Officially Nontrinitarian Christianity

(I am aware that there exist non-trinitarian groups IOTL. However, the major groups are all trinitarian, which is exactly what this is intended to be about)

Exactly what it says on the tin. Suppose the mainline form of Christianity is not trinitarian (presumably, it is unitarian, but...come up with whatever ideas on that you want), through whatever PODs you care to use. What happens?
 
Butterflies will inevitably cause major FUBAR world, but I also think this will butterfly away filioque, a lot of the problems of Christology, and other issues. Depending on what branch wins, the theology of the future Europe and perhaps Africa and Middle East (Islam butterflied away) will be radically altered. Gnostic world would be pretty neat- I plan to make a timeline featuring Carthaginian-assimilated Constantian dynasty Africa converting to Valentinian Gnostic Christianity in the aftermath of the Tetrarchies.
 

Philip

Donor
Arianism anyone?

Arianism was Trinitarian, though it disagrees with the Nicene faith on the nature of the Trinity.

The confession of Ulfila, Apostle to the Goths:

I, Ulfila, bishop and confessor, have always so believed, and in this, the one true faith, I make the journey to my Lord; I believe in one God the Father, the only unbegotten and invisible, and in his only-begotten son, our Lord and God, the designer and maker of all creation, having none other like him (so that one alone among all beings is God the Father, who is also the God of our God); and in one Holy Spirit....​
 
hmmm. i was under the impression that arianism differed with orthodoxy in that it emphasized the oneness of God, and claimed that Jesus was simply God's most perfect and highest creation, not a god, but the closest possible thing.

maybe i'm getting my heresies mixed up
 
Arianism was Trinitarian, though it disagrees with the Nicene faith on the nature of the Trinity.

The confession of Ulfila, Apostle to the Goths:
I, Ulfila, bishop and confessor, have always so believed, and in this, the one true faith, I make the journey to my Lord; I believe in one God the Father, the only unbegotten and invisible, and in his only-begotten son, our Lord and God, the designer and maker of all creation, having none other like him (so that one alone among all beings is God the Father, who is also the God of our God); and in one Holy Spirit....​

To anybody who is in a position of authority on the subject, Arianism is non-Trinitarian. This is because the Trinity is more than just the existence of something called a "Father," "Son," and "Holy Ghost." The concept of the Trinity also includes the idea that these three are equal, eternal, and one.

Arianism rejects this, as the Son is stated to be created, and thus not coeternal, and inferior to the Father and the Holy Ghost.

You can't exactly be Trinitarian if you don't have three equal parts you see.

As to the OP, keeping Arianism in favour in the early church would probably be the easiest bet. How to actually do this specifically...well, there are lots of possibilities, because Arianism as alive and strong for a rather long time.
 
As to the OP, keeping Arianism in favour in the early church would probably be the easiest bet. How to actually do this specifically...well, there are lots of possibilities, because Arianism as alive and strong for a rather long time.

perhaps, since Constantine was baptized as an Arian, he may have had more leanings towards it earlier in life, like when he ordered the Council of Nicea, he could push more for it. If he was influential enough amongst the bishops, the council might lean in favor of Arianism
 

Philip

Donor
hmmm. i was under the impression that arianism differed with orthodoxy in that it emphasized the oneness of God,

He emphasized the oneness and separateness of the Father.

and claimed that Jesus was simply God's most perfect and highest creation, not a god, but the closest possible thing.

With Arianism, we need to careful not to conflate the persons of the Logos/God the Son and Jesus. Arius believed that the Logos/Son was God (although a second-order God, in some sense) begotten by the Father. Though not eternal like the Father, he existed before time. Eusebius quotes Arius writing

Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable,

IIRC, he thought Jesus a man whose human soul had been replaced by the Logos.
 

Philip

Donor
To anybody who is in a position of authority on the subject, Arianism is non-Trinitarian. This is because the Trinity is more than just the existence of something called a "Father," "Son," and "Holy Ghost." The concept of the Trinity also includes the idea that these three are equal, eternal, and one.

The orthodox concept includes those ideas. There have been many non-orthodox understandings, especially as to the meaning of 'equal' and 'one'.

Arianism rejects this, as the Son is stated to be created
Begotten before the beginning of time and the creator of all things.

and inferior to the Father and the Holy Ghost.
Inferior to the Father, yes, but not the Spirit. Arius asserted that the Spirit was created by the Father through the Son, and that the Spirit was subservient to the Son as the Son to the Father. Again, I refer to the Confession of Ulfilas:

[The Holy Spirit] being neither God [the Father] nor our God [Christ], but the minister of Christ ... subject and obedient in all things to the Son; and the Son, subject and obedient in all things to God who is his Father .​

You can't exactly be Trinitarian if you don't have three equal parts you see.

Again, historically there has been much debate as to how the three Persons are equal. Oh, and I am not sure the phrase 'three equal parts' is very Trinitarian. Three equal persons, yes, but parts, no. That would deny the unity and simplicity of God.
 
The orthodox concept includes those ideas. There have been many non-orthodox understandings, especially as to the meaning of 'equal' and 'one'.

I would consider, and perhaps this is just me personally, such ideas to be decidedly non-Trinitarian. At least some of them anyway. Among them, Arianism.


Begotten before the beginning of time and the creator of all things.

But still begotten. Before he was begotten, he wasn't.


Inferior to the Father, yes, but not the Spirit. Arius asserted that the Spirit was created by the Father through the Son, and that the Spirit was subservient to the Son as the Son to the Father. Again, I refer to the Confession of Ulfilas:
[The Holy Spirit] being neither God [the Father] nor our God [Christ], but the minister of Christ ... subject and obedient in all things to the Son; and the Son, subject and obedient in all things to God who is his Father .​

Fascinating. I was unaware. This would make more sense to me actually, I'm glad it came up.

As you can see I'm no expert.

Again, historically there has been much debate as to how the three Persons are equal. Oh, and I am not sure the phrase 'three equal parts' is very Trinitarian. Three equal persons, yes, but parts, no. That would deny the unity and simplicity of God.

Yes, I forget to watch my language sometimes when talking about these sorts of things.
 
By some arguments non Trinitarian Christianity is a contradiction in terms. In theory there would be better relations between Christianity and Islam because Christ would have been a prophet rather than a deity and a subsequent prophet shouldn't give any problems. So fewer religious wars may have been an outcome although whether it would have any beraing on the Sunni Shia schism I am not qualified to comment
 
An officially non-Trinitarian Christianity, 'kay? How about making the Ebionites and other similar non-Trinitarian Jewish-Christian movements alive and more prominent?
 
By some arguments non Trinitarian Christianity is a contradiction in terms. In theory there would be better relations between Christianity and Islam because Christ would have been a prophet rather than a deity and a subsequent prophet shouldn't give any problems. So fewer religious wars may have been an outcome although whether it would have any beraing on the Sunni Shia schism I am not qualified to comment


Unless the Christians see the acceptance of a prophet coming after Jesus as a heresy. (Assuming Islam still happens, of course)
 
An officially non-Trinitarian Christianity, 'kay? How about making the Ebionites and other similar non-Trinitarian Jewish-Christian movements alive and more prominent?

By "officially non-Trinitarian," I mean that trinitarianism becomes a minority, sect-like position, as non-trinitarianism was IOTL, and is never adopted as a position at any of the ecumenical councils. So keeping those movements alive would probably not achieve what I would like, unless you think by keeping them alive you can keep it from being adopted.
 
Top