Arianism (What is that)?

[he-man]

You back up and look again. 13 - 6 = 7. Then 7-1=6. And last 6-4=2. One of those 2 was Arius. All you have to do is look at your own quote. And as I said before NO, ZERO, NONE of the two dissenters was tortured or executed.

Whoa, back up and look again!

The "consubstantial" was accepted, only thirteen bishops dissenting, and these were speedily reduced to seven.

Hosius drew out the conciliar statements, to which anathemas were subjoined against those who should affirm that the Son once did not exist, or that before He was begotten He was not, or that He was made out of nothing, or that He was of a different substance or essence from the Father, or was created or changeable.

Every bishop made this declaration [the conciliar statements] except six, of whom four at length gave way.

Eusebius of Nicomedia withdrew his opposition to the Nicene term, but would not sign the condemnation of Arius.

Constantine now favoured none but Arians; he was baptized in his last moments by the shifty prelate of Nicomedia; and he bequeathed to his three sons (337) an empire torn by dissensions which his ignorance and weakness had aggravated.

From whatever school it may have been logically derived, the sect, [Arian] as a sect, was cradled and nurtured in intrigue.

The great council convoked at this juncture was something more than a pivotal event in the history of Christianity. Its sudden, and, in one sense, almost unpremeditated adoption of a quasi-philosophic and non-Scriptural term — homoousion — to express the character of orthodox belief in the Person of the historic Christ, by defining Him to be identical in substance, or co-essential, with the Father

But the wiles of Eusebius, who in 328 recovered Constantine's favour, were seconded by Asiatic intrigues, and a period of Arian reaction set in. Eustathius of Antioch was deposed on a charge of Sabellianism (331), and the Emperor sent his command that Athanasius should receive Arius back into communion. The saint firmly declined. In 325 the heresiarch was absolved by two councils, at Tyre and Jerusalem, the former of which deposed Athanasius on false and shameful grounds of personal misconduct. He was banished to Trier, and his sojourn of eighteen months in those parts cemented Alexandria more closely to Rome and the Catholic West.

Valens, Bishop of Mursa, did what in him lay to infect Italy and the West with Arian dogmas. The term "like in substance", Homoiousion, which had been employed merely to get rid of the Nicene formula, became a watchword.

The factious bishops, Ursacius and Valens, retracted their charges against him in the hands of Pope Julius; and as he travelled home, by way of Thrace, Asia Minor, and Syria, the crowd of court-prelates did him abject homage.

It was concerning this last council (359) that St. Jerome wrote, "the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian". For the Latin bishops were driven by threats and chicanery to sign concessions which at no time represented their genuine views.

The Homoeans, a sort of Protestants, would have no terms employed which were not found in Scripture, and thus evaded signing the "Consubstantial". A more extreme set, the "Anomoeans", followed Aëtius, were directed by Eunomius, held meetings at Antioch and Sirmium, declared the Son to be "unlike" the Father, and made themselves powerful in the last years of Constantius within the palace.

A momentous gathering, over which Athanasius presided, in 362, at Alexandria, united the orthodox Semi-Arians with himself and the West. Four years afterwards fifty-nine Macedonian, i.e., hitherto anti-Nicene, prelates gave in their submission to Pope Liberius. But the Emperor Valens, a fierce heretic, still laid the Church waste.

His election, in spite of his extreme youth and the opposition of a remnant of the Arian and Meletian factions in the Alexandrian Church, was welcomed by all classes among the laity ("Apol. c. Arian", vi; Sozomen, Church History II.17, 21, 22).

From this moment Arianism in all its forms lost its place within the Empire.
Arian kingdoms arose in Spain, Africa, Italy.

In the form which it took under Arius, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Eunomius, it has never been revived. Individuals, among them are Milton and Sir Isaac Newton, were perhaps tainted with it. Neither has any Arian leader stood forth in history with a character of heroic proportions.

 

[he-man]

You back up and look again. 13 - 6 = 7. Then 7-1=6. And last 6-4=2. One of those 2 was Arius. All you have to do is look at your own quote. And as I said before NO, ZERO, NONE of the two dissenters was tortured or executed.

You back up and look again. 13 - 6 = 7. Then 7-1=6. And last 6-4=2. One of those 2 was Arius. All you have to do is look at your own quote. And as I said before NO, ZERO, NONE of the two dissenters was tortured or executed.

Whoa, back up and look again!

The "consubstantial" was accepted, only thirteen bishops dissenting, and these were speedily reduced to seven.

Hosius drew out the conciliar statements, to which anathemas were subjoined against those who should affirm that the Son once did not exist, or that before He was begotten He was not, or that He was made out of nothing, or that He was of a different substance or essence from the Father, or was created or changeable.

Every bishop made this declaration [the conciliar statements] except six, of whom four at length gave way.

Eusebius of Nicomedia withdrew his opposition to the Nicene term, but would not sign the condemnation of Arius.

Constantine now favoured none but Arians; he was baptized in his last moments by the shifty prelate of Nicomedia; and he bequeathed to his three sons (337) an empire torn by dissensions which his ignorance and weakness had aggravated.

From whatever school it may have been logically derived, the sect, [Arian] as a sect, was cradled and nurtured in intrigue.

The great council convoked at this juncture was something more than a pivotal event in the history of Christianity. Its sudden, and, in one sense, almost unpremeditated adoption of a quasi-philosophic and non-Scriptural term — homoousion — to express the character of orthodox belief in the Person of the historic Christ, by defining Him to be identical in substance, or co-essential, with the Father

But the wiles of Eusebius, who in 328 recovered Constantine's favour, were seconded by Asiatic intrigues, and a period of Arian reaction set in. Eustathius of Antioch was deposed on a charge of Sabellianism (331), and the Emperor sent his command that Athanasius should receive Arius back into communion. The saint firmly declined. In 325 the heresiarch was absolved by two councils, at Tyre and Jerusalem, the former of which deposed Athanasius on false and shameful grounds of personal misconduct. He was banished to Trier, and his sojourn of eighteen months in those parts cemented Alexandria more closely to Rome and the Catholic West.

Valens, Bishop of Mursa, did what in him lay to infect Italy and the West with Arian dogmas. The term "like in substance", Homoiousion, which had been employed merely to get rid of the Nicene formula, became a watchword.

The factious bishops, Ursacius and Valens, retracted their charges against him in the hands of Pope Julius; and as he travelled home, by way of Thrace, Asia Minor, and Syria, the crowd of court-prelates did him abject homage.

It was concerning this last council (359) that St. Jerome wrote, "the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian". For the Latin bishops were driven by threats and chicanery to sign concessions which at no time represented their genuine views.

The Homoeans, a sort of Protestants, would have no terms employed which were not found in Scripture, and thus evaded signing the "Consubstantial". A more extreme set, the "Anomoeans", followed Aëtius, were directed by Eunomius, held meetings at Antioch and Sirmium, declared the Son to be "unlike" the Father, and made themselves powerful in the last years of Constantius within the palace.

A momentous gathering, over which Athanasius presided, in 362, at Alexandria, united the orthodox Semi-Arians with himself and the West. Four years afterwards fifty-nine Macedonian, i.e., hitherto anti-Nicene, prelates gave in their submission to Pope Liberius. But the Emperor Valens, a fierce heretic, still laid the Church waste.

His election, in spite of his extreme youth and the opposition of a remnant of the Arian and Meletian factions in the Alexandrian Church, was welcomed by all classes among the laity ("Apol. c. Arian", vi; Sozomen, Church History II.17, 21, 22).

From this moment Arianism in all its forms lost its place within the Empire.
Arian kingdoms arose in Spain, Africa, Italy.

In the form which it took under Arius, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Eunomius, it has never been revived. Individuals, among them are Milton and Sir Isaac Newton, were perhaps tainted with it. Neither has any Arian leader stood forth in history with a character of heroic proportions.

 

[The Gregorian]

Der... yet again... you ignored the point of people's posts in favor of one detail without a cited source, then you proceed to make unsubstantiated claims yourself.

The Poster asked about Arians, and if people today are still classified as such. You don't need to derail the thread with an obsession over the number of bishops at the very end who dissented.

A: note that "The "consubstantial" was accepted, only thirteen bishops dissenting, and these were speedily reduced to seven." doesn't necessarily mean that 6 bishops changed their mind. The number of bishops who dissented was reduced. Many people are of the opinion that these 6 bishops were kicked out.
B: Just because only two REFUSED to sign the document doesn't mean there were no more dissenting viewpoints. Refusal to sign the document came with excommunication. It's likely that only two were willing to take this risk to stand up for what they believed.

C: Either way, it really doesn't matter. Modern day Arians are not arians because of a following of the man. Many Christians agree with the reasoning on their own terms and believe "There is for us only one God, the Father" ... means that only the Father is God. You're welcome to have an opposing viewpoint, but that's ours. It's simple, logical, and biblically sound.

I look forward to you responding to the whole post rather than picking out some spelling error and ranting for a page or two about it.

 

[Der Alte]

Der... yet again... you ignored the point of people's posts in favor of one detail without a cited source, then you proceed to make unsubstantiated claims yourself.

I made no mention of lack of sources until it was thrown in my face. And my point was substantiated by the person who got in my face, and he has yet to acknowledge it,

The Poster asked about Arians, and if people today are still classified as such. You don't need to derail the thread with an obsession over the number of bishops at the very end who dissented.

IIRC you were the one who derailed the thread making unsubstantiated claims about those who opposed Nicaea being tortured and executed.

A: note that "The "consubstantial" was accepted, only thirteen bishops dissenting, and these were speedily reduced to seven." doesn't necessarily mean that 6 bishops changed their mind. The number of bishops who dissented was reduced. Many people are of the opinion that these 6 bishops were kicked out.

Your speculations about what the sources "doesn't necessarily mean" and the alleged unsupported opinions of some vague "many people" means diddly squat!

B: Just because only two REFUSED to sign the document doesn't mean there were no more dissenting viewpoints. Refusal to sign the document came with excommunication. It's likely that only two were willing to take this risk to stand up for what they believed.

More of your irrelevant guessing and speculation. Wonder why if the decisions of Nicaea were so unbiblical, etc. more bishops did not openly oppose them? After all every one of the 300+ bishops had risked torture and death for years opposing idol and emperor worship, why would excommunication, by heretics bother them?

C: Either way, it really doesn't matter. Modern day Arians are not arians because of a following of the man. Many Christians agree with the reasoning on their own terms and believe "There is for us only one God, the Father" ... means that only the Father is God. You're welcome to have an opposing viewpoint, but that's ours. It's simple, logical, and biblically sound.

Show me credible, verifiable evidence for any organized body, i.e. the church that Jesus built, which believed essentially as you do, which existed between 325 AD and the late 19th century when Russell concocted your religion?

I look forward to you responding to the whole post rather than picking out some spelling error and ranting for a page or two about it.

None of my posts were about a spelling error. I look forward to any post of yours which has truth in it.

 

[The Gregorian]

Your speculations about what the sources "doesn't necessarily mean" and the alleged unsupported opinions of some vague "many people" means diddly squat!

And your assumption that just because a majority of the bishops at the council would rather sign the document than face excommunication is an indication that arianism had little support is also an unsupported opinion, which means "diddly squat."

Show me credible, verifiable evidence for any organized body, i.e. the church that Jesus built, which believed essentially as you do, which existed between 325 AD and the late 19th century when Russell concocted your religion?

A: You're flaming again.
B: Between 325 AD and the 16th century, the catholic church simply slaughtered anyone with a dissenting viewpoint. Can't really have another organized religion during a time when having a bible you can read for yourself is a heresy punishable by being burned alive.
C: here's a list of major arian denominations. Russell didn't "concoct" all of them.
American Unitarian Conference
Bible Students
Christadelphians
Two by Twos (aka, The Truth; publish no doctrinal statements; classified as nontrinitarian by observers)
Church of Christ, Scientist; that is, the Christian Science religion
Church of God General Conference (Abrahamic Faith)
Church of God (Seventh Day)
Church of the Blessed Hope (also known as the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith, but not part of "General Conference")
Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church (Not to be confused with the Seventh-day Adventist Church)
Doukhobors
Friends of Man
Jehovah's Witnesses
Living Church of God
Molokan
Monarchianism
Muggletonianism
New Church
Oneness Pentecostals
Polish Brethren
Quakers
Shakers
Socinianism
Swedenborgianism
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church; see also Mormon)
The Way International
Unification Church
Unitarian Christians
Iglesia ni Cristo
True Jesus Church
Members of the Church of God International
United Church of God
Unitarian Universalism

 

[Gareth]

At the close of the Nicaean council only two (2) of the 300+ bishops, i.e. .0062%, who attended refused to sign the symbols and were excommunicated and banished. NO, NONE, ZERO were tortured and executed, etc!

I thought it was three who voted against the trinity. Added to this is the fact that those attending the conference were a fraction of the whole, so it could be argued that those there did not reflect the views of the many. Others would of been there had the threat of expulsion not been mentioned. It wasn't too long after this that certain Bishops were killed by their own `brothers` for taking an alternative view. Is this what some accept as the true Christian faith? A group of people who claim to worship and preach God and the blood of the Christ and salvation to all on one hand and then in the other are plotting, scheming and murdering those seen as a threat? Nothing's changed has it?

 

[Der Alte]

I thought it was three who voted against the trinity. Added to this is the fact that those attending the conference were a fraction of the whole, so it could be argued that those there did not reflect the views of the many. Others would of been there had the threat of expulsion not been mentioned. It wasn't too long after this that certain Bishops were killed by their own `brothers` for taking an alternative view. Is this what some accept as the true Christian faith? A group of people who claim to worship and preach God and the blood of the Christ and salvation to all on one hand and then in the other are plotting, scheming and murdering those seen as a threat? Nothing's changed has it?

What you "thought" is wrong. Initially 13 refused to sign the Nicaean symbols, after additional discussion 7, then 6, and finally 2, one of whom was Arius. This can be verified by reading real history, rather than the stuff WTBS feeds their followers.

Do you have evidence that the threat of expulsion was announced prior to the council? The answer, there is no such evidence!

What you think "can be argued" is not evidence of anything! I have yet to see any evidence why 300+ bishops, all of whom had faced torture and death because they would NOT accept anything pagan, or worship pagan gods or the Roman emperor, would do nothing say nothing if a council tried, for any reason, to adopt anything pagan? Eusebius said that most of the bishops, at Nicaea, bore in their bodies the scars of their torture.

That some people may have killed other people has nothing to do with defining the Christian faith.

 

[Der Alte]

And your assumption that just because a majority of the bishops at the council would rather sign the document than face excommunication is an indication that arianism had little support is also an unsupported opinion, which means "diddly squat."

See my previous response about pre-Nicaean Bishops, and other Christians, facing torture and death because they would not accept pagan practices and/or worship pagan deities and the Roman emperor.

A: You're flaming again.
B: Between 325 AD and the 16th century, the catholic church simply slaughtered anyone with a dissenting viewpoint. Can't really have another organized religion during a time when having a bible you can read for yourself is a heresy punishable by being burned alive.

It is not flaming to present/discuss historical evidence! You however are flaming the RCC accusing them of murder with NO, ZERO, NONE evidence! And this is irrelevant! How could any group of people completely wipeout the church that Jesus built against which the gates of hell could not prevail. That church must be clearly visible throughout history preaching the good news from the roof tops. A few people running and hiding at various times is NOT that church!

C: here's a list of major arian denominations. Russell didn't "concoct" all of them.
American Unitarian Conference [Late 19th century]
Bible Students [Late 19th century]
Christadelphians [Early 20th century]
Two by Twos (aka, The Truth; publish no doctrinal statements; classified as nontrinitarian by observers) [Late 19th century]
Church of Christ, Scientist; that is, the Christian Science religion[Late 19th century]
Church of God General Conference (Abrahamic Faith)[Late 19th century]
Church of God (Seventh Day)[Late 19th century]
Church of the Blessed Hope (also known as the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith, but not part of "General Conference")[Late 19th century]
Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church (Not to be confused with the Seventh-day Adventist Church)[Late 19th century]
Doukhobors
Friends of Man
Jehovah's Witnesses
Living Church of God[Late 19th century]
Molokan
Monarchianism
Muggletonianism
New Church[Late 19th century]
Oneness Pentecostals[Early 20th century]
Polish Brethren [Late 19th century]
Quakers
Shakers
Socinianism
Swedenborgianism[Early 20th century]
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church; see also Mormon)[Late 19th century]
The Way International [Mid 20th century]
Unification Church
Unitarian Christians
Iglesia ni Cristo [Mid 20th century]
True Jesus Church [Mid 20th century]
Members of the Church of God International[Mid 20th century]
United Church of God[Mid 20th century]
Unitarian Universalism

Most of these groups are anti-Trinitarian but virtually none are Arian. And I only see a few which existed earlier than the late 19th century.

 

[he-man]

Der... yet again... you ignored the point of people's posts in favor of one detail without a cited source, then you proceed to make unsubstantiated claims yourself.

The Poster asked about Arians, and if people today are still classified as such. You don't need to derail the thread with an obsession over the number of bishops at the very end who dissented.

A: note that "The "consubstantial" was accepted, only thirteen bishops dissenting, and these were speedily reduced to seven." doesn't necessarily mean that 6 bishops changed their mind. The number of bishops who dissented was reduced. Many people are of the opinion that these 6 bishops were kicked out.
B: Just because only two REFUSED to sign the document doesn't mean there were no more dissenting viewpoints. Refusal to sign the document came with excommunication. It's likely that only two were willing to take this risk to stand up for what they believed.

C: Either way, it really doesn't matter. Modern day Arians are not arians because of a following of the man. Many Christians agree with the reasoning on their own terms and believe "There is for us only one God, the Father" ... means that only the Father is God. You're welcome to have an opposing viewpoint, but that's ours. It's simple, logical, and biblically sound.

I look forward to you responding to the whole post rather than picking out some spelling error and ranting for a page or two about it.

You got that right!

 

[Ignatius the Hermit]

What you "thought" is wrong. Initially 13 refused to sign the Nicaean symbols, after additional discussion 7, then 6, and finally 2, one of whom was Arius. This can be verified by reading real history, rather than the stuff WTBS feeds their followers.

Do you have evidence that the threat of expulsion was announced prior to the council? The answer, there is no such evidence!

What you think "can be argued" is not evidence of anything! I have yet to see any evidence why 300+ bishops, all of whom had faced torture and death because they would NOT accept anything pagan, or worship pagan gods or the Roman emperor, would do nothing say nothing if a council tried, for any reason, to adopt anything pagan? Eusebius said that most of the bishops, at Nicaea, bore in their bodies the scars of their torture.

That some people may have killed other people has nothing to do with defining the Christian faith.

Der Alter, please settle down and 'join in' the discussion, not dominate it with your own personal theology. Normally you post good sources to back up your claims--but the ultimate source is the Love of Christ. Woden asked a good question, so how about you provide some evidence for your assertions? As for me I only have one; is it possible that those who did not subscribe to vote at Nicea were silenced? As you know the battle over orthodox teaching would go on for another 50 years.

As for your last statement--I totally disagree with you; it does reflect on the Christian faith if people are killing others over doctrine. And if you doubt that--it doesn't a theologian to know that this completely goes against the teaching of Christ.

Peace unto all

 

[Ignatius the Hermit]

See my previous response about pre-Nicaean Bishops, and other Christians, facing torture and death because they would not accept pagan practices and/or worship pagan deities and the Roman emperor.



It is not flaming to present/discuss historical evidence! You however are flaming the RCC accusing them of murder with NO, ZERO, NONE evidence! And this is irrelevant! How could any group of people completely wipeout the church that Jesus built against which the gates of hell could not prevail. That church must be clearly visible throughout history preaching the good news from the roof tops. A few people running and hiding at various times is NOT that church!



Most of these groups are anti-Trinitarian but virtually none are Arian. And I only see a few which existed earlier than the late 19th century.

According to wikipedia:
"Various nontrinitarian views, such as Adoptionism, Monarchianism, and Arianism, existed prior to the formal definition of the Trinity doctrine in AD 325.[2] Nontrinitarianism was later renewed in the Gnosticism of the Cathars in the 11th through 13th centuries, in the Age of Enlightenment of the 18th century, and in some groups arising during the Second Great Awakening of the 19th century.
Modern nontrinitarian groups and denominations include Christadelphians, Christian Science, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, some groups in the Latter Day Saint movement, Oneness Pentecostalism, Unitarianism, and United Church of God."

Arianism is a nontrinitarian group, as well as the JW's. The point is this; several groups existed prior to the 19th century. Indeed, some existed even before the Council of Nicea in 325. One question for you Der Alter; when did your church/denomination come into existence?

 

[interpreter]

The Araians were the first heretics to say that Jesus was not God.

 

[Der Alte]

According to wikipedia:
"Various nontrinitarian views, such as Adoptionism, Monarchianism, and Arianism, existed prior to the formal definition of the Trinity doctrine in AD 325.[2] Nontrinitarianism was later renewed in the Gnosticism of the Cathars in the 11th through 13th centuries, in the Age of Enlightenment of the 18th century, and in some groups arising during the Second Great Awakening of the 19th century.
Modern nontrinitarian groups and denominations include Christadelphians, Christian Science, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, some groups in the Latter Day Saint movement, Oneness Pentecostalism, Unitarianism, and United Church of God."

Arianism is a nontrinitarian group, as well as the JW's. The point is this; several groups existed prior to the 19th century. Indeed, some existed even before the Council of Nicea in 325. One question for you Der Alter; when did your church/denomination come into existence?

Wiki is about as reliable as the scribblings on a public rest room wall. Every article has multiple [Edit] links anybody can post or change anything at any time without review or control.

I said absolutely NOTHING about denominations! My beliefs are adequately reflected in the writings of the ECF, e.g. Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Barnabas, Papias, Hermas, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, etc.

 

[Ignatius the Hermit]

Wiki is about as reliable as the scribblings on a public rest room wall. Every article has multiple [Edit] links anybody can post or change anything at any time without review or control.

I said absolutely NOTHING about denominations! My beliefs are adequately reflected in the writings of the ECF, e.g. Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Barnabas, Papias, Hermas, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, etc.

Yes I agree that wikipedia can be unreliable--but you missed the point: Arians are considered Nontrinitarian believers. What I was trying to get at is that you want to say most of these beliefs that Jesus is not the second person of the Trinity took place sometime in the last 150 years. Well your form of belief has been around perhaps just a little longer. (And by the way--our Bible--yes I mean the one that you and I use--is also full of edit marks as well. It is os full of contradictions that it causes many to doubt that it was inspired. Hence why there are so many beliefs running around.)

Be careful when pointing out what you percieve to be an error in someone else's doctrine. We're only trying to discuss (not debate) what Arianism is here. The thread was started by a Muslim who wanted to know what it is.

Now I say let's give each other a big brotherly and show that we're brothers in Christ!

 

[The Gregorian]

The Araians were the first heretics to say that Jesus was not God.

Well, not exactly. Technically Jesus was the first "heretic to say that [he] isn't God." at John 14:28. Then all of his apostles taught this "heresy" for the next 300 years. At that point, the church declared Jesus' teaching a "heresy" since they totally know better.

I proudly side with Jesus when he disagrees with "the church."

 

[plmarquette]

Arianism: Definition from Answers.com

 

[RadicalDissenter]

Hi people,

Oke some people know that i am curious about different groups in Christianity, i learn about some different groups, but one group i don't know what it is, arianism. I get some information on wikipedia but the text contradict themself. Does someone know what they believe, are there people on this site who are of that group maybe? Are there a lot followers of that group? Someone who can tell me more about Arianism.

Also still looking for Non-Trinitarians, (Unitarians for example), if they are here, give a reaction

Thanks!

Greetings,
Barbara.

Greeting from a Non-Trinitarian,

Historically, the theological position defended by Arius, which actually existed before him and was held by many other Christians who never heard his name.

Here is a very brief description of what Arius (and others who shared the same views) believed.

The Father is God himself, the only being without beginning. The Son was made (created / born) before all other things by a free act of the Father. He did not exist before he was made - he was made not by taking of God's own essence or from any other created thing, but out of non-being. The Son was made a unique, perfect being; a creature, but unlike other creatures, as he was the only one made directly by the Father. All other creatures were made through the Son. The Son became a man and always did God's will; he remained perfect by his own free will (not by divine nature), forseen by God's providence. He is superior to any created being and is divine, but is not God in the same way as the Father is God.

The terms "Arian" and "Arianism" are used polemically by self-defined "orthodox" Christendom to stygmatize those who believe that God is just one and not three. The poet John Milton and the scientist Isaac Newton were among the many "Arians" in modern times, who believed in a unipersonal God (the Father) and the Son of God as the first creature.

The core of this belief was the teaching of early Christianity. The claims of modern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism that it is a "heresy" are anachronistic, misleading and false.

 

[RadicalDissenter]

Arianism is a nontrinitarian group, as well as the JW's. The point is this; several groups existed prior to the 19th century. Indeed, some existed even before the Council of Nicea in 325. One question for you Der Alter; when did your church/denomination come into existence?

The belief that the Father is superior to all, including the Son, who was born / created, is older than Trinitarianism, and older than Arius himself.