Arianism and Islam

Last year I obtained and read the book Early Arianism - A View of Salvation by Robert C. Gregg and Dennise E. Groh. 

Before I read this book I thought of the Arian heresy as being like as a Tolkien Nerd viewing Jesus as Manwe rather then Eru Iluvatar, due to it being defined casually as believing Jesus isn't Co-Eternal with The Father but is still Divine in a sense including still having a Preexistence as The Logos.  

However reading this book and how well it quotes what little we have of the arguments of the Earliest Arians (and responses to them) has made me realize that they did view Jesus as being in His core essence no different from any other Human, even how He's the Son of God is simply as the First-Born of how all Believers are Sons of God.

They did believe Jesus had a Pre-Existence, but if they believed all Humans also had a Pre-Existence then that doesn't conflict with what I just said.  The book doesn't address that, but it does show they put a lot of emphasis on arguing Jesus did not have any inherent advantage over other Humans in His ability to be Sinless.  If only He had a Pre-Existence then that would be an advantage.

I'd spent years being annoyed at Arianism being characterized by uninformed casuals as being a belief that Jesus wasn't Divine at all but just a Human.  The truth is however that is exactly what the Early Arians believed, they only believed Jesus to be Divine in the same way they and Orthodox-Nicene-Trinitarian Christians ultimately believe all Humans to be Divine (or all Believers at least).  They were different from other ways of denying the Deity of Christ only in the semantics of how they define things.

This book was about stressing the Arians' view of Salvation, but by that it means the how of Salvation, so for example whether or not the Arians even considered Universal Salvation doesn't come up.  All the Proto-Pelegian stress they put on Free Will makes it seem unlikely at first glance, but Athanasius put some stress on Free Will as well and we know he taught Universal Salvation.

What the title of the book means by Early Arianism is the very first generation, Arius himself, Eusebius of Nicomedia and one or two other less well known contemporaries of them.  The Arians who were prominent later in the 340s-80s were divided into three distinct sects who some might argue none of which was really a pure continuation of the original Arianism.  So the possibility that one or two or all of them became the Manwe-Jesus type Arians I initially thought of is still possible, but I don't know everything about any of them.

Two of these groups get called Semi-Arians, the Homoiousians (who in time became almost entirely also Pneumatomachi/Macedonians) and the Acacians also called Homoians/Homoeans.  These kinds of Arianism were the ones actually advocated/promoted by the two Arian Emperors and went on to become the Arianism of the East Germanic Barbarians.  The third group were the Aetians also called Anoumians, Eunomians, and Heteroousians, and some modern scholars even call them Hyper-Arians.

On the issue of Ousias itself the Acacians were the ones following Arius's original intent, it was Constantine himself who added Homoousianism to the controversy at Nicaea, the Ousias of Christ wasn't part of Arius's original definition of his beliefs at all.  However in other ways Acacius of Caesarea does seem like he was compromising.  It may well be the "Hyper Arians" who were the true Arians of this period.

During the Reign of Constantius II Arianism gained a presence in Arabia via Theophilus the Indian.  Theophilus however had a complicated relationship with the Arian Emperors since he ultimately sided with the Aetians.  Aetius himself was Syrian and the boundary between Syria and Arabia was pretty flexible in Roman times, they never built any major walls there. 

Mawiyya was a Pro-Nicene Arab Queen rebelling against the Arian Emperor Valens, but Valens was also persecuting the Aetians so maybe the Aetians among the Arabs weren't really hindered by Mawiyya at all?

I have prior posts on this Blog exploring the theory of Islam being originally a heretical sect of Christianity.  I do believe Mohammad literally existed and that his hostility to the Fatherhood of God made his brand of Abrahamism from the start distinct from whatever older sects it descends from.  I also still support the Petra as the original Mecca theory.  

Now my past looking into this focused on the Ebionites and then Nestorians.  However while doing that I learned how John of Damascus, our earliest source to provide any detailed description of Islamic Doctrines, said Muhammad was influenced by Arianism.  And Arian connection is later repeated in the 10th Century by Thomas Artzruni.  I had originally dismissed that idea largely because of the above mentioned assumptions I'd made about Arianism before reading this book.

The Qur'an teaches Jesus isn't Allah, but does call Him a Word from Allah and uniquely without Sin. It does consider Him The Jewish Messiah and to have been born of a Virgin.  It also teaches a general Preexistence for all Humans and so certainly implies one for Jesus as well.  

Honestly there is a lot of overlap between theorizing Arian origins for Islam and the Nestorian theory, if you read Early Arianism already knowing as much about the Nestorian Controversy as I do you'll notice the Arians have some of the same concerns like Divine Impassability, which makes me rethink the possible influence of Lucian of Antioch on Arianism.  A lot of these theories on Islamic Origins suggest Syriac Liturgy explains a lot about the Qur'an and Aetius could have written a Syriac Liturgy of his own or his followers could have modified an existing one. 

But Nestorians are Trinitarians, so Islam is closer to Arianism then Nestorianism theologically.  Meanwhile Islam's inclusion of the Virgin Birth is an issue for the Ebionite theory.  And specifically Heteroousianism perhaps best explains the Islamic emphasis on condemning "Associators". 

Once again I should repeat that NO the Qur'an does not say Jesus didn't die on The Cross, that is a common misunderstanding that plenty of both Muslim and Christian scholars have refuted.  The Sura commonly alleged to say otherwise is merely denying that the Jews can claim credit for it.

https://www.alislam.org/articles/death-of-hazrat-jesus/

All Christians are Christians (for the most part).

Ready to Harvest is a YouTube channel that seeks to as objectively as possible discus the differences between different Christian Denominations.  But they also did a video on the question of defining what it means to be a Christian.

He doesn't seek to definitely answer the question in the video, but there is a general sense that he feels "Anyone who follows Jesus" is too lose a definition, that at least within the Church there needs to be allowance for denying the status of Christian to Christians who are sufficiently heterodox.  The Problem is Scripture is more interested in what absolutely proves someone is a True Believer then insisting anything can prove someone is not.

First verse I want to bring up is 1 Corinthians 12:3.

"Wherefore I give you to understand, that no human speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no human can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Spirit."

The last part of that verse is a pretty bold statement, Paul doesn't even consider it hypothetically possible for a person to say Jesus is The Lord if they don't have The Holy Spirit.

Now I am inclined to believe that every time The New Testament says "The Lord" it's meant to be understood as a reference to YHWH, in The Hebrew Bible Adonai is a title only for YHWH, and by NT times the Jewish habit of refusing to actually say the Name but say Adonai/The Lord instead was already being established.  So that can make what it means to say Jesus is The Lord a bit more specific then a plain English reading of this verse at first implies and would prevent this verse from applying to Marcionites or JWs.

But regardless the implication is any person saying that must have The Holy Spirit no matter what else they are wrong on and no matter how bad their behavior is.

A Second verse to bring up is 1 John 4:15.

"Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God."

Again, anyone confessing that Jesus is The Son of God is a true regenerated Believer, no matter what other doctrines they are wrong on or what they actually do. Later 1st John 5:4-5 says that anyone who believes Jesus is The Son of God overcomes The World because they are Born of God.

The importance of that being the defining Confession is backed up by a number of passages, it's the first verse of Mark's Gospel and then what the Centurion proclaims in 15:39, it's what Peter confesses before he's given the Keys to the Kingdom in Matthew 16:19 (and again in John 6:69), it's Martha's confession in John 11:27, and what John 20:31 says we are given Life by believing, and it's the only thing the Ethiopian Eunuch has to confess before being Baptized in Acts 8:37.

Okay most of those verses also include believing Jesus is The Christ, Christ being the Greek equivalent of Messiah.  In the modern world what it means to believe Jesus is The Messiah has become a bit watered down as now any kind of prophesied Hero figure can be called a "Messianic Archetype" even if not from an Abrahamic culture, but back then that Language for a promised Savior was uniquely Jewish.  Believing Jesus is The Christ meant believing He was the instrument of the fulfilment of YHWH's promises to Israel, so again Marcionites and Gnostics putting Jesus in conflict with YHWH don't actually believe Jesus is The Christ no matter how much they appropriate that Language.

But let's get back to the Son of God issue. 

I do believe this requires believing in Jesus as The Son of God in a very unique distinct sense separate from how all Believers and ultimately all people are God's children.  In Brigahmite Mormonism Jesus is the Son of God only in being the Firstborn of humanity.  

I believe the statement that Jesus is God is Biblically supported, Colossians 2:9 says Jesus was the fulness of The Godhead made Bodily giving support even specifically to Homousianism, and in the opening verses of the Fourth Gospel The Word fits the modern definition of capital G God, the Uncreated Creator of the Universe.  I am also a Trinitarian having a post on this Blog about how even The Hebrew Bible is Trinitarian.

But Confessionally and Creedily speaking Jesus as The Son of God is the Biblical emphasis.  Romans was an Epistle Paul wrote to a community he hadn't known in person yet so it features his personal statement of Faith at the beginning and it never directly calls Jesus God but stressed Jesus as The Son of God. 

The Rule of Faith documented by Irenaeus and Tertullian and the Old Roman Symbol each emphasize Jesus as The Son of God not Jesus as God.

So I kind of am uncomfortable with how often modern Statements of Faith put all the emphasis on Jesus being God with His Sonship relegated to "The Son" as a title.

In 1 John and 2 John three things are defined as being Antichrist, denying that Jesus is The Christ, denying the relationship of the Father and the Son and denying Jesus came "in the Flesh".  The Qur'an is hostile to God having a Son in any sense, it utterly rejects the idea of God as a Father, so that's why Muslims can't count as Christians.  But they do believe Jesus was the Messiah and came in the Flesh so those who say Islam fits the Antichrist Heresy perfectly are wrong.

I have decided not to make a Physical Bodily General Resurrection or Universal Salvation requirements for truly qualifying as a Christian because of these Biblical observations, even though it is my opinion that those two doctrines are the definition of The Gospel based on 1 Corinthians 15 and thus definitely more important then any of the nuanced Greek semantical issues debated at the seven Ecumenical Councils or for that matter what the Protestant Reformation was originally about.

Now one might make an objection that a given group "doesn't mean the same thing we mean by Son of God", and that could be a valid argument if the Arians or Unitarians were the ones blatantly twisting the very definitions of those words.  But the truth is we Trinitarians are the ones departing from what it normally mean to call someone the Son of someone else by believing The Son and The Father are Co-Eternal.

Now my way of addressing that criticism of Trinitarianism involves my belief that Jesus became The Son during the Incarnation.  But most mainline Christians don't like that argument because they're bought into the Platonist Heresy of Divine Immutability, everything Jesus is He must have always been somehow, but that idea isn't Scriptural.

So yes any form of Nicene Christianity is real Christianity but also plenty of Non Nicenes could be as well.

Update January 6th 2025: So I've gotten pushback on this in a Facebook Group by someone citing Titus 1:16 to prove there are Professors who aren't "Saved".  That verse is about people Professing to Know God not that Jesus is The Son of God.   But also nothing there says they aren't Believers, it is because Believers are Temples that being "Pure" is a concern.

Also Galatians 1 with the "another Gospel" reference.  doesn't even deny these people are Christians, just calls them Accursed meaning they will suffer some Punishment for their bad doctrine.