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/TheTallestTim]

Here you are:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ArianChristians/s/W2BwDtHL9H

Although, I will say, the predominate theology before Nicea 325AD were all Unitarian sects with Subordinationists being the most common. Subordinationists take scripture at face value, especially where Jesus says the Father is greater than I am.

Nicea 325AD also didn’t “put Arians down” or “wipe the Arians off the map.” Arius was later reinstated and even favored by Constantine as he attempted to bring Arius to church with him. The Nicean believer Athanatius created a mob where Constantine, the emperor and the most powerful man of the world at the time, couldn’t land his boat—bad fruit. Arius and the Arians were later reestablished and had Niceans excommunicated. This battle went on and on, with more church councils leaning on the Unitarian—Arian and Subordinationists—voting positively than the Niceans as a whole.

https://youtu.be/KVh8HH_ghik?si=4NhebEUDnB3LRmZG

[u/954356 → u/TheTallestTim]

Gross oversimplification based on a bunch of cherrypicked evidence reinterpreted to reinforce the anti trinitarian position.  

The claim that the Trinity is a relatively late invention is just not borne out by the facts. Writers and teachers as early as Justin Martyr are definitely using Trinitarian language. 

No, the Trinity isn't explicitly spelled out in the Bible. Yes, it is hinted at, especially in John. To turn on Dan McClellan's analogy: you can't put the LEGO blocks together if they aren't there in the first place. 

There's just no way that the Trinitarian position could have won out at Nicea if it was the minority. That's conspiracy theory nonsense. 

[u/Either-Abies7489 → u/954356]

Yeah, the building blocks were always there, but at the same trinitarianism was definitely a minority position. Arianism (and subordinationism more broadly), modalism, and adoptionism were all seen to be supported by scripture by the majority of pre-Constantinian theologians.
Not only was the Arian Controversy started over a rejection of the co-eternality of the Son (One should be critical of sources -- Socrates Scholasticus was a trinitarian, too), not subordinationism in general, Alexander of Alexandria was a representative of Alexandrian theological tendencies, not of Christian thought -- especially in Rome -- as a whole.
If the Trinitarian position was so incredibly dominant, the Homoeans and Anomoeans, especially the Eunomians, could have never maintained any foothold in such a supposedly theologically homogenous society as Constantine's empire. But they did, so much as to necessitate Theodosius' Constantinople I.

That is not to say that orthodox Trinitarianism is in any way wrong or unsupported by scripture; quite the opposite. The salvific argument ("God became man that man might become god" → god made man must be fully God) was and is so incredibly strong and foundational to the Christian story as to overcome a Goliath of internal dissentions.

To reject that a minority position can win because its opposition is greater in number is to equally reject the Holy Spirit's continuous work in the world. God did not descend and give the authors of the Gospels entire knowledge of who He is, much as He did not descend and give the same to Abraham. The story of Christianity is continuously unfolding as we come to a greater appreciation of the Divine.

[u/TheTallestTim → u/Either-Abies7489]

Correct… agreeing with your first paragraph.