.  Christ will come, just as He was careful to teach His disciples in John 14 and 16, in the person of the Holy Spirit, not again in the flesh.[17]

So, though Jesus became incarnate, lived, died, and resurrected bodily, and now bodily sits at the right hand of the Father, His return is – “pesto-change-o” – not bodily – that is, NOT “this Jesus” “in the same way”[18] – and equally erroneous, His Second Advent is  supposedly indistinguishable from the Spirit’s indwelling.[19]  This is pure Gnosticism.  And, this also means there will not no consummation, no final defeat of sin, disease, and death, no bodily resurrection, and no future Final Judgment.[20]  Make no mistake:  Christ’s bodily resurrection and our future bodily resurrection stand or fall together.[21]  Paul explains the actual glorious sequence of events:

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.[22] . . .

But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.[23] . . .

Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:

      “Death is swallowed up in victory.”

       “O death, where is your victory?

            O death, where is your sting?”[24]

Reject this and what currently exists here and now – and forever – is “Your best life now.”[25]  And, that’s it.  That’s pretty bleak.  Rejoicing in that construction, pretending it’s the promised “blessed hope”[26] and urging others to do so is “like trying to explain Norway to a dog.”[27]  It requires mental gymnastics, if not mental illness. 

How ought we to respond to these irreverent babblers of error?  Paul directs our way.  May we obey it fully without reserve, without retreat, and without regret:

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.[28]

Hold fast therefore to this proclamation:  Christ has died; Christ is risen; Christ will come again![29]

[1] https://www.anglicansonline.org/basics/nicene.html

[2] Kim Burgess with Gary DeMar,  The Hope of Israel and the Nations, Vol.2 (2024), 414.  Both authors are Reformed Theological Seminary graduates, and DeMar is a member of a PCA congregation.

[3] https://anglicancompass.com/a-new-creed-the-acnas-revised-translation-of-the-nicene-creed/

[4] Tragically, reliable recent surveys report that only 16% of self-identified Christians believe in the Trinity, that is, the true God disclosed in the bible – https://www.arizonachristian.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AWVI-2025_03_Most-Americans-Reject-the-Trinity_FINAL_03_26_2025.pdf

[5] Albert Mohler quipped that Nicene orthodoxy or at least key portions of its formula, should be repeated often, if not daily.  See note 6.

[6] https://albertmohler.com/2025/03/24/briefing-3-24-25/

[7] Ordination may not always insulate from error – pastors can be gravely mistaken.  The same holds true, even if someone was graduated from a “reformed” seminary.

[8]A “propeller head” is a slang term for a person lacking social skills whose focus rests on technical matters and jargon – a synonym would be “geek” or “nerd.” https://www.netlingo.com/word/propellerhead.php

[9] See, e.g., https://www.biblestudytools.com/history/foxs-book-of-martyrs/persecutions-under-the-arian-heretics.html

[10] For a brief and generally accurate overview of this controversy, see, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/who-was-athanasius-and-why-was-he-important/

[11] For some examples, consider, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/36586/what-scriptures-did-arius-use-to-support-teaching-that-jesus-was-created

[12] Note these current examples:  Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, to name some of the more prominent ones.

[13] This of course creates a false dichotomy – a Lone Ranger (even with Tonto) wielding a bible is not plausibly going to “find a verse” that contradicts 1700 years of settled Christian orthodoxy.  The Arian Jehovah Witnesses tried to “resurrect” Arianism in the 19^th Century, and while they have deluded many, their views have been properly rejected notwithstanding the textual alchemy they use with their rigged “New World Translation.”  See, e.g., https://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses/bad-translations-of-the-jehovahs-witness-bible-the-new-world-translation-nwt/

[14] See 1 Tim. 1:20 and 2 Tim. 2:17; and also, Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., A Brief Theological Analysis of Hyper-Preterism, https://reformed.org/eschatology/a-brief-theological-analysis-of-hyper-preterism-by-kenneth-l-gentry-jr/

[15] 2 Tim. 2:16-18

[16] Kim Burgess with Gary DeMar,  The Hope of Israel and the Nations, Vol.2 (2024), 414.  Both authors are Reformed Theological Seminary graduates, and DeMar is a member of a PCA congregation.

[17] Id.  This language is unmistakably heretical.  Now, if the authors object to this rather obvious conclusion, they can remedy the situation by truthfully answering these direct questions:  (1) Do you believe and profess that Christ’s Second Advent has already occurred?  (2) Do you believe and profess that Christ in His Second Advent – His Coming – returned bodily?  (3)  Do you believe and profess that at some future point the dead shall rise bodily?  Their statement here also smacks of modalism, the notion that God manifests Himself in different modalities, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – a direct denial of the Trinity.  See, e.g., https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2016/sabellianism/?srsltid=AfmBOoo72i47I8DnzCsjAlSCW6yaQjleM1oiHToCL8A2xpTCZLwrJlhQ. 

[18] Acts 1:11

[19] Note that in Acts, the disciples are told:  “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, [the bodily one who stood before you] who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him [bodily] go into heaven.” (Acts 1:11).  And, just to make this point clear, when the Spirit comes at Pentecost as recorded in the next chapter, none of the witnesses likened that event to Jesus’ second coming nor to the general resurrection.  (See, Acts 2, especially verse 30 in which the resurrection is a bodily one; and see John 5:28, 29 concerning the general resurrection and judgment at the consummation).

[20] Unless these concepts are radically redefined through a Gnostic lens, not unlike the 19^th Century heresies like New Thought, Science of Mind, Christian Science, Unity, Theosophy, et al – all of which (mis)used scripture and scriptural terms by subverting them to heretical ends.

[21] TxC scholar, Brian Mattson, make this terse point.

[22] 1 Cor. 15:12-19

[23] 1 Cor. 15:23-26

[24] 1Cor. 15:51-55.  For the full preterist there is no victory over death – disease, death, and suffering abide for all eternity.  Put differently, there is no Final Judgment nor any Consummation.  Or as the Nicene Creed puts it:  He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, . . . We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. and his kingdom will have no end. https://www.anglicansonline.org/basics/nicene.html. Full preterism denies this creed formulation in toto.

[25] To borrow a phrase from prosperity preacher Joel Osteen.

[26] Titus 2:13

[27] To borrow a phrase from Mick Herron’s salty spymaster Jackson Lamb.

[28] Romans 16:17,18

[29] Known as the “Mystery of Faith” – see, https://asburyseminary.edu/lyrics/anglican-liturgy/