Question on "The State of Theology", Arian heresy, and salvation

Question

The Ligonier Ministries' 2022 "State of Theology" contains some interesting things. One such thing is that over half of those surveyed agreed (some strongly) with the following statement:

Jesus is the first and greatest being created by God.

What's even more interesting to me is that the percentage agreeing with this statement across all denominations surveyed goes up as their frequency of church attendance goes up. Links to The State of Theology Data Explorer on the above question (#6):

• All respondents: 40% strongly agree, 15% somewhat agree, 13% not sure
• Beliefs: Evangelicals: 70% strongly agree, 3% somewhat agree, 5% not sure

Excerpt from an article that focuses the data on evangelicals: The State of Theology: What Evangelicals Believe in 2022:

Almost three out of four (73 percent) agree with the claim that Jesus is the “first and greatest being created by God.”

Hypothesizing a bit on this: let's assume these numbers accurately represent the state of theology in the U.S. (I know they might not). Are over half of the Christians in the U.S. anathema for believing this? Will they not attain to salvation?

I'm looking for a Biblical answer to this question (all denominations and translations welcome).

Answer 1

Culpability of one's defective theology with regards to salvation

I think question #6 is easily misunderstood. Many church goers probably remember their pastors teaching how Jesus is the "firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15), how "creation is by him through him and for him" (Col 1:16, John 1:3, 1 Cor 8:6) and how the incarnation "began" in a manger at Betlehem (although Jesus as Word pre-existed), so they may have thought that the survey question #6 refers to the teaching above, to which they mistakenly answer "I agree".

Holding defective theology because of ignorance doesn't ruin one's salvation. I don't think this findings is enough to make them "Arian" especially considering

1. They are not seminary educated pastors nor are they professional theologians
2. They answer the other theological question correctly (#2, There is one true God in three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit) correctly.

In a class final exam, the teacher can presume the students to have learned the material, and can pass/fail a student based on wrong cognitive statement. But salvation is a matter of our heart's alignment with God's heart who IS Perfect Love (cf Great Commandment plus 1 John 4:7-12), helped by correct understanding of God of course, which is why good churches have Sunday school programs for children and adults alike. But going to heaven is not about passing a cognitively-laden test as if before passing to heaven we have to sit down in a classroom being given a sheet full of catechism questions to which we have to have 90% correct. If the adult respondents fail to answer question #6, I suggest it's more due to lacking exposure to good lay theological education in the local churches than an indicator of one's salvation, as God will judge individual's heart, as well as adding an additional criteria for pastors (1 Cor 3:15).

But if the respondents are seminary-trained pastors and theologians who usually have taken a systematic theology course at a Trinitarian seminary (we are presuming this question to deal only with mainstream Trinitarian groups), then YES, if they hold to this position with full conviction and understanding, they are more at risk for losing their salvation because of this false doctrinal belief, which is linked directly to their false understanding of Jesus, which in turn can detrimentally affect their heart's condition before God. Still, it remains for God to judge whether this person goes to heaven. A lot of other factors are in play here, so this "false answer" by pastors / theologians still shouldn't be considered as God's automatic veto, disregarding all other factors such as the quality of one's heart when measured by perfect love.

Anathema and the correct audience

By anathema I think you meant the "formal excommunication by a church", which implies that since they are no longer in the Ark of Noah they will lose their salvation. In the Arian controversy context, this refers to the last section of the Nicene Creed (325):

But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is from a different hypostasis or substance, or is created, or is subject to alteration or change – these the Catholic Church anathemizes.

See also the discussion about anathema in chapter 8 of Philip Schaff's often cited book, The Creeds of Christendom: with a History and Critical Notes ((1877).

The potential for pastors and theologians holding false theology to misinform others is the background for the anathemizing language found in Scriptures as well as in the canons of church councils from 4th century to even the 16th century council of Trent. Pronouncing anathema is serious language ([Insert a segment from Truth Unites YouTube where Gavin explained what anathema meant). So the 2 Biblical occurrences in @DanFefferman's answer are for serious matters: correct gospel, and about having love for the Lord.

Why did the council fathers use the language of anathema for those holding the Arian view? I suggest that the main audience was those theologically educated leaders in the church who were at serious risk to teach a wrong understanding of Jesus, which in turn could affect one's salvation among the hundreds-of-thousand of souls divided among flocks, each under a bishop's charge whose main responsibility was to teach. Closer to our time, I suggest that the main audience of the 16th century Council of Trent was also church leaders in the Reformation era whose salvation related teachings (like sola fide) pose a serious risk to lead the (now in the millions) souls to spiritual harm.

Your Q applies for lay individual, not theologically educated church leader, so I suggest this anathema language doesn't apply to those who answered #6 incorrectly. Yes, I would need to substantiate more of that context for anathema, but I hope just by framing it this way is reasonable enough.

Better indicators for one's salvation and positive influence from one's church-going pattern

But the questions below are a lot better indicator of their salvation because they pointed to their believing sola gratia and sola christus, the Biblical teaching for how salvation works. These questions are also a much better indicator of what Jesus means to them personally and functionally. Not surprisingly, Evangelicals "pass" with flying colors:

• #2 (97%): There is one true God in three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
• #5 (99%): Biblical accounts of the physical (bodily) resurrection of Jesus are completely accurate. This event actually occurred.
• #14 (93%): God counts a person as righteous not because of one’s works but only because of one’s faith in Jesus Christ.
• #21 (98%): There will be a time when Jesus Christ returns to judge all the people who have lived.
• #33 (99%): It is very important for me personally to encourage non-Christians to trust Jesus Christ as their Savior.
• #34 (99%): Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is the only sacrifice that could remove the penalty of my sin.
• #35 (99%): Only those who trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior receive God’s free gift of eternal salvation.

If we now include everyone (non-Evangelicals included) but filter by Attendance (at least once a week), here's the result compared to the general population:

• #2 (94% vs. 70%): There is one true God in three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
• #5 (92% vs. 66%): Biblical accounts of the physical (bodily) resurrection of Jesus are completely accurate. This event actually occurred.
• #6 (70% vs. 55%): Jesus is the first and greatest being created by God.
• #14 (78% vs. 57%): God counts a person as righteous not because of one’s works but only because of one’s faith in Jesus Christ.
• #21 (90% vs. 64%): There will be a time when Jesus Christ returns to judge all the people who have lived.
• #33 (86% vs. 56%): It is very important for me personally to encourage non-Christians to trust Jesus Christ as their Savior.
• #34 (89% vs. 64%): Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is the only sacrifice that could remove the penalty of my sin.
• #35 (85% vs. 60%): Only those who trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior receive God’s free gift of eternal salvation.

The net effect of church attendance is positive for questions that pertain more closely to salvation than to theology. Question #14 is not as high as other indicators because Catholics don't agree with it. Evangelical pastors looking at this data have their homework cut out for them to include theology lessons in their sermons.

But the result for question #7 (Jesus was a great teacher, but he was not God) is especially troubling, much more troubling than #6, because only God can save you. Only 54% who choose Beliefs:Evangelicals got it right, while those who attended church at least once a week got only 50% vs. 36% for general population. Maybe it's a little comforting that when the filter is both Beliefs:Evangelicals and Affiliation:Evangelical, the correct percentage improves to 71%, and when they are married and attend at least weekly it becomes 78%.

Answer 2

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. - Isaiah 1:18

Here is the invitation. With what God has immutably spoken, inerrantly inspired, and sovereignly protected down through these long ages as the given assumptions, the logical data, let us reason out together with Him those things concerning sin, righteousness, and judgement.

Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. - Isaiah 28:9-13

Additionally, these things are given to us precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little. The stated purpose of this method is much like the stated purpose of Jesus' parables: That those without ears will not hear. If the foundational precepts and lines are not heard (believed) and built upon there can be no forward movement in reason.

"In the beginning God...". At some point there was simply God. No time, no matter, perhaps no space. There are some religions which teach an eternal nature of matter but there is much Scripture pointing to God alone being everlasting (from eternity to eternity) and Creator of everything else.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - John 1:1

This Word, this Logos, is not merely an utterance (that would be lego or laleo, with synonyms epo or kaleo) and not merely the thought behind the utterance, but it is the intelligence underlying the thought. It is God's rational mind and His expression thereof.

This is what was made flesh to dwell among us (John 1:14); the Logos, the rational, intelligent mind of God. Jesus Christ is God's mind expressed in flesh. To suppose that this Logos was God's first creation is to suppose that prior to this first creation God had no rational mind.

If this most basic precept of the eternal Logos of the eternal God is not the foundation for the next precept and line then whatever is built will not stand when the storm comes, it cannot survive the coming fire of the coming Day.

Stating whether any particular person is or is not anathema is way above the pay grade of most (all?). However, believing that the Logos of God had a point of creation, a starting point, is a very foundational wrong turn of reason. It is the rejection of a precept and cannot be corrected by any additional reasoning. One must go back to the point of departure and assimilate precept and line as God has given it.

I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also. These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come. Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come. Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come. And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am (he), ye shall die in your sins. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. - John 8:18-25

If you believe not that I am ...who or what? Whether or not we die in our sins depends upon the answer to that question. It is a very biblical teaching.

Answer 3

The OP asks "Are over half of the Christians in the U.S. anathema for believing (that Jesus Christ is the first creation of God.") To start, as @Grateful Diciple mentions, we should consider that an answer given to a pollster is not a formal theological declaration. Historically the teachers of the Arian heresy were not punished for informal statements but only for being a notorious teacher of the heresy or refusing to affirm the Nicene Creed and its successors.

The OP also says it is looking of a "biblical answer." The Bible uses the term "anathema" rarely. Specific instances include:

Galatians 1:8

But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!

Here, Paul refers to those who teach that one must become an observant Jew in order be a true Christian.

1 Corinthians 16:22a

Let anyone be accursed who has no love for the Lord.

There are other cases where Paul recommends excommunication, but the specific word "anathema" (under a curse) is very rare indeed.

Conclusion: as far as the Bible goes, the Arian heresy is not specified as being worthy of the curse. One has to interpret the Bible along the lines of the Ecumenical Councils in order in to reach the conclusion a person is anathema for believing Jesus to be a "creation" of God. In any case, one's eternal damnation is not determined by responding in ignorance to a theological poll.