Talk:Arianism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

I don't know if I'm the only one who thinks the definition is very confusing. Or is it incomplete or what is Arius accused of?

Arianism is a nontrinitarian Christological doctrine which believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who was begotten by God the Father, and is distinct from the Father (therefore subordinate to him), but the Son is also God (i.e., God the Son).Rafaelosornio (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Arius was really trinitarian, or, better said, binitarian, since trinitarianism replaced binitarianism much later. He thought God the Father is God, God the Son is God, but the Son is subordinated to the Father, being begotten (not created) by him. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Who's Dr. Jan Garrett? Google does not tell. Oh, yes, got it: https://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/home.htm Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The IP thinks they are smarter than Bart Ehrman. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Very old source, but clearly spells out the matter: Forrest, J. (1856). Some Account of the Origin and Progress of Trinitarian Theology: In the Second, Third, and Succeeding Centuries, and of the Manner in which Its Doctrines Gradually Supplanted the Unitarianism of the Primitive Church. Crosby, Nichols, and Company. pp. 6–7. Retrieved 25 December 2020. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

And this is the final nail in the coffin of Arius was unitarian: Phan, P.C. (2011). The Cambridge Companion to the Trinity. Cambridge Companions to Religion. Cambridge University Press. pp. 6–7. ISBN 978-0-521-87739-8. Retrieved 25 December 2020. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

To the IP accusing me of writing fallacious information: Nope, I have WP:CITED Bart Ehrman and https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-the-trinity/4760BA2A52D71290D220D9A01BCBE5EE . You can't win this game, against Ehrman and Cambridge University. I also gave you a 19th century theologian to whom it was clear that Arius and Alexander did not have much to quarrel about. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

That the IP kind of says that Ehrman and Phan are morons speaks more about the IP than about Ehrman and Phan. We believe that the IP cannot give the lie to The Cambridge Companion to the Trinity. So despite his edit wars, the IP cannot prevail at this article. Before citing that companion, it was somewhat debatable; after citing it, the case is closed. And, since such views are not unanimous, we tell it like some scholars believe it is this way, other scholars believe it is that way. You see, I do not claim to have WP:THETRUTH, which is a more reasonable position. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

A : Berndt and Steinacher never claimed (at least in those pages) that Arius wasn't Trinitarian. So, WP:Verifying such statement to these scholars is a fiction made out of whole cloth. We may verify only claims which are directly and indubitably supported by the WP:RS, and the claim that Arius wasn't Trinitarian is not directly supported by the source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Berndt, Guido M.; Steinacher, Roland (2014). Arianism: Roman Heresy and Barbarian Creed. Routledge. ISBN 978-14-09-44659-0. Arius wanted to emphasise the transcendence and sole divinity of God [...]. God alone is, for Arius, without beginning, unbegotten and eternal. In the terminology of negative theology, Arius stresses monotheism with ever-renewed attempts. God can only be understood as creator. He denies the co-eternal state of the Logos with God since otherwise God would be stripped of his absolute uniqueness. God alone is, and thus he was not always Father. [...] Following Proverbs 8:22–25, Arius is able to argue that the Son was created. For Arius the Logos belongs wholly on the side of the Divine, but he is markedly subordinate to God. [...] According to Alexander, Arius has assigned the Logos a place among created beings (which Arius explicitly denies); from that, he draws the conclusion that the Son/Logos of Arius is merely a man.⁴⁷ [...] This view is still to be found in the realm of popular scholarship and most recently led to the idea that 'Arianism', as a theology without a doctrine of the Trinity that sees Christ merely as a man, could form a possible bridge to Islam. [...] After the Synod of Nicaea, the debate shifted and became a debate over unity and trinity in the Trinitarian notion of God – a debate which is considered, unjustly, to be a further 'Arian controversy'. [...] Only after researchers began to position Arius within the Origenist tradition, did it become possible to see that the development after Nicaea was not a conflict between 'Nicenes' and 'Arians', as common opinion claimed, but rather a debate on the nature of divine hypostasis – in particular, on the question whether it was appropriate to speak of one single or three distinct hypostases. A detailed discussion of the complicated sequence of events in this conflict from the beginning of the 330s through the 380s and individual portrayals of the key protagonists would, however, be beyond the scope of this chapter.⁶⁸

Do you see the problem? The WP:RS explicitly rejects the conclusion that Arius believed that Jesus were merely a man; the WP:RS says that such claim is pop-theology (folk theology), not WP:SCHOLARSHIP. That's allowing the foes of Arius to dictate unto modern scholars what Arius really believed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I mean there are several pages to read from that book, I cannot give copious quotes for fear of violating copyright rules. They have more about the Origenist tradition, and yup, that's a scholarly novelty. Scholarship has moved a lot in the past decades and folk theologians (who claim that Arius wasn't Trinitarian) have been left behind. And, I don't use mere Google searches, since this is not a popularity contest. I use a lot Google Books, since there it is very easy to check the publishers and the authors, so in a minute I can decide if the book can be trusted as WP:SCHOLARSHIP. So, yeah, the stuff about Arius working in the Origenist tradition is a post-1950 development, and obviously 19th century scholars did not know about that, and folk theologians still do not know about it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

To draw the line:

• binitarianism was the orthodox conception, both Arius as Athanasius and Alexander were binitarians; they all saw Jesus as God, but... in different ways;
• as Ehrman says, trinitarianism developed from binitarianism when theologians asked "What about the Holy Spirit?" and they made Binity into Trinity by including the Holy Spirit as God.

Yes, I probably am. And probably I’m doing what most theologians have always done! The Spirit had to be accounted for because of what Jesus said in John 14 and 16 about the Spirit coming in his place. (And other passages). Once it was decided that Christ was equal with God, theologians then had to explain what to do with the Spirit as well.

— ehrmanblog.org

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

By the way, if some of you want, there is a 1972 book in French called L'hérésie d'Arius et la foi de Nicée (2 vol.); in the first volume the theology of Arius is apparently detailed. Veverve (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to just write the lead as: "Arianism is a Christological doctrine which holds that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who was begotten by God the Father, and is distinct from the Father (therefore subordinate to him), but the Son is also God the Son but not co-eternal with God the Father." - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Absurd concept

@Kpd79ldn:

Ebionites: Jesus was merely a righteous man who got adopted by God at his baptism, Jesus wasn't God.

Marcionites: Christ is God and never was a man.

Gnostics: Jesus was a man, Christ is God, Jesus and Christ were temporarily united (Christ possessed Jesus).

Proto-orthodox: we agree and disagree with all those above: Jesus is a man, Christ is God, Jesus and Christ are not different beings.

Theologians agree that the Trinity cannot be understood by human (mortal) mind. This is not disputed. What cannot be understood logically, we call it absurd. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Ehrman as minority

Does the IP realize they are arguing against a recent book from Oxford University Press, written by a mainstream full professor who speaks of his own field?

Maybe the name "proto-orthodox" is new, the idea isn't new at all in mainstream Bible scholarship. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Ehrman is not in a minority at all, he is in fact very consensual and is a respected authority in the field. Veverve (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The paragraph in question is bad. "they were vanquished with their own weapons" in Wikipedia's voice? Srnec (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Justin Martyr's position on the generation of the Son

The article claims that Justin Martyr was one of the early Church Fathers who held the position that the Son was not eternally generated. However, in my readings of Justyn Martyr and based on the citations given in this article, this just doesn't seem to be apparent. Reading Justyn's dialogue with Trypho, Justin is quite clear that the Son is worthy of worship and that the Son also existed before all of creation:

"But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him; even as the Scripture by Solomon has made clear, that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom, was begotten as a Beginning before all His creatures and as Offspring by God, who has also declared this same thing in the revelation made by Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). " -Trypho, ch 62

Likewise later on Justin states the Father and Son are inseparable:

"And do not suppose, sirs, that I am speaking superfluously when I repeat these words frequently: but it is because I know that some wish to anticipate these remarks, and to say that the power sent from the Father of all which appeared to Moses, or to Abraham, or to Jacob, is called an Angel because He came to men (for by Him the commands of the Father have been proclaimed to men); is called Glory, because He appears in a vision sometimes that cannot be borne; is called a Man, and a human being, because He appears arrayed in such forms as the Father pleases; and they call Him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to men: but maintain that this power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the heavens; as when it sinks, the light sinks along with it; so the Father, when He chooses, say they, causes His power to spring forth, and when He chooses, He makes it return to Himself. In this way, they teach, He made the angels." -Trypho, ch 128

The point of contention here is the in several parts Justyn speaks on the Son being begotten by the Father's will, which is the very thing Arius was condemned for by Athanasius and which Nicaea also denounced. However, the council would also use Justin's distinction of the unbegotteness of the Father and the begotteness of the Son as what distinguished the two Persons from each other. Likewise building off that Justin stated the Son is inseparable from the Father, it would likewise follow that the Son would be with the Father eternally. Though, in contrast, Justin does state that he can't prove the eternity of the Son in chapter 48 of the dialogue:

"I know that the statement does appear to be paradoxical, especially to those of your race, who are ever unwilling to understand or to perform the [requirements] of God, but [ready to perform] those of your teachers, as God Himself declares. Isaiah 29:13 Now assuredly, Trypho, [the proof] that this man is the Christ of God does not fail, though I be unable to prove that He existed formerly as Son of the Maker of all things, being God, and was born a man by the Virgin. But since I have certainly proved that this man is the Christ of God, whoever He be, even if I do not prove that He pre-existed, and submitted to be born a man of like passions with us, having a body, according to the Father's will; in this last matter alone is it just to say that I have erred, and not to deny that He is the Christ, though it should appear that He was born man of men, and [nothing more] is proved [than this], that He has become Christ by election. For there are some, my friends, of our race, who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have [now] the same opinions as myself should say so; since we were enjoined by Christ Himself to put no faith in human doctrines, but in those proclaimed by the blessed prophets and taught by Himself." -Trypho, ch 48

That being said, I don't think it can be definitively said that Justin taught the Son wasn't eternal. Rather, I think the theological terminology had not been fully developed at the time to clarify the position which the later Nicene Fathers would use in their rebuke of Arianism. He clearly admitted that the Wisdom, which is equated with the Son, as described by Solomon was possessed by the Father before creation and that the Son and Father are inseparable. 71.179.41.86 (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Can the summary be made clearer? This is seems cryptic. An example would be..

Arianism was a theological belief named after Arius, a Christian priest in the 4th century. At its core, Arianism challenged the traditional understanding of the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ.

In Arianism, Jesus was seen as distinct from God the Father, and not of the same essence or substance as Him. Arius taught that Jesus, while divine, was a created being, the first and greatest of all God's creations. Therefore, according to this view, there was a time when Jesus did not exist, and he was not eternal in the same way as God the Father.

This perspective caused a significant controversy within the early Christian church because it challenged the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, which asserts that God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit are co-eternal and of the same substance or essence.

The First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD was convened largely to address the Arian controversy. At this council, the orthodox position, which affirmed the full divinity and eternal nature of Jesus Christ, was articulated in the Nicene Creed. This creed established the belief in the Trinity as an essential doctrine of Christianity and rejected Arianism as heretical.

Despite being condemned as heretical by the Council of Nicaea, Arianism continued to have followers for several centuries, and its theological debates shaped the early development of Christian doctrine and orthodoxy. Countdredd (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

There are two elements which distinguish Arianism from vanilla Trinitarianism:

1. Jesus either subordinate or equal to the Father;
2. Jesus either of a similar substance with the Father or from the same substance; the word "substance" is itself tricky in Greek philosophy.

For the rest, they both agree that Jesus is God, albeit in different ways. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

"Christological doctrine" vs "Heresy"

Arianism is widely regarded as a heresy, and is listed as such by Encyclopædia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/summary/Arianism#:~:text=Arianism%2C%20Christian%20heresy%20that%20declared,a%20creature%20with%20a%20beginning.

I would argue that the term "Christological doctrine" used on this page is not satisfactory; it does not indicate the fact that this doctrine is deemed heresy by the vast majority of Christians.

Perhaps a term combining both of these aspects of the doctrine would be more suitable, such as "Heretical Christological doctrine", or similar. 85.166.156.145 (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Heresy is a recurring topic of this Wikipedia article on Arianism, so I agree that the first sentence should reflect this better. In the current version heresy is not mentioned before the third paragraph, an the wording "Christological doctrine" could make a casual reader expect Arianism to be a core belief for many Christians, which is clearly not the case when all mainstream branches of Christianity consider Arianism to be heresy. When prompting ChatGPT to summarize Arianism based on the first part of the Wikipedia article, the contrast to mainstream Christianity (https://chat.openai.com/share/cd974aac-f43c-431a-ae71-50d06f511a7b). It should also be noted that the Wikipedia article on Christianity do not bother to include nontrinitarians when graphically presenting the major branches of Christianity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#Churches_and_denominations). 2001:700:302:10:0:0:0:24 (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Arianism used to be a core belief for many Christians in the High Middle Ages. In particular, bishop Ulfilas, apostle to the Goths and author of the Gothic thanslation of the Bible, was of that tendency. Arianism was, however, fought against by Christians holding opposite beliefs, who pejoratively labeled it heresy in order better to destroy it, and the result is that with the passing of time it has all but disappeared. From a Catholic, Orthodox, or even (I think) Protestant point of view Arianism is still considered heresy, but let us not forget that any Christian system of belief not in agreement with the doctrines of Rome (including, to mention the two most controversial tenets, Mary's immaculate conception and the Pope's infallibility) is also held as heresy by the Roman church regardless of the number of its practitioners. IMHO labeling Arianism as heresy all the way from top to bottom of the article would be against WP:NPOV. — Tonymec (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I endorse "heresy", so long as we explain that heretics and not wrong by default, and the orthodox are not right by default. Besides, many Christian denominations call many other Christian denominations "heretics", so it's not like Wikipedia is taking sides. That is, for every Christian, it is quite normal that they are considered heretics by dozens of Christian denominations. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Questionable polling survey inclusion

A "lifeway research" poll conducted on behalf of "Ligonier Ministries" (a calvinist outreach organization) conducted a poll of "Americans with Evangelical Beliefs" titled the State of Theology, 2020.

This study did not include catholics, and yet a significant error was previously included in this article with attempts to portray 80% of American Roman Catholics as Arian Heretics.

This is sourced completely out of thin air, from a study which did not include nor even mention the word "catholic" and conducted by a very specific sect of Reformed theology calvinists and published by a Southern Baptist Evangelical publisher.

Not only the polling organization, its publisher AND the survey itself, as well as the included intentional misrepresentation of its data, methods, respondents, and results all represent a gross violation of POV as well as inclusion of simply incorrect and non factual information.

I have thusly removed that section. 2600:6C5E:4B7F:F095:297E:240D:E4CC:766B (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The State of American Theology Study 2020 that is linked in the article specifically points out differences in the survey results for various groups, including Evangelical, Mainline, Black Protestant, and Catholic. So your contention that it does not mention the word catholic is incorrect. I am reverting your edit until you can supply a reliable source that supports your contention. Indyguy (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

nope, see PAGE 48 and tell me where you see any evidence that 80% of all American catholics are Arian heretics? Furthermore, please explain the purpose of the R.C. Sproul dominated organization's survey to be included in this article at all?

Your Lutheran axe-to-grind is noted however. 2600:6C5E:4B7F:F095:297E:240D:E4CC:766B (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that the 80% figure is incorrect—it's actually about 66%, which is not a huge difference. However, I'm not going to restore the material because the same survey also said that an even larger percentage believed in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. Obviously it's a logical inconsistency to believe in both statements. The problem with surveys like this is that the bare questions mislead the responders. In this case I suspect that the fact that Jesus, who is the eternal Son of God, was also born as a man misleads respondents when they asked a question without further context. The doctrine of the Trinity is a paradoxical mystery, so it's not surprising that non-theologians don't understand its intricacies.

That the organization conducting the survey is Baptist/Protestant does not mean that the survey results are biased against Catholics. The Catholic Encyclopedia is used in a number of articles, but that doesn't mean it can't be used as a source even though it is "biased" against Protestants..

As far as my having a :Lutheran axe-to-grind", please assume good faith. I would not be surprised if a majority of Lutherans would answer this question in the same way as the majority of Catholics. Indyguy (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)