In my original brief post on this, I was simply putting Newton
in what seemed to me the closest theological pigeonhole. (The term
"unitarian", because of what has become of that denomination by
now, would be wildly inaccurate.) There had been no "Arians" in a
formal sense for nearly 1000 years, & for that reason, & because of
Newton's undeniable genius, I'm quite willing to put the latter in a
class by himself.
I will insist, however, that a Christian theology which does not
stand within the tradition of Nicea & Chalcedon is badly flawed, & that
such flaws are by no means of minor importance.
It seems to me that _some_ of the differences in posts on this
matter arise from differences of emphases on history & on theology.
George Murphy