Question about Arianism

W

Winterleaf

New Member
I understand that Arianism teaches that Jesus did not always exist and that the Son is subordinate to the Father.
While I believe Jesus always existed, I don't see what is wrong with the Son being subordinate to the Father,
particularly with these verses;

John 10:29
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

John 14:28
You have heard how I said to you, I go away, and come again to you.
If you loved me, you would rejoice, because I said, I go to the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
 
Winterleaf said:
I understand that Arianism teaches that Jesus did not always exist and that the Son is subordinate to the Father.
While I believe Jesus always existed, I don't see what is wrong with the Son being subordinate to the Father,
particularly with these verses;

John 10:29
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

John 14:28
You have heard how I said to you, I go away, and come again to you.
If you loved me, you would rejoice, because I said, I go to the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Click to expand...
Arianism is a heresy contextual to Trinitarianism, and its concept of God the Son being somehow begotten in heaven eternally. The key thing here is that Jesus (aka God the Son) is being begotten in heaven and not on earth.

Arianism posits that if this is the case (i.e. the Logos is a begotten "God the Son"), then there must have been a time when the Word was not (i.e. before the Word or "God the Son" was begotten) such that he is an "inferior" God in the sense that such a heavenly begotten God the Son could not be "homoousios" with God the Father.

Arianism is really the opposite heresy to Sabellianism. Sabellianism emphasizes the substance (ousia) of God over the persons (aspects) of God, whereas Arianism emphasizes the persons of God over the substance of God. Classical Trinitarianism sits in the middle.

All three doctrines are contextual to the adoption of the "homoousios" doctrine, which is an import from Greek philosophy.

They can be discounted by rejecting the "homoousios" doctrine as not found in the bible, and by taking a reasonable position that in the bible, (a) to be begotten, simply means to be born, (b) it is impermissible to speculate on what happened before the world was, as nothing is stated as to this, (c) in the beginning, the Word of God and the Father ("the God") both had and have the form of God (Phil 2:6) and (d) that the Word functioned with the Father's power glory and authority, such that the Word was no "lesser" God economically in respect of creation then the Father.
 
When Jesus said the Father was greater than Him, He was speaking while as a man, made in the form of a servant.

Referring to someone as being 'greater' denotes office/role whereas using the word 'better' denotes nature. For instance, the President of the U.S. is 'greater' than any other American citizen because of his office/role as President, but he is not 'better' than any other person because he himself is a human being just as is every other American.

Jesus also said He & the Father "are one" The response of the Jewish religious leaders was to pick up stones to stone Him for blasphemy because He "being a man, made Himself equal with God" So, He declared He & the Father were of one essence, of the same Divine nature.

Ergo, as a man, the Father was 'greater'. As God, He was equal in nature with the Father (& the Holy Spirit)!
 
Athanasian_Creed said:
Jesus also said He & the Father "are one" The response of the Jewish religious leaders was to pick up stones to stone Him for blasphemy because He "being a man, made Himself equal with God" So, He declared He & the Father were of one essence, of the same Divine nature.

Ergo, as a man, the Father was 'greater'. As God, He was equal in nature with the Father (& the Holy Spirit)!
Click to expand...

Excellent points.

1. Citing both John 5:18 and John 14:28 the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) reads: John accepts the paradox that he is the Son who is both subject to the Father and yet also one with Him (10:30; 1:1). In other words, He is equal to the Father. (3:352-353, isos, Stahlin)
2. Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words: Jesus declares that, "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28; 1520). This does not not suggest inequality in the Trinity, but rather expresses a willing subordination of the Son to the will of the Father. (Greater, page 309)

I affirm that my wife and I are co-equal. This means that we are equally human beings. But someone may come along and say, "Hey, wait a minute! Ephesians 5:24 teaches that she is to submit to you, and 1 Corinthians 11:3 says that you are her head. Therefore, your affirmation is incorrect that she is co-equal with you."

My response: Functional subjection does not necessitate ontological inferiority. To affirm that Jesus can't be God because the Father is greater than Jesus makes just as much nonsense as saying my wife isn't a human being because she subjects herself to me. When the Bible teaches that Jesus subjected Himself to Joseph and Mary doesn't mean that Jesus is ontologically inferior to them (Luke 2:51).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top