Are we arians?

I would actually describe myself as homoian, though I don't call myself Arian since I (and the fourth century homoians) have disagreements with Arius' Christology.

The homoians were known for their commitment to scripture alone for doctrine and that is also how I came to the same conclusions as they. Similarly, the 18th century homoians like Samuel Clarke, James Pierce and Joseph Hallet were not afraid to go back to scripture and follow where it led, even when that set them against the popular views of the day.

My friend's website has a lot of good material on this: https://contramodalism.com/

I'm gonna stick with the iran-contra - less to read.

...or possibly Mandarin.

God loves those that are homoaian as well.

arianism is antichrist. Denies the trinity.

**edited**

I think a lot of people today have a misconception that ever since the Nicene creed Christians have believed that the Father, Son and Spirit are all together one individual being, and the one true God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three in one. I'm no expert in church history, but I don't think this is what the Nicenes like Athanasius, Basil "the great" of Caesarea, and Hilary of Poitiers believed, let alone what anyone believed before the fourth century. Thus if the Nicenes were alive today, a lot of people would consider them to be "Trinity deniers". Conversely, the Nicenes would consider modern Catholic and evangelical Trinitarians to be modalists.

The Nicene creed was not intended to teach that the three are one individual being. Rather, Nicaea was teaching generic coessentiality, not individual coessentiality. To explain by an analogy, three men (they would say) have the same generic essence by virtue of them all being humans with human nature. Three men, however, do not have the same individual essence because they are not one man. Basil of Caesarea, for example, said that the word 'homoousios' (coessential) rules out the Father and the Son being the same individual, since one cannot be coessential with oneself, but only with another.

This was still the understanding of coessentiality by the time of Chalcedon:
"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood . . ."

So if we are to hold Nicaea as the standard of Christian orthodoxy, then people today who say that the three persons are the same individual being are heretics.

I have to admit... when I first read the thread title, I mentally put a "y" in it. Perhaps I was influenced by the book my neighbour on the airplane was reading yesterday... "The Tattooist of Auschwitz". She seemed absorbed in it so I didn't ask about it. It sound

I should really have coffee at hand before reading the forums.
I have to admit... when I first read the thread title, I mentally put a "y" in it. Perhaps I was influenced by the book my neighbour on the airplane was reading yesterday... "The Tattooist of Auschwitz". She seemed absorbed in it so I didn't inquire.

I should really have coffee at hand before reading the forums.

Regarding the questions, Jesus Himself said, "The Father is greater than I." in John 14:28.

I'm not aware offhand of any passages that clearly state or imply that the Father Himself ever suffered. To me it's is a matter of speculation.

The whole "ousia" argument is based on post-biblical interpretations rather than actual biblical texts. It's an important issue sadly mired in opinion.

HUH???

ALL of this is exactly why my Church says: We have no Creed but the Bible

I have read the Bible for Dummies.

I guess that makes me one then...

Just to clarify..I read the Bible for dummies, not the Bible for Arians. I suppose they have one as well.

Doesn't this creed allow for those who believe the Father did not suffer rather than express that belief.

Where do Bible-inly Christians who are non-creedal derive the idea that the Father and the Son are of the same substance? Hebrews says the Son is the express image of his substance.

If the preachers and teachers of a church reject the use of certain creeds as speculative about substance, that may reflect the same attitude scene in this creed, but what about preachers who just do not know about creeds and just use the Bible.

One thing I have learned is that, digging into history, some Arians, or groups labeled as Arians by their opponents were not as unorthodox in their theology as the label implies. The religious teachers of some of the Eastern Germanic tribesmen invading the Roman empire did not teach that Christ was created and did not accept the Nicene creed because they thought it went eyond scripture into speculation about the Son or the Spirit. Maybe they did not think a council called with the support of an emperor whose empire they were not a part of was not binding.

Jesus, being in the form of God did not see equality with God as something to be held onto for His own advantage (Phil 2) but humbled Himself for us, and for a little while wad made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death. The LOGOS was coeternal and coequal with the Father in ousia/ being, but during His earthly ministry He was made a little lower than the angels to bring us salvation.

Also, the fact that the Son willingly submits to the Father does not make Him inferior in ousia. We are called to submit, as EQUALS, to one another. Submission does not mean inferiority in ousia.

In the Godhead, the head of Christ is God, but that is in reference to role, not greater/lesser in being.

No, I am not an Arian. There is only one God, and He is uncreated. Arians believe Jesus was created, yet the Bible asserts that Jesus is God.

A. One God, uncreated

B. Father is God, Son is God, Spirit is God.

C. Therefore Father, Son, and Spirit are uncreated, refuting Arianism

If you want to question me on any point, feel free

There are two ways to look at the relationship between the person's of the Trinity. Ontological and Economic. Ontological deals with ousia, being, of same substance. Economic deals with role within the Godhead. The thee persons are coequal in ousia, but When one serves or submits to another in role, it does not indicate inferiority in ousia. Jesus served the disciples, though He was Greater, and we are to submit to one another as equal believers

Jesus came to them and said,
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

Matthew 28:18

A
A pre-existent state

B. Self abasement

C. Glorification.

Father, glorify me with the Glory I had with you before the foundation of the world.

Christ's life wasn't the only thing He laid down and took up again. He humbled Himself in the Incarnation, and in the resurrection and Ascension He was glorified with the Glory He had before the earth was even made. It was a laying down and a receiving again.

He didn't receive authority over heaven and Earth for the first time at His resurrection. As Creator, He already had it. But He abased Himself bybecoming a servant, then being exalted by God. Not for His sake only, but so that we might exalted with Him
That's what was accomplished in the incarnation

I think the Bible is very clear that Jesus has always been and will always be subordinate to the Father. That's why He sits at the Father's right hand, i.e. as the second in command. That's also why Jesus calls the Father His God (e.g. Rev 1:6, Eph 1:17), even after His ascension, and the Father still remains the head of Christ (1 Cor 11:3). It's also related to the fact He is begotten whereas the Father is unbegotten; that He is the Son while the Father is His Father; that He is the image of the Father, not the other way around; that He is the one sent and the Father is the one sending; that in the OT He was the angel/messenger of the the LORD, while the Father was the one directing Him as messenger. Moreover, we are told in 1 Cor 15:27-28 that the Father did not subject Himself to Jesus (whereas the opposite is true). Paul also identifies the Father alone as the one most high God (1 Cor 8:6, Eph 4:6) and only sovereign (1 Tim 6:15). It's really all over the Bible (although I've mainly just been referring to the NT).

I don't believe that *necessarily* make Jesus ontologically inferior, but it certainly makes Him inferior in status, and I think the Bible puts more importance on status and authority than it does on metaphysical nature.

Moreover, I understand Phil 2 and John 5:18 and following to be denying that Jesus is equal (though not necessarily ontologically) to the Father, though I know that interpretation is not so popular today.

A much much better source of truth concerning the God the Father and God the Son - both being Yahweh.

Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism
by Alan F. Segal
In his now classic "Two Powers in Heaven," Alan Segal examines rabbinic evidence about early manifestations of the
"two powers" heresy within Judaism. Segal sheds light upon the development of and relationships among early Christianity,
Gnosticism, and Merkabah mysticism and demonstrates that belief in the "two powers in heaven" was widespread by the first century, and may have been a catalyst for the Jewish rejection of early Christianity.
An important addition to New Testament and Gnostic scholarship by this much revered scholar, Segal's "Two Powers in Heaven"
is made available once again for a new generation.

Some of the things you mention have to do with the Incarnation, when Jesus was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death.

A. Jesus chose not to use some of His attributes, like Omniscience, Omnipresence, and even omnipotence (more on that later). If Jesus in His Essence does not possess these attributes, than He is neither of the same substance nor equal in ousia with the Father. So if you deny the Divine attributes to Christ, you are denying that He is of the same substance.

But He possesses the attributes, He just did not appropriate them in His earthly life

B. Why didn't Christ exercise these Divine prerogatives? Because it was necessary for Him to be made in all points like His brethren, so that He might be the Captain of our salvation

C He had to walk the path of obedience and dependence on the Father, because WE DO. He is the Pioneer of our salvation, as He said " I sanctify myself for their sakes, that they might be sanctified

D. It was necessary for Him to "walk in our shoes", yet without sin, so that we could walk in His paths following Him

E. And role, submission, and service do not make one inferior to another. The relationship of the person's of the Trinity is more about mutual love than authority

Actually, that now makes you a bible scholar.