So let’s draw the lines cleanly, using the real meanings of the terms that keep getting mixed.
What Arianism actually is
Arianism (classical): the Son is not eternal like God and is on the creature side of reality—exalted, first, unique, but ultimately made. That’s why it can sound reverent while still being a reduction: “highest created mediator.”
That is not what I confess.
What I’m not saying
I am not arguing for a demigod (half God / half man), and I am not arguing for “Michael-plus” (a created archangel promoted to Messiah). Those are the very moves that define the Arian direction.
What I am saying
The Bible already gives Israel a category for divine self-disclosure that is not “ordinary angel” and not “separate god”: the sent Presence—the Angel of HaShem, the bearer of the Name, the Defender and Judge who goes ahead of Israel and will not treat rebellion as trivial because the Name is in Him.
That is why Hebrews 1 matters: its argument is not “He’s the greatest angel.” It’s “He is not in the angel class.” He is enthroned, receives worship, is spoken to in divine terms, is the agent of creation, and sits at the right hand of Majesty. That logic breaks the category of “created mediator.”
Why the label keeps getting weaponized
Once theology got braided to empire, labels became border patrol. “Arian” became a convenient bucket to dump any confession that wouldn’t fit Rome’s preferred packaging—especially when someone used older Jewish language about the divine Presence.
Arius: the presbyter whose teaching made “Son as creature” the flashpoint.
Arianism: Son is not eternal as God is eternal; Son is created (even if uniquely so).
Nicene (homoousios): “same essence/being” with the Father—meant to block the “created Son” move.
Homoiousios: “similar essence”—often a middle position historically; easily blurred in polemics.
Dyophysite: “two natures” language (divine + human) after later Christological debates; not automatically “Arian,” but sometimes used as a political sorting mechanism in later fights.
Miaphysite: “one united nature” (without confusion) language; often closer to Semitic instincts about unity without dividing Messiah into two subjects.
“Two Powers in Heaven”: a Jewish controversy about how Scripture speaks of God’s throne/Name/Glory alongside a second figure; relevant because it shows the debate is not a late Christian invention.
Angel of HaShem / Prince of the Presence (Sar haPanim): biblical-Jewish ways of naming the sent, personal Presence—not “ordinary angel.”
Glory / Shekhinah: the manifested Presence of God in history and temple imagery.
Word (Memra/Logos): God’s self-expression acting personally; not a mere metaphor in many Jewish streams.
Rasūl: “sent one/messenger” (a title of sending).
Christ: “anointed one” (Messiah-language of kingship and mission).
The line I’m drawing
If you want to disagree with my confession, fine—but don’t do it by changing definitions.
Arianism = created mediator.
What I confess = the manifest, sent Presence of HaShem—no ordinary angel—Creator-side language as Hebrews 1 forces.
That distinction is the whole argument.
