From the letter:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.iv.viii.i.v.html
This clearly supports what I've been saying, what all his opponents were saying. Arius believed there was a time when the Son was not, "that the Son has a beginning."
Free, I wish to say that any hatred of others is caused by pride. And that differences can arise that stir up pride and cause division. Anytime we hate someone it is not of God. Why? Because there is a Truth, that I hope all men will eventually submit to, that is Eternal. And in that Truth we all have peaceful fellowship in the Love that is God.
I therefore feel it would be prudent to point out that there are more than one translation of this letter. Moreover, I can find misunderstandings on both sides of this issue. Indeed there are even more issues with these words in this letter that I can bring forth which are not even discussed. For example, if I were to say, "Christ is not any part of God", it would be hard to tell whether I meant Christ is fully God, or not God at all. That is what I mean by the problem with semantics and how the devil can use them to cause division.
I believe Arius is saying this: He is begotten, therefore he had a beginning
as a man conceived in the mind of the Almighty before time began. This can only refer to the Christ, the son of man conceived of a virgin, or, the Word
"made" flesh. I will assume you hear him saying the Word is not eternal, without beginning, so Jesus is not divine but only mere man.
I feel Arius actually speaks of before he was made flesh in this manner:
"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,"
It is not at all a false dichotomy. Either Jesus is fully God, which means he has always existed in some form, or he is not God.
I feel you almost said it right. This addition would make your statement correct in my view.
Either Jesus is fully God, which means he has always existed in some form other than flesh, or he is not God.
But of course if you said it this way, I could agree and would agree.
You are getting too caught up in small things and missing the bigger picture. The point is, the Son was in some way involved in the creation of everything (which implies he is God), so there is no difference if "by him" or "through him" is used.
Respectfully, small things can make big differences, both good and bad. Therefore He is involved in some way in the creation, but in what way? By saying "through" the Word as in God spoke, He is the very power of creation. All things were created through him and for him, but he himself is conceived by God the Father Who spoke His Word.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)
The Word, as used in John 1, is clearly the pre-incarnate Son. This is in perfect agreement with John 1:1-3 and 1 Cor 8:6.
For what it's worth, I feel that 1 Corinthians 8:6 is the right way to view the trinity. I agree that "The Word" as used in John 1 is clearly the pre-incarnate son. But John 1:14 is the Christ, the Word made flesh, the only begotten son of God. Not that there are two sons, but the Christ is perceived as the spirit of a man and God intertwined. Therefore he is the means and purpose of the creation. So again, allow me to add to what you say above; "The Word", as used in John 1, is clearly the pre-incarnate Son, the power and purpose of the creation, conceived and spoken by the Almighty God. Compare that to this:
1 Corinthians 8:6New International Version (NIV)
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.