Clarifying Christianity 2: Was Newton an Arian?

[Thomas]

Short answer: No.

Newton did not believe inn the Trinity at all.

He regarded the term 'God', as applied to the Son, as a moral identification – in effect Jesus was an exemplary human being, a superlative saint.

Newton did not believe Arius' theory that Jesus was a created divine nature before the world was made.

Newton's theology is closer to Deism than Christianity (from my brief dipping into scholars). And he's more accurately described as Socinian.

+++

That Newton was an outstanding scientist does not make him an outstanding theologian – he was a believer in Alchemy and magic – and certainly some of his speculations would be dismissed as nonsense today. That does not detract from his achgievements, but nor does it mean he's an indisputable or even a reliable source on religious interpretation.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Newton did not believe Arius' theory that Jesus was a created divine nature before the world was made.

..but "what Arius said" is not the sum total of being an Arian .. that seems to be the
stock defence..
i.e. quote "what Arius said", and ridicule it

That Newton was an outstanding scientist does not make him an outstanding theologian..

Nobody is saying it does .. but it does make him an intelligent human being.

– he was a believer in Alchemy and magic – and certainly some of his speculations would be dismissed as nonsense today..

Indeed .. he wasn't speaking for God, but for himself.

..nor does it mean he's an indisputable or even a reliable source on religious interpretation.

He lived in the 17th. century .. we have better access at home to religious literature than
he did at Cambridge University back then.

 

[Thomas]

..but "what Arius said" is not the sum total of being an Arian ...

My point is that Arius believed the Son was created before the world. Newton believed the Son was simply the child of Mary and Joseph – so Arius would refute Newton, and Newton refute Arius – so to call Newton an 'Arian' is wrong in that the theology of one is nowhere near the same as the other, except that they both disagree with the coequality and consubstantiality of the Son.

Simply, Newton's position refuted Arius' heterodox trinitarianism, as it did what became orthodox trinitarianism.

Many assume 'being an Arian' means anti-trinitarian, which is a common misunderstanding. Arius' theology was a particular Christological dispute, not a trinitarian dispute. The divinity of the Son was not disputed.

... that seems to be the stock defence.

No, it's rather the stock assumption that 'Arianism' is a catch-all for anti-Trinitarianism – it's not.

i.e. quote "what Arius said", and ridicule it

Who does that?

I don't. Rowan Williams doesn't. I've heard Arius defended by David Bentley Hart (who nevertheless disagrees with him) and he is by Rowan Williams, I think – it's just that his theology is unsound.

... but it does make him an intelligent human being.

Never questioned his intelligence.

Indeed .. he wasn't speaking for God, but for himself.

Yep. I try to look at his theology in context.

He lived in the 17th. century .. we have better access at home to religious literature than he did at Cambridge University back then.

Yep ...

 

[muhammad_isa]

My point is that Arius believed the Son was created before the world. Newton believed the Son was simply the child of Mary and Joseph – so Arius would refute Newton, and Newton refute Arius.. – so to call Newton an 'Arian' is wrong..

I don't agree .. "Arian" is a misnomer .. it's designed to have us all argue about "what Arius said".
We are all individuals, and are able to believe Jesus is God .. or not believe it.

Many assume 'being an Arian' means anti-trinitarian, which is a common misunderstanding. Arius' theology was a particular Christological dispute, not a trinitarian dispute. The divinity of the Son was not disputed.

If that is what you believe, and is the 'official position' with its supporting documents.

What does "Divinity of the Son" actually mean, in the context of Jesus not being God??

 

[Thomas]

I don't agree ...

Sorry ... with what don't you agree?

What does "Divinity of the Son" actually mean, in the context of Jesus not being God??

In what 'context', exactly? Can you give me context of 'divinity of the son' being used by someone who does not believe Jesus is God.

 

[Thomas]

If that is what you believe, and is the 'official position' with its supporting documents.

Well, if you've got any other documents, bring 'em on ... certainly there's a paucity of documents, but the idea that his detractors 'made up' his claims is a bit silly, as they'd be fact-checked on the spot by people who knew him and indeed defended him. So now you'd have to say the opponents of Arius misquoted his claims, and then forged or falsified those letters in his defence ... and no scholars would support that, I think.

That they presented him in negative terms, yes, but there'd be no point in making up a false theology to refute, and if Arius refuted the Divinity of the Son, for example, then his accusers would have said as such ...

As I've said, the view of Arius as the Arch-Enemy of the Church is a bit worn-out now. Scholars are more inclined to view him with a deal more charity and understanding, even while pointing our the error of his ways, as it were.

 

[muhammad_isa]

In what 'context', exactly? Can you give me context of 'divinity of the son' being used by someone who does not believe Jesus is God.

We're going around in circles .. you assume that we all consider the word 'Divine' to mean God.

Divinity or the divine are things that are either related to, devoted to, or proceeding from a deity. What is or is not divine may be loosely defined, as it is used by different belief systems. Under monotheism and polytheism this is clearly delineated. However, in pantheism and animism this becomes synonymous with concepts of sacredness and transcendence.
Divinity - Wikipedia

..so I suppose some people would consider Jesus Sacred .. even Divine .. but not God, as in "Our Father".

..and this is where all the confusion arises .. people making claims, without knowledge and Divine authority.
It's OK to say "I believe such-and-such", but when it becomes political, each party insisting they know better, and enforcing their views on their subjects (or congregation)..

Jesus is not reported to have literally said "I am God", but is reported to have taught us the Lord's
prayer .. not addressed to him.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

My point is that Arius believed the Son was created before the world. Newton believed the Son was simply the child of Mary and Joseph – so Arius would refute Newton, and Newton refute Arius – so to call Newton an 'Arian' is wrong in that the theology of one is nowhere near the same as the other, except that they both disagree with the coequality and consubstantiality of the Son.

Simply, Newton's position refuted Arius' heterodox trinitarianism, as it did what became orthodox trinitarianism.

Many assume 'being an Arian' means anti-trinitarian, which is a common misunderstanding. Arius' theology was a particular Christological dispute, not a trinitarian dispute. The divinity of the Son was not disputed.

Newton was a Unitarian. God is God and human is human. Subordinarism is more complicated.
He discerns between the natural world which is the world created by God and the political world, the world Jesus fought and defeated.
He says that Jesus was entirely part of the natural world, but not of the political world.
I agree with this philosophy. Jesus refuted the political world and announced the world of God where there's no authority but God (and which we should choose). And Jesus was in the natural world, the creation of God most high, as we are as well (and there's no possible other choice)

 

[Thomas]

Newton was a Unitarian.

Yes. Unitarian is, however, a broad church, and from dipping into the items cited above, scholars seem to regard Newton as something of a Socinian.

Of the various schools under Unitarianism:
Arian, which believed in a pre-existence of Jesus as Logos;
Socinian, which denied Jesus' pre-existence, but agreed that Christ should be worshipped;
"Strict Unitarian", which, believing in an "incommunicable divinity of God", denied the worship of "the man Christ."

Subordinarism is more complicated.

Yes, as it devolves into various theologies.

Jesus refuted the political world and announced the world of God where there's no authority but God (and which we should choose). And Jesus was in the natural world, the creation of God most high, as we are as well (and there's no possible other choice)

The emphasis on politics I find hard to credit as primary in His mission, but understandable, depending upon one's point of view.

When it comes to refutation, I think Jesus stood against the archons (powers) of this aeon (the 'Fallen World'), as is declared in Scripture. Certainly 'politics' would figure as an arena of operation of such powers, for good or ill.

 

[Thomas]

We're going around in circles .. you assume that we all consider the word 'Divine' to mean God.

That's why I asked for context.

..so I suppose some people would consider Jesus Sacred .. even Divine .. but not God, as in "Our Father".

Quite.

Jesus is not reported to have literally said "I am God", but is reported to have taught us the Lord's
prayer .. not addressed to him.

Exactly – He never explicitly claimed to be anything, but he consistently asked "Who do you say that I am?"
And in Scripture we read the responses, and go from there ...

 

[talib-al-kalim]

Yes. Unitarian is, however, a broad church, and from dipping into the items cited above, scholars seem to regard Newton as something of a Socinian.

The emphasis on politics I find hard to credit as primary in His mission, but understandable, depending upon one's point of view.

When it comes to refutation, I think Jesus stood against the archons (powers) of this aeon (the 'Fallen World'), as is declared in Scripture. Certainly 'politics' would figure as an arena of operation of such powers, for good or ill.

It's Newton who used the terms "natural" and "political" to discern between the world we should honour and the world we should refuse.
He lived in the time of absolute monarchy; there was no real difference between politics and the powers (kings and gentiles).

 

[TheLightWithin]

These competing ideas unfortunately got suppressed as "heresies"
I never fully understood the value of labeling the various theologies/Christologies as "heresies" -- what does that do, actually? Whom does it benefit?
I mean since there is the ultimate acknowledgement that it is all a mystery, and you can't exactly gather new data -- what was the reason for vilifying competing theories?
I understand part of the answer is: For power. For the church to consolidate power...
I'm just not sure I understand how this kind of dispute effectively gave more power.
I am going to have to read the book "When Jesus Became God" again.
They go into some detail about the ecclesiastical skirmishes. It's just that that sort of infighting never seems logical to me, nor do the value of the results.
If I had it my way, it would be possible for co-religionists to have competing theories without its turning into rivalry and persecution.

 

[Thomas]

These competing ideas unfortunately got suppressed as "heresies"
I never fully understood the value of labeling the various theologies/Christologies as "heresies" -- what does that do, actually? Whom does it benefit?

In the long run it benefits the majority who want a clear picture of what they're asked to believe, rather than a raft of conflicting and contradictory theories.

The majority aren't theologians nor philosophers – something more concrete was wanted – it's human nature.

I mean since there is the ultimate acknowledgement that it is all a mystery, and you can't exactly gather new data -- what was the reason for vilifying competing theories?

For the above reason ... competing theories has Jesus as God and man (the union of two natures), as a demigod (not human per se), as an angel (not human at all), as a human and not God, as human and divine in a moral sense – they can't all be true.

I understand part of the answer is: For power. For the church to consolidate power...

That's a common assumption, but I think it's more nuanced than that ... the first heresy debates occurred when the Church was not a 'power' in any contemporary sense – it didn't emerge as a power until the 4th century.

I am going to have to read the book "When Jesus Became God" again.

Rubenstein's book about the ... (dare I say it) ... Arian Dispute?

They go into some detail about the ecclesiastical skirmishes. It's just that that sort of infighting never seems logical to me, nor do the value of the results.

I suppose it depends on one's grasp of what's being put forward. And one would have to take into account the context of time and place ...

If I had it my way, it would be possible for co-religionists to have competing theories without its turning into rivalry and persecution.

I share that view, but that's quite a post-modern perspective, though ... I mean Christians don't persecute any more, except in certain parts of the world where the religion is (too closely) tied in with politics, and where violence is seen as a legitimate means.