Clarifying Christianity 1: Was Arius a trinitarian?

[Thomas]

Short answer: Yes.

The problem today is that we have rather erroneously ended up in a position where people talk about 'Arian v Trinitarian' or 'Arian v Orthodoxy' whereas, in reality, that's a misnomer in both cases.

In the early era, there was no 'orthodoxy' as such. There was a broad range of belief, and a common concept was that the Son of God was God, but nevertheless subordinate to God the Father and thus in some unspecified manner distinct from Him. The same general rule applied the the Holy Spirit. This did not prevent the belief in the three: Father, Son and Holy Spirit as the means of Christian salvation, and baptism in the name of all three was the norm before the close of the first century.

Thus there was what was later defined and rejected as 'subordinationism', and likewise a similar erroneous doctrine of 'monarchianism' – both of these arose from the desire to assert the Father as first and foremost. Quite how the Son and Holy Spirit related to the Father was a subsequent matter.

+++

Arius believed the Son was a created being, before the world and before time, but not eternal, as was the Father. The Son is divine, but his divinity is not equal to the Father in that the Son is a created divine nature, whereas the father is of an uncreated divine nature.

The Holy Spirit likewise is created by the Father.

+++

To simplify, I'd say there emerged two opposing views.

One was a vertical divine hierarchy, in which the three persons are different and not equal.
The other a horizontal divine hierarchy, in which the three persons are of the same divine substance, equal and eternally so.

A common element of the vertical hierarchy is the idea of 'adoptionism'; that Jesus was born human but became divine (by adoption) at his baptism, in some cases that the human soul of Jesus was replaced by the Divine 'Logos' of God.

+++

Before Arius was Paul of Samosata (200-275) and Lucian of Antioch (240-312) who held what would later be 'non-orthodox views, however Lucian is regarded as a saint and martyr by both Eastern and Western Churches.

Arius, and following after him the 'semi-Arians' belong to the vertical trinity camp.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Short answer: Yes.

The problem today is that we have rather erroneously ended up in a position where people talk about 'Arian v Trinitarian' or 'Arian v Orthodoxy' whereas, in reality, that's a misnomer in both cases.

In the early era, there was no 'orthodoxy' as such. There was a broad range of belief, and a common concept was that the Son of God was God, but nevertheless subordinate to God the Father and thus in some unspecified manner distinct from Him. The same general rule applied the the Holy Spirit. This did not prevent the belief in the three: Father, Son and Holy Spirit as the means of Christian salvation, and baptism in the name of all three was the norm before the close of the first century.

Thus there was what was later defined and rejected as 'subordinationism', and likewise a similar erroneous doctrine of 'monarchianism' – both of these arose from the desire to assert the Father as first and foremost. Quite how the Son and Holy Spirit related to the Father was a subsequent matter.

+++

Arius believed the Son was a created being, before the world and before time, but not eternal, as was the Father. The Son is divine, but his divinity is not equal to the Father in that the Son is a created divine nature, whereas the father is of an uncreated divine nature.

The Holy Spirit likewise is created by the Father.

+++

To simplify, I'd say there emerged two opposing views.

One was a vertical divine hierarchy, in which the three persons are different and not equal.
The other a horizontal divine hierarchy, in which the three persons are of the same divine substance, equal and eternally so.

A common element of the vertical hierarchy is the idea of 'adoptionism'; that Jesus was born human but became divine (by adoption) at his baptism, in some cases that the human soul of Jesus was replaced by the Divine 'Logos' of God.

+++

Before Arius was Paul of Samosata (200-275) and Lucian of Antioch (240-312) who held what would later be 'non-orthodox views, however Lucian is regarded as a saint and martyr by both Eastern and Western Churches.

Arius, and following after him the 'semi-Arians' belong to the vertical trinity camp.

Vertical trinity - I don't think I've heard it stated that way.
Why exactly was a vertical trinity unacceptable?
(I say that having read but never understanding why any of the alternative positions other than proto-orthodoxy were perceived as "wrong")

 

[Thomas]

Vertical trinity - I don't think I've heard it stated that way.

No, it's my own interpretation.

Why exactly was a vertical trinity unacceptable?

So what I have termed a 'vertical trinity' believed that the Son was subordinate to the Father, being of a different nature to the Father – notably Arius' view (one among many), that the Son was a divine-created nature, whereas the Father is a divine-uncreated nature – a different thing altogether.

A counter view is that in a human parent-child relationship, although there is a parent-child 'hierarchy', nevertheless both parties are human, and share one and the same nature without qualification or distinction – the child is a different person to the parent, but both are human.

The belief being you can't have a 'qualified divine nature' – one is either divine or not, there's no greater and lesser – so a hierarchy of essence/substance which assumes a different essence/substance/nature is an error.

 

[TheLightWithin]

No, it's my own interpretation.


So what I have termed a 'vertical trinity' believed that the Son was subordinate to the Father, being of a different nature to the Father – notably Arius' view (one among many), that the Son was a divine-created nature, whereas the Father is a divine-uncreated nature – a different thing altogether.

A counter view is that in a human parent-child relationship, although there is a parent-child 'hierarchy', nevertheless both parties are human, and share one and the same nature without qualification or distinction – the child is a different person to the parent, but both are human.

The belief being you can't have a 'qualified divine nature' – one is either divine or not, there's no greater and lesser – so a hierarchy of essence/substance which assumes a different essence/substance/nature is an error.

I wonder why they thought that though? Wasn't there a Divine Counsel, Sons of God, maybe even what they used to refer to as "a second power in Heaven" or something? Or even the way some seem to see angels... why CANT there be a qualified divine nature? What is it about it that was thought to be so problematic that the idea could not be tolerated?

 

[spiritualbee]

Short answer: Yes.

The problem today is that we have rather erroneously ended up in a position where people talk about 'Arian v Trinitarian' or 'Arian v Orthodoxy' whereas, in reality, that's a misnomer in both cases.

In the early era, there was no 'orthodoxy' as such. There was a broad range of belief, and a common concept was that the Son of God was God, but nevertheless subordinate to God the Father and thus in some unspecified manner distinct from Him. The same general rule applied the the Holy Spirit. This did not prevent the belief in the three: Father, Son and Holy Spirit as the means of Christian salvation, and baptism in the name of all three was the norm before the close of the first century.

Thus there was what was later defined and rejected as 'subordinationism', and likewise a similar erroneous doctrine of 'monarchianism' – both of these arose from the desire to assert the Father as first and foremost. Quite how the Son and Holy Spirit related to the Father was a subsequent matter.

+++

Arius believed the Son was a created being, before the world and before time, but not eternal, as was the Father. The Son is divine, but his divinity is not equal to the Father in that the Son is a created divine nature, whereas the father is of an uncreated divine nature.

The Holy Spirit likewise is created by the Father.

+++

To simplify, I'd say there emerged two opposing views.

One was a vertical divine hierarchy, in which the three persons are different and not equal.
The other a horizontal divine hierarchy, in which the three persons are of the same divine substance, equal and eternally so.

A common element of the vertical hierarchy is the idea of 'adoptionism'; that Jesus was born human but became divine (by adoption) at his baptism, in some cases that the human soul of Jesus was replaced by the Divine 'Logos' of God.

+++

Before Arius was Paul of Samosata (200-275) and Lucian of Antioch (240-312) who held what would later be 'non-orthodox views, however Lucian is regarded as a saint and martyr by both Eastern and Western Churches.

Arius, and following after him the 'semi-Arians' belong to the vertical trinity camp.

you studiet Arius? Great. I follow you to learn more about it. Thanks for sharing this.

 

[spiritualbee]

Short answer: Yes.

The problem today is that we have rather erroneously ended up in a position where people talk about 'Arian v Trinitarian' or 'Arian v Orthodoxy' whereas, in reality, that's a misnomer in both cases.

In the early era, there was no 'orthodoxy' as such. There was a broad range of belief, and a common concept was that the Son of God was God, but nevertheless subordinate to God the Father and thus in some unspecified manner distinct from Him. The same general rule applied the the Holy Spirit. This did not prevent the belief in the three: Father, Son and Holy Spirit as the means of Christian salvation, and baptism in the name of all three was the norm before the close of the first century.

Thus there was what was later defined and rejected as 'subordinationism', and likewise a similar erroneous doctrine of 'monarchianism' – both of these arose from the desire to assert the Father as first and foremost. Quite how the Son and Holy Spirit related to the Father was a subsequent matter.

+++

Arius believed the Son was a created being, before the world and before time, but not eternal, as was the Father. The Son is divine, but his divinity is not equal to the Father in that the Son is a created divine nature, whereas the father is of an uncreated divine nature.

The Holy Spirit likewise is created by the Father.

+++

To simplify, I'd say there emerged two opposing views.

One was a vertical divine hierarchy, in which the three persons are different and not equal.
The other a horizontal divine hierarchy, in which the three persons are of the same divine substance, equal and eternally so.

A common element of the vertical hierarchy is the idea of 'adoptionism'; that Jesus was born human but became divine (by adoption) at his baptism, in some cases that the human soul of Jesus was replaced by the Divine 'Logos' of God.

+++

Before Arius was Paul of Samosata (200-275) and Lucian of Antioch (240-312) who held what would later be 'non-orthodox views, however Lucian is regarded as a saint and martyr by both Eastern and Western Churches.

Arius, and following after him the 'semi-Arians' belong to the vertical trinity camp.

I studiet herbs. One thing I never regret. That way I rote the whole bible. And it taught me eventually that three was the most significant number. To cure and to heal. In all.

 

[Thomas]

I wonder why they thought that though ... why CANT there be a qualified divine nature? What is it about it that was thought to be so problematic that the idea could not be tolerated?

It goes back to the Judaic concept of One God, and the philosophical concept of the One.

The Jews were basically One God and that's it ... end of discussion.

And they regarded 'the divine' as God, and you can no more be a little bit divine than one can be a little bit pregnant, to use the old saw. They attributed certain qualities to Divinity that ruled out multiplicity.

There were those who wanted to view the God of the Hebrew Scriptures as other than the God of Jesus, whereas there were strong views that the God of Jesus and Moses and Abraham was the same God.

If you take the ontological terms – the Absolute, the Infinite, and so on, there can only be one. You can't have two absolutes.

So for them it's how one thought about God. Monotheism, inherited from the Jews, had one God, and certainly intermediate beings, angels, but they are not divine in the sense of uncreated.

If you allow 'qualified divine' then you're into gods and demigods and the old polytheisms.

And the Scriptures are basically One God the Father.