For those that are interested is this age-old dispute, you should look into the Arian Controversy. According to the evidence, I, personally, would have sided with Arius, which would make me an Arian, therefore a heretic in the eyes of the Church:
The
Arian controversy describes several controversies between the priest and
theologian Arius and the Church Father, Bishop Athanasius, related to
Christology which divided the Catholic Church from before the Council of Nicea
in 325 to after the Council of Constantinople in 381 into two opposing
theological factions. There was no formal schism, but instead it remained an
internal conflict in the Church. The most important of these controversies
concerned the substantial relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ.
The early history of the controversy must be pieced together from about 35 documents found in various sources. The Trinintarian historian Socrates of Constantinople reports that Arius first became controversial under the bishop Athanasius of Alexandria, when Arian made the following syllogism: he said, "If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing".
Bishop Alexander of Alexandria was criticised for his slow reaction against Arius. Like his predecessor Dionysius, he has been charged with vacillation. The question that Arius raised had been left unsettled two generations previously. Therefore Alexander allowed the controversy to continue until he felt that it had become dangerous to the peace of the Church. Then he called a council of bishops and sought their advice. Once they decided against Arius, Alexander delayed no longer. He deposed Arius from his office, and excommunicated both him and his supporters, etc. (See Wikipedia)