What are the reasons behind a person wrongfully rejecting the Trinity? (Trinity Christians Only)

R7-12 said:

I just checked, my friend, and the types of discussions going on in this thread are not against the rules,
"Honest debate about the nature of God and Christian Theology is allowed."

Also, with regard to discussions about the nature of God, this thread is actually in the Controversial Christian Theology section which is in line with the rules.

They state,
"Unorthodox Christian theology may only be discussed in the Controversial Christian Theology forum."

So as far as I can tell, the Biblical view that there is one God - a singular being, as opposed to two or three, is allowed to be discussed here.

Am I wrong, according to scripture, in saying that we have one God, the Father, and in addition, we have one Lord, Jesus Christ?

"Now may our God and Father Himself (singular) and Jesus our Lord (separate and distinct) direct our way to you..." (1Thes. 3:11; NASB; emphasis added, plus notes in parentheses).

"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 1:7b; NASB; emphasis added).

Click to expand...

God, the Supreme Deity, is identified as the Father. Jesus Christ is not identified as the Supreme Deity but as our Lord (our Master, by delegation from the Father).

Click to expand...

So what do you conclude from what Jesus states about himself?

He often refers to three, Father, Holy Spirit, and Son (himself) in his many claims about himself; e.g.,
he came down from heaven (Jn 3:13, 6:38, 42, 62, 8:58, 17:5, 24; 1Jn 1:1-4), and
was sent by God (Jn 5:36-40, 10:36, 13:3, 16:28),
possessing all authority (power) in heaven and earth (Mt 26:64, 28:18; Lk 10:22; Jn 13:3, 13)
to die as a ransom for the sins of many (Mt 20:28, 26:28; Jn 10:11)
with power to forgive sin (Mt 9:2-6),
to conquer Satan (Jn 12:31; Lk 10:18; Mk 1:23-26, 5:6-13),
to speak for God (Jn 7:16, 8:25-28, 12:44-45, 49-50, 14:10; Lk 9:35, 10:16),
and to judge all mankind (Jn 5:22, 27, 8:26, 12:48; Mt 25:31-33),
as the exclusive (barring all others) way to God (Jn 14:6),
the source of all truth and life (Jn 1:4, 14:6, 5:25-26, 6:40),
the decisive factor in the eternal destiny of every man (Jn 3:18-19, 36; 5:24, 6:40, 8:24-25),
equal with God--doing what God does (Jn 5:18-19, 8:19, 12:44-45, 14:7-9, 16:15, 17:10),
--as the Father works, so the Son works (miracles) - (Jn 5:17),
--as the Father gives life, so the Son gives life (Jn 5:21),
--as the Father is Judge, so the Son is Judge (Jn 5:22),
--as the Father is to be honored, so the Son is to be honored (Jn 5:23),
--as the Father has life in himself, so the Son has life in himself (Jn 5:26)
--as the Father sends with authority and power, so the Son sends with authority and power (Jn 20:21)
--as the Father makes law, so the Son makes law (Mt 5:24-47, 12:7-8, 19:9, 21:23-27,ch 23, Lk 6:5)
--as the Father confers the kingdom, so the Son confers the kingdom (Lk 22:29),
empowering the apostle to speak for him, as well as for God (Lk 10:16; Jn 13:20),
to recall and understand all things correctly (Jn 14:26, 16:13-15; Lk 24:48-49), and
speaking exactly what God told him to say when he made these claims about himself (Jn 12:49).

Jesus is saying in these claims that he is no less than God. And this is the way the Jews understood him (Mk 2:3-7; Jn 6:41-42, 10:30-33, 5:18, 8:58-59, 19:7), which is why they killed him.

All of which is the reason John opens his Gospel
with the "Word," which in Greek philosophy was the First Cause, the great Intelligence and Reason behind the Universe, which John declares is the recently despised and crucified man, Jesus of Nazareth, who is the eternal Logos, source of all wisdom and power, and who became flesh in order to reveal God to us.

In the beginning was the Word--the Word is eternal (see Jn 17:5, 24; 1Jn 1:1-3),
which Word was with God--distinct from the Father, personality (personhood)
and which word was God-deity of the Word who is distinct from the Father,
through him--male personhood,
all things were made--creator (Col 1:13-17),
in him was life--all life in creation is in and through him (Col 1:17),
the life was the light of men--the Word revealing,
the Word became flesh (Jn 1:14)--incarnation,
which incarnation reveals the Word to be God's Son, the only begotten of the Father (Jn 1:14),
to which Heb 1:3-4 testifies.

The divinity of Christ is not just a logical construct, it is divine revelation of the Word of God written.
If by "logical construct" one means it is the necessary conclusion of NT revelation, that is correct.
However, it is a poor choice of words, for
it smacks of being an invention of the logic of man
rather than a necessary conclusion of divine revelation.

Andrewn said:

You always come up with the most informative articles .


No Christian can accept this. It sounds like JW's, and perhaps Mormons.


This creed is vague. It's not clear how Ulfias understands the expression "only-begotten son."


I'll let you know after reading the discourse.

Click to expand...

Well it's kind of an interesting and important topic. I also have been interested in trying to understand it from a developmental level like the history of ideas etc. Basically reading everything I can on the subject on things like Second Temple Judaism, Stoicism, Neoplatonism, early church fathers views etc.

One important thing pointed out to me from this new Eastern Orthodox book is a lot of our thinking on the topic is colored by 16th Century theology where the term "monotheism" was coined. Early Jews didn't quite think that way, they instead contrasted their religion of "One God" that had lots of nuances etc. with the other polytheistic / pagan faiths around them. And of course, when Talmudic Judaism arose that really affected things because that is where you get officially "hard monotheism" where they take some of those earlier Theological ideas like "Two Powers" in heaven and make them officially heretical etc.


Religion of the Apostles | with Fr. Stephen De Young


https://www.amazon.com/Two-Powers-Heaven-Christianity-Gnosticism/dp/039104172X

Clare73 said:

So what do you conclude from what Jesus states about himself?

He often refers to three, Father, Holy Spirit, and Son (himself) in his many claims about himself; e.g.,
he came down from heaven (Jn 3:13, 6:38, 42, 62, 8:58, 17:5, 24; 1Jn 1:1-4), and
was sent by God (Jn 5:36-40, 10:36, 13:3, 16:28),
possessing all authority (power) in heaven and earth (Mt 26:64, 28:18; Lk 10:22; Jn 13:3, 13)
to die as a ransom for the sins of many (Mt 20:28, 26:28; Jn 10:11)
with power to forgive sin (Mt 9:2-6),
to conquer Satan (Jn 12:31; Lk 10:18; Mk 1:23-26, 5:6-13),
to speak for God (Jn 7:16, 8:25-28, 12:44-45, 49-50, 14:10; Lk 9:35, 10:16),
and to judge all mankind (Jn 5:22, 27, 8:26, 12:48; Mt 25:31-33),
as the exclusive (barring all others) way to God (Jn 14:6),
the source of all truth and life (Jn 1:4, 14:6, 5:25-26, 6:40),
the decisive factor in the eternal destiny of every man (Jn 3:18-19, 36; 5:24, 6:40, 8:24-25),
equal with God--doing what God does (Jn 5:18-19, 8:19, 12:44-45, 14:7-9, 16:15, 17:10),
--as the Father works, so the Son works (miracles) - (Jn 5:17),
--as the Father gives life, so the Son gives life (Jn 5:21),
--as the Father is Judge, so the Son is Judge (Jn 5:22),
--as the Father is to be honored, so the Son is to be honored (Jn 5:23),
--as the Father has life in himself, so the Son has life in himself (Jn 5:26)
--as the Father sends with authority and power, so the Son sends with authority and power (Jn 20:21)
--as the Father makes law, so the Son makes law (Mt 5:24-47, 12:7-8, 19:9, 21:23-27,ch 23, Lk 6:5)
--as the Father confers the kingdom, so the Son confers the kingdom (Lk 22:29),
empowering the apostle to speak for him, as well as for God (Lk 10:16; Jn 13:20),
to recall and understand all things correctly (Jn 14:26, 16:13-15; Lk 24:48-49), and
speaking exactly what God told him to say when he made these claims about himself (Jn 12:49).

Jesus is saying in these claims that he is no less than God. And this is the way the Jews understood him (Mk 2:3-7; Jn 6:41-42, 10:30-33, 5:18, 8:58-59, 19:7), which is why they killed him.

All of which is the reason John opens his Gospel
with the "Word," which in Greek philosophy was the First Cause, the great Intelligence and Reason behind the Universe, which John declares is the recently despised and crucified man, Jesus of Nazareth, who is the eternal Logos, source of all wisdom and power, and who became flesh in order to reveal God to us.

In the beginning was the Word--the Word is eternal (see Jn 17:5, 24; 1Jn 1:1-3),
which Word was with God--distinct from the Father, personality (personhood)
and which word was God-deity of the Word who is distinct from the Father,
through him--male personhood,
all things were made--creator (Col 1:13-17),
in him was life--all life in creation is in and through him (Col 1:17),
the life was the light of men--the Word revealing,
the Word became flesh (Jn 1:14)--incarnation,
which incarnation reveals the Word to be God's Son, the only begotten of the Father (Jn 1:14),
to which Heb 1:3-4 testifies.

The divinity of Christ is not just a logical construct, it is divine revelation of the Word of God written.
If by "logical construct" one means it is the necessary conclusion of NT revelation, that is correct.
However, it is a poor choice of words, for
it smacks of being an invention of the logic of man
rather than a necessary conclusion of divine revelation.

Click to expand...

I agree with all of this, but do you know which Father Jesus was talking about...?

And the only way they (two of them apart from the three or third) (or rather the first, etc) might not have been not always 100% completely equal always, would only be in full omniscience from the very beginning only, but other than that, all of the rest of this is 100% very much completely accurate and very true and is "spot on"...

God Bless!

Yeah he is an interesting guy. I admire some of what he does and his mind and his focus, but would definitely not emulate his approach on many things. He's a bit hard boiled, maybe from dealing with all the Muslim people trolling him for over two decades.

Neogaia777 said:

I agree with all of this, but do you know which Father Jesus was talking about...?
And the only way they (two of them apart from the three or third) (or rather the first, etc) might not have been not always 100% completely equal always, would only be in full omniscience from the very beginning only, but other than that, all of the rest of this is 100% very much completely accurate and very true and is "spot on"...

Click to expand...

Thanks.

However, we find nothing in the NT to indicate any kind of inequality among them. What we find is
the close connection in the NT between Father and Son, Father and Spirit, and Son and Spirit pointing to a co-equal relationship; i.e.,

a) "The Lord (Jesus) is the Spirit". . .the Lord (Jesus) who is the Spirit (Ro1:7, 1Co 1:3, 2Co 1:2; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2,; Php 1:2; 1Th 1:1, 3:11; 2Th 1:2, 8, 12, 2:16, 3:5; Ro 8:27; Gal 4:6; 2Co 3:16-18).
The Spirit is one with Jesus in the unity of the Godhead. The Lord (Jesus) works in men through the Spirit; i.e., the Son and Spirit are co-equal divine beings.

b) The Father who will send the Spirit (Jn 14:26), as it was the Father who sent the Son (Jn 5:23, 36).
The Father will send the Spirit "in my name," as Jesus' deputy, doing Jesus' will, acting as his representative and with his authority (Jn 14:26).
As Jesus came in his Father's name (Jn 5:43), acting as his Father's agent, speaking the Father's words (Jn 12:49-50, 14:24), doing the Father's works (Jn 4:34, 5:36, 10:25; 17:4) and bearing witness throughout to the One who sent him,
so would the Spirit come in Jesus' name, to act in the world as the agent and witness of Jesus (Jn 15:26).
It is the Son who will send the Spirit "from the Father" (Jn 15:26).
As the Father sent the Spirit into the world, so the Son will send the Spirit into the world (Jn 16:7).
So the Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father.

c) The Son is subject to the Father (for the Son is sent by the Father in the Father's name--Jn 5:23, 36, 43).
The Spirit is subject to the Father (for the Spirit is sent by the Father in the Son's name--Jn 14:26).
The Spirit is subject to the Son as well as the Father (for the Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father--Jn 15:26, 16:7, 14:26).

Likewise, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are bracketed together as the triune name (singular) of God (Mt 28:19).
a) Paul uses all three interchangeably in 1Co 12:4-6,
b) they are linked in prayer for divine blessing in 2Co 13:14,
c) they are linked in pronouncement of divine blessing in Rev 1:4-5.

So Jesus shows three distinct and separate persons in revealing the mystery of the Trinity--the heart of the Christian faith in God.
That mystery is three separate and distinct Persons, and one God--the Son doing the will of the Father, and the Spirit doing the will of the Father and the Son.

The NT throughout presents the Son and Holy Spirit as divine agents, co-equal with the Father, but distinct, separate and personal (possessing personhood). Nowhere does the NT give us to understand that they are not divine, or are of an inferior nature to the Father. They are always presented as equals--in their nature, in their origin, in their work, in their power, in worship of them.
Always in the NT they are viewed as divine agents, possessing deity within themselves.

And while the NT shows three divine agents, it also shows only one God (Mk 12:29; 1Tim 2:5).
That is the gospel Jesus spells out to Nicodemus (Jn 3:1-21); viz., the combined action of the Triune God.

R7-12 said:

That's not what Christ said in John 17:3. When he was praying to his God and his Father, he clearly said to Him, "You, the Only True God." He did not include himself in that statement and made no mention of God's Holy Spirit. Rather, he referred to himself as the one sent (as a messenger given a task) by the Only True God.

Click to expand...

But elsewhere he used God's name - I AM - and the Jews knew that he was thus claiming equality with God, John 10:33. This is why they tried to stone him and later crucified him.
John 1:1 says that the Word was God and was with God in the beginning, just as Jesus said in John 17:5.

R7-12 said:

Can you tell me how you came to believe in the Trinity?

Click to expand...

It's in the Bible.
Genesis 1:26 - then God said let US make man in OUR image.
Genesis 11:7 - let US go down and confuse their language.
Isaiah 6:8 - whom shall I send and who ill go for US?
Who is "US" when there is only one God? Why is the word for God written in its plural form?
In the NT, the Word was with God and the Word was God, nothing was created without him.
Jesus is the Word of God; in Genesis 1, God spoke and the world was created. Colossians 15 and Hebrews 1 say that the Son is the exact representation of the Father, and through him all things were made.
The Holy Spirit was also present in the beginning, at creation. He is called both "the Spirit of the Lord" and "the Spirit of Jesus", Acts of the Apostles 16:7. All that the Father has belongs to Jesus, and anything that belongs to Jesus, the Spirit can make known to us, John 16:14-15.

As a Jew Jesus believed in one God, not 3.
Jesus was from God, is one with God, was with God before creation and is the only One who has seen God and therefore able to reveal him, John 1:18. The Holy Spirit is eternal, is God's Spirit and is not an angel.
There is only one God.

Neogaia777 said:

I agree with all of this, but do you know which Father Jesus was talking about...?

Click to expand...

There is only one God; Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Jesus' Father was God; the only other person he may have once called father was Joseph, his earthly step-dad.

Bible Highlighter said:

Well said, Clair. My favorites are these truths.

Jesus had power as God:

#1. Jesus said He has power to raise the dead to life just as the Father had power to raise the dead (John 5:21).
#2. Hebrews 1:3 talks about how Christ held all things together by the word of His power when He purged us of our sins.
#3. Jesus said, He would raise up this Temple (His body) three days later (John 2:19).
#4. Jesus had the power to forgive sins and give eternal life (Mark 2:7) (Luke 7:44-50) (John 14:6).
#5 Jesus had power to take away the sins of the entire world (John 1:29).
#6. Jesus Christ said wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am among them (Matthew 18:20). This was said to the people he was around and not to just us today.
#7. Jesus knew men's thoughts (Matthew 9:4) (Matthew 12:25) (Mark 2:8) (Luke 5:22) (Luke 6:8) (Luke 9:47) (Luke 24:38).
#8. Jesus knew about the lives of others (John 2:24) (John 4:17-18) (John 4:29) (John 6:64).


God purchased us with His own blood:

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” (Acts of the Apostles 20:28).


There is no Savior beside or next to God:

“I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.” (Isaiah 43:11).

“So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.” (Matthew 16:19).

Click to expand...

Thanks. . .good additions.

Bible Highlighter said:

Jesus had power as God:

Click to expand...

Last year Sam Shamoun cited a book that he uses calls "Putting Jesus in His place" that is a pretty exhaustive list on this kind of stuff and is free online also did a thread about it last year.


https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/books/fi...AHypwk1tgzsabCdmfzz9jFu6yH3EqetdjK_GVcTdYviJw


Putting Jesus in His Place

Pavel Mosko said:

Augustine's debate with the Arian bishop Maximinus (worth reading the full debate, lots of proof texting early on by the Arian).

Maximinus’s Final Discourse (From His Debate With Augustine)

Click to expand...

I finished reading this long discourse. Maximinus is often accused of being Arian but I don't see that at all. I can quote many statements about the relationship of the Father and the Son, which are very sophisticated and I suspect that EO would agree with. It seems that people like Ulfilus and Maximinus were accused of Arianism when their views were not those of Arius. They were probably closer to Clement of Alexandria. Heresy hunters invent heresies like semi-Arianism and semi-Pelagianism! I suspect their crime was not submitting to the Pope of Rome.

Pavel Mosko said:

https://www.amazon.com/Two-Powers-Heaven-Christianity-Gnosticism/dp/039104172X

Click to expand...

I've become aware of this subject several years ago through the work of Michael Heiser, which is absolutely fascinating and quite true.

Andrewn said:

I finished reading this long discourse. Maximinus is often accused of being Arian but I don't see that at all. I can quote many statements about the relationship of the Father and the Son, which are very sophisticated and I suspect that EO would agree with. It seems that people like Ulfilus and Maximinus were accused of Arianism when their views were not those of Arius. They were probably closer to Clement of Alexandria. Heresy hunters invent heresies like semi-Arianism and semi-Pelagianism! I suspect their crime was not submitting to the Pope of Rome.


I've become aware of this subject several years ago through the work of Michael Heiser, which is absolutely fascinating and quite true.

Click to expand...

I think you are getting confused with the early hard "hard Arianism" vs the later much much softer "semi-Arianism".

Maximinius is definitely an Arian as far as what he professes creedwise. Definitely denying the Trinity, and I seem to recall him making some comments about Christ or objections that really sound like he is denying Christ divinity etc. And he likewise really talks about Tradition vs. the Scripures as far as Trinitarianism goes.


The confusing part I think comes from him stating clearly his position in the end, which sounds very Nicaean and that is because it sort of is (He would be classified as Semi-Arian in theology). He for example mentions a prayer and worship on the Son. The Son as the Lord of Creation etc. But you got to understand this is not what Arianism originally was with Arius, this is sort of a Dialectial position that the Arians began to adopt etc. with their various clashes with the orthodox bishops. Although I hear going back to Nicea if you poled the bishops their were a faction of people that would qualify, they sort of split the difference between Arius and Athanasius.


But in conclusions it comes down to things like Christ being a created being, who is of a similar substance to the Father but not the same substance, and the fact he is not eternal. In contrast, in the Trinity Christ is eternal. He is shares in the same ontology as the father, yet is a different person / hypostasis, but of the same substance etc. and is begotten eternally from the Father etc.


But yes it gets harder to discriminate between Arianism and Orthodox or Catholic Christianity over time because they sort of give up a lot of the extreme saber rattling on doctrine and give Christ more acknowledgement as far as his Divinity goes.

Pavel Mosko said:

Maximinius is definitely an Arian as far as what he professes creedwise. Definitely denying the Trinity, and I seem to recall him making some comments about Christ or objections that really sound like he is denying Christ divinity etc. And he likewise really talks about Tradition vs. the Scripures as far as Trinitarianism goes.

Click to expand...

Instead of arguing from vague recollections, here are actual quotations from what Maximinus wrote. Clearly his beliefs are not similar to Arius or JW's. See if you disagree with them:

“It is certain that, in accord with that blessed substance of his divinity which he had before creation of the world, before the ages, before time, before days, before months, before years, before anything existed, before any thought, he was born from the Father as God in that blessed nature.”



“Who does not know that God begot God, that the Lord begot the Lord, that the King begot the King, that the Creator begot the Creator, that the Good begot the Good, that the Wise begot the Wise, that the Merciful begot the Merciful, and that the Powerful begot the Powerful?”


“Heaven forbid, heaven forbid! The only-begotten God is God of all creation, clean, unstained, holy, secure, without any impurity. After all, one who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him (Jn 5:23).”


“I believe that Christ, God born of the Father before all ages, built for himself, according to Solomon, a perfect home. We read, Wisdom has built a home for itself (Prv 9:1), and he took this home in place of a temple.”


“Look at the Son, and you will see the wisdom of the Father. For this reason Christ himself said, One who has seen me has also seen the Father (Jn 14:9). That is, in me he sees his wisdom; he praises his might; he glorifies the Father who, one and alone, has begotten me, one and alone, so great and so good before all ages. He did not look for material out of which to make him, nor did he take someone as an assistant. Rather, in the way he knew, he begot the Son by his power and his wisdom. We do not profess, as you say when you falsely accuse us, that, just as the rest of creation was made from nothing, so the Son was made from nothing like a creature. Listen to the authority of statement of the Synod; for our fathers in Ariminum said this among other things, ‘If anyone says that the Son is from nothing and not from God the Father, let him be anathema.’”


“You often claim that the Son is equal to the Father, although the only-begotten God always and everywhere proclaims the Father as his author, and from him, as I said just before, he professed that he obtained life. He said, Just as the Father has life in himself, so he gave it to the Son that he has life in himself (Jn 5:26). See, then, how he also received immortality and incorruptibility and inaccessibility along with life from the Father. The Father has life in himself and does not receive it from another.”


“We are called sons by grace; we were not born such by nature. Hence, the Son is the only-begotten, because the Son was born what he is according to the nature of his divinity.”


“We believe Christ’s words, God is spirit (Jn 4:24). The Son was born, as we said; we too profess the true Son and do not deny that he is like the Father, as we have also been taught by the scriptures. Since we are accused of holding different natures, know what it is that we say, namely, that the Father who is spirit begot a spirit before all ages, that God begot God, and everything else that was said above. The true and unborn Father begot the true Son.”


“We read in the Book of Genesis that God the Father, as it says, saw all the works of the Son, and behold, they were all very good (Gn 1:31). Praising the work of the Son, he was glad and rejoiced in the Son, and the Son rejoiced equally in the sight of his Father, when the will of the Father had been accomplished.”


“It is agreed that the Son was in the beginning and was with the Father and was God, and he was in the beginning with God as the firstborn of all creation, and all things were made through him, and without him nothing has been made. That cannot be interpreted as referring to the Holy Spirit. You will not find words reported in the divine scriptures to support the claim that he is equal to the Son. If the Son was in the beginning, the Father was before the beginning and without beginning, insofar as he is unbegotten and unborn. The Son, however, was in the beginning as the firstborn of all creation. He was before all creation, before anything was, and he was with God and he was God, and he was in the beginning with God.”


We can call anybody a semi-anything but this is meaningless. What is a semi-Christian? A Mormon, a Muslim? But, while not agreeing with charging Maximinus of Arianism, he is clearly not Trinitarian because of statements about the Holy Spirit.

Andrewn said:

We can call anybody a semi-anything but this is meaningless. What is a semi-Christian? A Mormon, a Muslim? But, while not agreeing with charging Maximinus of Arianism, he is clearly not Trinitarian because of statements about the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

Good points and quotations all around.

I guess I would counter that it comes down to what you profess and who you Communion with etc. much like the Nicene Christians etc. the their were people descended from Arius that had a different creed.. technically creeds at least 10 on record.


Arian creeds - Wikipedia

Pavel Mosko said:

I guess I would counter that it comes down to what you profess and who you Communion with etc. much like the Nicene Christians etc. the their were people descended from Arius that had a different creed.. technically creeds at least 10 on record.


Arian creeds - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

More reading material for me .

In further comment about Maximinus' discourse:

1) His position regarding the Holy Spirit was not clear to me.

2) He never mentioned homoousuia but I don't see why semi-Arians would necessarily reject it. If the Son is truly begotten, He must be of one ousia with the Father.

Andrewn said:

More reading material for me .

In further comment about Maximinus' discourse:

1) His position regarding the Holy Spirit was not clear to me. But hI imagine that he would agree with what is said about the Spirit in the Nicene-Constatinopolitan Creed (NCC).

2) Reading his comments, it became clear to me that one could be semi-Arian and accept the NCC. He never mentioned homoousuia but I don't see why he would necessarily reject it. If the Son is truly begotten, He must be of one ousia with the Father.

Click to expand...

I think probably so. It seems like a typical position of later Arians (post Nicaea and Arius) is to reject homosioun, but to begin modeling there position, even directly quoting etc. the language from the 1st Nicene creed. At least that is the impression I get reading the commentary etc. without studying things in depth etc.