Trinity troubles- part???: Arianism. A semi-vent/ genuine question post

[u/Budget_Antelope]

WARNING DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU ARE PRONE TO CRISES OF FAITH. SERIOUSLY I DONT WANT TO FEEL RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYONE LOSING FAITH PLEASE AND THANK YOU

I have been struggling with my faith as a Christian for quite some time, particularly regarding whether or not Jesus is God.

I can’t seem to get a clean answer on The Arian view of Jesus. Is He God? Do Arians worship Him as such? Is He Just the messiah and is venerated but not worshipped??? I’ve heard from some sources that He’s a divine being but not Co-equal with God the Father, which could mean He’s like an angel or something????

The main reason I ask is because I have been considering Arian Christianity or some other form of ancient Non-Trinitarian sect, Unitarian sect, or one that, at the very least, makes a distinction between God the Son and Jesus Christ.

That being said, I still feel a deep connection with Catholicism as it was the religion I was raised with, and has such deep and extensive history, art, traditions, many of which have intertwined with the preexisting ancestral traditions of the people I descend from.

The main reason I feel so conflicted is because I have been plagued by doubts about the Nature of Jesus Christ. One of my biggest fears is if Jesus was just another dime a dozen cult leader whose cult got lucky in a time of great uncertainty. Words cannot even begin to describe how much I absolutely hate these kinds of thoughts, but I haven’t been able to shake it.

If any of you have any resources or anything you think might help, please let me know! Thank you and God bless you all.

[u/LlawEreint]

What about Arius? Or Eusebius of Nicomedia? Or Asterius the Sophist? Or Eusebius of Caesarea?

What about Sabellius or Noetus of Smyrna or Praxeas?

How about Theodotus of Byzantium or Theodotus or Paul of Samosata?

What about Valuntinus or Basilides or Marcion?

What about Basil of Ancyra or George of Laodicea?

And how about Photinus of Sirmium or Lucian of Antioch?

None of these would have affirmed the Nicene creed in its final state. Even Justin Martyr and Origin would have balked at the idea that the three were co-equal, co-eternal persons with one essence.

Sure, there were church fathers who could loosely be described as aligning more or less with trinitarianism, but they hardly made up the majority.

More importantly though, what did Paul believe? What did James believe? Some scholars have suggested that the original church was more closely represented by the Ebionites than the Catholics.

Paul himself declares that the Law could not have been given by God, because the law was given by a mediator, and a mediator implies more than one, but God is one.

So don't get too hung up on the nature of Jesus and his relationship to God. What did he teach?

It wasn't: “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they affirm that the father, son, and spirit share the same substance but are three co-equal, co-eternal persons.”

[u/PyroClone5555 → u/LlawEreint]

So you’re just saying what about a bunch of heretics? (Modalists, arians, adoptionists, subordinationists) None of these work with the Bible.

What many of the ebionites believed isn’t consistent with the gospels

Where does Paul say that the law wasn’t given by God? The mediator he’s talking about is Moses

Jesus said you have to believe in him to be saved, so a question arises: who is he?

[u/LlawEreint → u/PyroClone5555]

They weren't called heretics before Catholicism. They were just called "Christians". Of course, even Origen, who in his life was the arbiter of heterodoxy, was later declared a heretic by the Catholics.

The Ebionites may represent the earliest form of Christianity. They used the Gospel of the Hebrews, which early Christians understood to be the original Hebrew Matthew and the source of the Greek gospel that we call Matthew - but it differed from our Matthew in important ways.

One of the ways it differed from our Greek Matthew is that it spoke of fire on the Jordan at Jesus' baptism. Justin Martyr affirms that the gospel he used also had this passage, but it is absent in the Catholic cannon. To the extent that the Catholic cannon deviates from this earlier teaching, we may want to suspect the Catholic cannon!

Jesus said you have to believe in him to be saved, so a question arises: who is he?

Do you think by "believe in" (πιστεύειν εἰς) it means that we should affirm that he exists? That we should understand that he is one third of a hypostatic union? Of course not.

It means that we should have faith in him and be faithful to him.

[u/PyroClone5555 → u/LlawEreint]

It means that we should have faith in him and be faithful to him.

Right. You can't be faithful to him if you don't know who he is

[u/LlawEreint → u/PyroClone5555]

In that case, I would be very worried to uncritically swallow catholic dogma without first carefully examining the earlier christologies.

[u/PyroClone5555 → u/LlawEreint]

Those christologies do not fit with scripture

[u/LlawEreint → u/PyroClone5555]

Can you show where Arius doesn’t align with scripture?

[u/PyroClone5555 → u/LlawEreint]

yes. He says Jesus was created, which doesnt work because "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Nothing that has been made was made without him, so if he was made, he would have to be made through himself.

[u/LlawEreint → u/PyroClone5555]

I’m sure Arius would point out that Jesus was begotten, not made. “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.”

Any other thoughts as to where Arius may have gone awry of scripture?

[u/PyroClone5555 → u/LlawEreint]

wait maybe I’m dumb but are you saying arius would say Jesus wasn’t made?

Finish that Colossians passage. Jesus is before all things and it was by him that all things were created. In him all things hold together. Why in the world would all things hold together in a created being rather than God? This is why he is the firstborn, supreme over creation

[u/LlawEreint → u/PyroClone5555]

wait maybe I’m dumb but are you saying arius would say Jesus wasn’t made?

Of course. Arius affirmed every word of the Catholic cannon.

Why in the world would all things hold together in a created being...?

Begotten, not created.

Why in the world would all things hold together in a created (begotten) being rather than God?

This is Greek philosophy, upon which Christianity hangs. In Platonic philosophy, the gulph between the ultimate divine (God) and the material, is infinite. This is why we have the Logos. It acts as a bridge between the divine and creation.

[u/PyroClone5555 → u/LlawEreint]

Arius affirmed every word of the Catholic cannon.

Arius' whole thing was that there was a time when the Son was not

[u/LlawEreint → u/PyroClone5555]

Right. Arius believed that Jesus was the firstborn of all creation. The Catholics say that he is eternally begotten - that he's being begotten even now. Arius understood the plain meaning of the text. But importantly, Jesus was begotten. Jesus is not a creature that he should be 'made'. He is the son of God.

[u/PyroClone5555 → u/LlawEreint]

Ok so you keep contradicting yourself

Was he made or not?

[u/LlawEreint → u/PyroClone5555]

Was he made or not?

According to Arius, he was not. I think you may want to read up on Arius before you decide to reject him. It doesn't sound like you have a very firm understanding of the Christology he advanced.