No, they claim Christ was birthed. Because thats what the bible says. He was "brought forth" out of God.
God is divine, so anything that comes out of God will be divine. Hence His Son is divine.
Begotten. Not created.
Do “Arians” teach there was a time when the Son of God was not ?
The bible teaches it.
Before the worlds were created the Father brought forth a Son from inside Himself. Someone who is "begotten" and "brought forth" obviously has a starting point.
It is not heresy. It is biblical.
Oh okay, see that’s the difference. In Trinitarian belief, it’s understood that the “begottenness” of the Son of God is not identical to the begottenness of humanity - because the Divine is Uncreated and Eternal.
Whether you believe “the Bible” teaches it or not isn’t particularly relevant. “The Bible” is a collection of literature, which does not in itself have free agency - but must be read and interpreted by living teachers. “The Bible” doesn’t teach anything - teachers do.
And therefore, though you claim the Bible teaches there was time that the Son of God was not, that’s actually not what the Bible teaches - because the very Tradition that gave us the Bible has taught us otherwise.
Logically, because you’re claiming the Begotten Son of God has a beginning, in time, you’re teaching that the Divine is subject to temporal reality. The Orthodox teaching is that the Divine is not subject to temporal reality. Therefore, we cannot both be correct. One of us must be wrong.
As such, Arianism apparently teaches that the Son of God is, in essence, less Divine than God the Father. This is regarded as heretical by the Orthodox.
(post is archived)