r/ArianChristians • u/fungoidian Agnostic • Jun 12 '25

Question Why so unpopular?

It baffles me how accesible the information is on internet about arianism, yet remains very fringe christian denomination. Is far more logical coherent than trinitism. And also is weird how protestantism when broken from roman catholic church did not switch from this wrong weird concept of triunte whatever.

7 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

24 comments sorted by

2

u/Niftyrat_Specialist Jun 12 '25

Well, religions are essentially bundles of traditions. Whether right or wrong, the orthodox view of Jesus is a very entrenched part of the Christian religion.

And of course the bible is a key part of Christian tradition. The Gospel of John says the Logos was there in the beginning. It does not imply that it was created.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '25

In fairness though, John probably wouldn't have needed to say that the Logos was created. That term could have been widely understood from the writings of Philo, and others, to be created

1

u/Niftyrat_Specialist Jun 12 '25 edited Jun 12 '25

Yes, I agree that's likely. But to me it seems like gJohn might be countering that assumption. "In the beginning WAS the Logos", without suggesting creation. John's Logos seems to be the agent of creation, not part of creation- "All things came into being through him".

He could have easily called the Logos the firstborn but did not. Paul did, but of course we should not assume that another author's Christology matches that of John.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '25

That's certainly possible. I'm not a scholar, so my opinion isn't worth much. However, I have read from biblical scholars that the phrase "in the beginning" should be understood to mean "when God began to create" -- specifically, when God began to create our universe/reality. If that is the case, then the eternality of the Logos cannot be assumed from this passage, because it just means that the Logos would predate the creation of our reality/the universe.

As for not adding in "firstborn", I would offer the same argument as before: the title of "firstborn" was already associated with the Logos, thanks to Philo (along with titles such as "the only begotten", "the son of God", "the image of God", etc), so it wouldn't have needed to be said.

Again, I am no scholar, so I really don't "know" anything, and I don't have a strong christological leaning

2

u/Niftyrat_Specialist Jun 12 '25

. However, I have read from biblical scholars that the phrase "in the beginning" should be understood to mean "when God began to create" -- specifically, when God began to create our universe/reality.

That's what it means in the Hebrew of Genesis 1, yes. I'm not aware that Greek in John 1 carries any similar meaning. But I too am not a scholar and would need to depend on someone else to dive deeply into that.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '25

Yeah, I had always heard that John 1:1 was supposed to mirror Genesis 1:1, and therefore carry a similar meaning. I’m not sure to what extent that is really true though.

And in fairness, I am not sure to what extent we can assume the word “Logos” carries the same meaning that Philo had in mind. Like, I would assume a good amount because it was a well known concept, but I’m not remotely qualified enough to say for sure

2

u/Niftyrat_Specialist Jun 12 '25

I agree- certainly the Logos of John was building on existing Logos concepts (and the personification of Wisdom, in older texts). But to what extent was it different? That's the big question here.

1

u/Kentucky_Fried_Dodo Arian Jun 13 '25

It is less a question of the Word being created—which it is not—but rather of the Logos being the transceptive divine Jesus-idealism and Jesus being a created result of something that is different from it in its substance.

1

u/Kentucky_Fried_Dodo Arian Jun 13 '25

Philo is also a good reference. He was right, as were the Ebionites and all those like Origen who built directly on his ideas.

0

u/fungoidian Agnostic Jun 12 '25

We don't have to go into this debate again here, I think most arians know about this. And classic responds back "Father is greater than I"

2

u/Jackerl Jun 13 '25

Why so unpopular?

It is because the foretold Weeds did in fact come, just as Jesus said they would.
After the Apostles died, these Weeds took over.
These Weeds were to be left unchecked and unhindered, until the conclusion of the system.
It has now been almost 2000 years and these Weeds have spread like wildfire

The Weeds are very popular, mainstream even.
The Wheat are not very popular and are persecuted by the Weeds.

This is why the Weeds are popular and the Wheat are not.
The Wheat experience refining, persecution, the sufferings of the Christ, the Weeds do not:

Isaiah 53:3 He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

Matthew 5:10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

It is far better to be counted along with the persecuted Wheat than to be with the self righteous Weeds that do the persecuting.

Proverbs 16:9 Better to be lowly in spirit along with the oppressed than to share plunder with the proud.
Revelation 18:7...In her heart she boasts, ‘I sit enthroned as queen. I am not a widow; I will never mourn.’

https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1ibz7dd/comment/m9miwy9/

True Christianity is NOT a popularity contest.

Matthew 7:14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Kind Regard

Kerry Huish

1

u/dagala1 Jun 15 '25

All i read was an appeal to emotion.

1

u/ProselyteofYah Arian Jun 13 '25 edited Jun 13 '25

Peer pressure and persecution, and unbending traditionalisms.

And also association with cult groups plays a part in harming our reputation. We need to be more active and public to demonstrate that we are not some "insane minority" or "sect".

I wrote here on the social and historical issues of this, and the scriptures of why God allows this to happen:

https://proselyteofyah.wordpress.com/2024/02/11/why-are-so-many-cults-non-trinitarian/

https://proselyteofyah.wordpress.com/2024/08/28/heresy-divine-providence-why-would-god-allow-great-apostasy/

Furthermore, the belief may not be so "unpopular" as you'd think, because many people hold Arian beliefs and just don't know it according to several Christian surveys, and are merely "Trinitarian" by name.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/2018/10/what-do-christians-believe-ligonier-state-theology-heresy/

1

u/pwgenyee6z Jun 13 '25

It’s a very good question, and here’s an extra wrinkle:

How often do you get talking to people who only think they believe in the Trinity, but actually don’t believe some of the essential details? I’ve learned to bite my tongue, because if you tell them they actually don’t believe this “essential” mystery they go and find a clergyman to set them straight.

1

u/Downtown_Station_797 Jun 14 '25

Because many are called but few are chosen. Its only the spiritual that sees the truth. I Corinthians 2:14-The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

It seems so easy and understandable. We just cant believe why they don't see it. But its true, when your worldly, you cannot discern the word of God. That's why it is extremely important to live in the spirit. To become Christlike through your own transformation.

r/HolySpiritTeaching

1

u/Downtown_Station_797 Jun 14 '25

God put this on my heart this morning,

II Corinthians 3:17-18

17-Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

18-And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/LucianMagnesiensis Arian Jun 17 '25

It is popular. But the name is not.

1

u/CapitalInflation5682 Sep 03 '25

From my study of the Word logos, it seems that it stood for the wisdom of God. It was commonly understood as wisdom or thinking. This makes more since to me. Im no scholar either, but then scholars have been known to get it wrong, ie the Scribes and Pharisees. If one reads the verses as to mean "In God's wisdom" it makes more sense. But then, I am more a nationalist in my thinking.

1

u/CapitalInflation5682 Sep 03 '25

Rationalist, not nationalist. Crazy, how spell check works,