I never said they did not believe in the Trinity, but why should I now expect you to show me the courtesy of reading my posts before "responding".
The Arians interpreted the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) differently. To them there was only one self-created entity--the Father. They believed that the Father created the Son so that the Son had a beginning and therefore was something less than the Father, but was still of similar substances, and was the source of redemption.
And it wasn't just the Arians who claimed belief in only one god, it is the Nicenes as well and, presumably, you. The Nicenes could also accuse the Arians of being polytheistic by creating a demigod out of Christ.
Don't ask me to make sense of it. I can't. But that is apparently what they believed. And if you read Mark, you see God speaking of Jesus as though he is a distinct entity. Christians typically visualize him sitting at the right hand of God--even in the spiritual world he is seen as a distinct entity. It is a contorted notion maybe, but so is the idea that the Trinity are simultaneously the same and different. Now that violates identity (a reference to another thread, sorry).
Look, don't take my word for it. Why not read up on the heresies yourself. It's just history. Maybe you'll find my facts are wrong and you'll then actually be able to form a counterargument.
Just because someone believes that God is three co-equal beings (the Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit), does not automatically make that person a Christian, either.
Are you changing your definition of "Christian" now? The prior definition you gave was the one substantial comment made that furthered the debate (which remember hinges on Arians being Christian).
Your earliest remark regarding the Trinity: "The discussion I'm having stemmed from someone's remarks that unless one believes in the "Trinity of persons within the Godhead", one is not a Christian."
---------------
Then you went to "interpretation of the Trinity:"
"I never said they did not believe in the Trinity . . . The Arians interpreted the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) differently. To them there was only one self-created entity--the Father. They believed that the Father created the Son so that the Son had a beginning and therefore was something less than the Father, but was still of similar substances, and was the source of redemption.
----------------
"Should [they] be denied the right to be called Christian b/c they interpreted the trinity differently than the Nicenes."
-----------------
"the Nicenes, whose interpretation of the Trinity is that of the Catholics AND all protestant denominations, were polytheistic by way of their belief in 3 deities. The Arians differed from the Nicenes primarily in their interpretaion of the early gospels . . . as being strictly monotheistic with one God, and the Holy Spirit and Christ being something less and different"
-------------------
Many Arians may have had sincere beliefs in God. I do not question that (of course, there were probably many who used it against others, as some pastors or leaders do today, regardless of their faith). But it sounds to me that they had a great misunderstanding of who God is. They may have been sincere, but they were also sincerely wrong if they believed or interpreted in God as something other than there being co-equality amongst three beings Who are also one.
John 1:1-5 would refute Jesus being something less than equal to God, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not," as would John 10:30 "I and my Father are one," as would other Scripture. One could look to the passage of Pontius Pilate making declarations against Jesus claiming to be God, which He did not deny.
Are you changing your definition of "Christian" now? The prior definition you gave was the one substantial comment made that furthered the debate (which remember hinges on Arians being Christian).
No; I have not changed any definition of "Christian." To reiterate: A Christian believes in the Trinity (something I have said all along). A Christian believes that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, that the Holy Spirit is God, i.e., three co-equal beings yet one; the Father sent the Son to die for our sins; the Son sent the Holy Spirit to indwell the believer; for this to happen, there is a belief process required. There's lots of Scripture previously quoted on this thread (by me and others), and I'm sure you know of yet still others.
Belief in the Trinity does not make one a Christian; but a Christian believes in the Trinity. To believe otherwise is to disbelieve the Scriptures, and to disbelieve that Jesus is who He claimed He was. If He was the Word, and He was in the beginning with God, and if all things were made by Him, then He was never spiritually created, because He always was and because He and the Father are one. Now, I suppose, one could argue about whether Jesus even had a hand in creating Himself as a man, since Scripture says "without Him was not any thing made that was made."
I won't mind reading up on the Arians and what they thought; in fact, I just might do that.