Arianism (Koinē Greek:Ἀρειανισμός,Areianismós)[1] is aChristological doctrine which rejects the traditional notion of theTrinity and considers Jesus to be a creation of God, and therefore distinct from God. It is named after its major proponent,Arius (c. AD 256–336). It is consideredheretical by most modern mainstream branches of Christianity.[2] It is held by a minority of modern denominations, although some of these denominations hold related doctrines such asSocinianism, and some shy away from use of the term Arian due to the term's historically negative connotations. Modern mainstream denominations sometimes connected to the teaching includeJehovah's Witnesses,[3] some individual churches within theChurches of Christ (including the movement's founderBarton W. Stone),[4] as well as someHebrew Roots Christians andMessianic Jews (although many Messianic Jews also follow Nicene Christianity).[5]
It is first attributed toArius (c. AD 256–336),[1][6][7] a Christianpresbyter who preached and studied inAlexandria,Egypt,[1] although it developed out of various pre-existing strands of Christianity which differed from later Nicene Christianity in their view of Christology. Ariantheology holds thatJesus Christ is theSon of God,[a][b] who was begotten byGod the Father[6] with the difference that the Son of God did not always exist but was begotten/made[c] before time by God the Father;[d] therefore, Jesus was notcoeternal with God the Father,[6] but nonetheless Jesus began to exist outside time.[e]
Arius' trinitarian theology, later given an extreme form byAetius and his discipleEunomius and calledanomoean ('dissimilar'), asserts a total dissimilarity between the Son and the Father.[10] Arianism holds that the Son is distinct from the Father and therefore subordinate to him.[7] The termArian is derived from the name Arius; it was not what the followers of Arius' teachings called themselves, but rather aterm used by outsiders.[11] The nature of Arius's and his supporters' teachings were opposed to the theologicaldoctrines held byHomoousian Christians regarding the nature of theTrinity and the nature of Christ. Homoousianism and Arianism were contending interpretations of Jesus's divinity, both based upon the trinitarian theological orthodoxy of the time.[12][13]
Homoousianism was formally affirmed by the first twoecumenical councils;[13] since then, Arianism has been condemned as "the heresy or sect of Arius".[14] Trinitarian (Homoousian) doctrines were vigorously upheld by PatriarchAthanasius of Alexandria, who insisted that Jesus (God the Son) was "same in being" or "same in essence" with God the Father. Arius dissented: "If the Father begat the Son, then he who was begotten had a beginning in existence, and from this it follows there was a time when the Son was not."[13] The ecumenicalFirst Council of Nicaea of 325 declared Arianism to be a heresy.[15] According toEverett Ferguson, "The great majority of Christians had no clear views about the nature of the Trinity and they did not understand what was at stake in the issues that surrounded it."[15]
Arianism is also used to refer to othernontrinitarian theological systems of the 4th century, which regardedJesus Christ—the Son of God, theLogos—as either a begotten creature of a similar or different substance to that of the Father, but not identical (asHomoiousian andAnomoeanism) or as neither uncreated nor created in the sense other beings are created (as insemi-Arianism).
Some early Christians whose beliefs would have fallen under 'orthodoxy' in the third and fourth centuries denied the eternal generation of the Son; they viewed the Son as having been begotten in time. These includeTertullian andJustin Martyr.[16][17] Tertullian is considered a pre-Arian. Among the other church fathers,Origen was accused of Arianism for using terms like "second God", and PatriarchDionysius of Alexandria was denounced at Rome for saying that Son is a work and creature of God (i.e., a created being).[18] However, thesubordinationism of Origen is not identical to Arianism, and it has been generally viewed as closer to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan view of the Trinity.[19][20]
Controversy over Arianism arose in the late 3rd century and persisted throughout most of the 4th century. It involved most church members—from simple believers, priests, and monks to bishops, emperors, and members of Rome's imperial family. Two Roman emperors,Constantius II andValens, became Arians orsemi-Arians, as did prominentGothic,Vandal, andLombard warlords both before and after thefall of the Western Roman Empire. The antipopesFelix II[21] andUrsinus[f] were Arian, andPope Liberius was forced to sign the Arian Creed of Sirmium of 357—though the letter says he willingly agreed with Arianism.[22][23][24][25] Such a deep controversy within theearly Church during this period could not have materialized without significant historical influences providing a basis for the Arian doctrines.[26]
Little of Arius's own work survives except in quotations selected for polemical purposes by his opponents, and there is no certainty about what theological and philosophical traditions formed his thought.[29] The influence fromthe One ofNeoplatonism was widespread throughout the Eastern Roman Empire, and this influenced Arius.[30][31][32][33][34]
Arius's basic premise is that only God is independent of existing. Since the Son is dependent, he must, therefore, be called a creature.[35] Arians put forward a question for their belief: "Has God birthed Jesus willingly or unwillingly?" This question was used to argue that Jesus is dependent for his existence since Jesus exists only because God wants him to be.[9]
Arianism taught that theLogos was a divine being created by God the Father before the world's creation, serving as the medium for creation, and that the Son of God is subordinate to the Father.[36] The concept of theLogos refers to an inner attribute of God associated with wisdom. Jesus is identified as theLogos due to a supposed resemblance to this inner aspect of God’s nature.[9]
A verse fromProverbs was used, according to Arianism, the creation of the Son by God, "The Lord created me at the beginning of his work."[37][38] Therefore, they posited, the Son was rather the very first and the most perfect of God's creatures, and he was called "God" only by the Father's permission and power.[39][40] The term "Son" is ambiguous, as Arians useadoptionist theology to support the belief that Jesus was createdex nihilo by the Father.[9]
Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many gods and many lords/masters—yet for us there is one God (Gk.theos – θεός), the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord/Master (kyrios – κύριος), Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
The creed of Ulfilas, which concludes the letter mentioned above,[43] distinguishes God the Father ("unbegotten"), who is the only true God, from the Son of God ("only-begotten") and the Holy Spirit, the illuminating and sanctifying power, which is neither God the Father nor the God the Son:
I, Ulfila, bishop and confessor, have always so believed, and in this, the one true faith, I make the journey to my Lord; I believe in only one God the Father, the unbegotten and invisible, and in his only-begotten Son, our Lord/Master and God, the designer and maker of all creation, having none other like him. Therefore, there is one God of all, who is also God of our God; and in one Holy Spirit, the illuminating and sanctifying power, as Christ said after his resurrection to his apostles: "And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be clothed with power from on high"[47] and again "But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Ghost is come upon you";[48] Neither God nor Lord, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son. And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father.
Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and 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 as God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning but that God is without beginning.
— Theodoret: Arius's Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, translated in Peters'Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, p. 41
Principally, the dispute betweenTrinitarianism and Arianism was about two questions:
has the Son always existed eternally with the Father, or was the Son begotten at a certain time in the past?
is the Son equal to the Father or subordinate to the Father?
ForConstantine, these were minor theological points that stood in the way of uniting the Empire, but for the theologians, it was of huge importance; for them, it was a matter of salvation.[13]
For the theologians of the 19th century, it was already obvious that, in fact, Arius and Alexander/Athanasius did not have much to quarrel about; the difference between their views was very small, and the end of the fight was by no means clear during their quarrel, both Arius and Athanasius suffering a great deal for their own views. Arius was the father ofHomoiousianism, and Alexander was the father ofHomoousianism, which Athanasius championed. For those theologians, it was clear that Arius, Alexander, and Athanasius were far from a true doctrine of the Trinity, which developed later, historically speaking.[49]
Guido M. Berndt andRoland Steinacher state clearly that the beliefs of Arius were acceptable ("not especially unusual") to a huge number of orthodox clergy; this is the reason why such a major conflict was able to develop inside the Church since Arius's theology received widespread sympathy (or at least was not considered to be overly controversial) and could not be dismissed outright as individual heresy.[6]
Arianism had several different variants, includingEunomianism andHomoian Arianism. Homoian Arianism is associated withAcacius andEudoxius. Homoian Arianism avoided the use of the wordousia to describe the relation of Father to Son, and described these as "like" each other.[50] Hanson lists twelve creeds that reflect the Homoian faith:[51]
In 321, Arius was denounced by asynod at Alexandria for teaching a heterodox view of the relationship of Jesus to God the Father. Because Arius and his followers had great influence in the schools of Alexandria—counterparts to modern universities or seminaries—their theological views spread, especially in the eastern Mediterranean.[52]
By 325, the controversy had become significant enough that the EmperorConstantine called an assembly of bishops, theFirst Council of Nicaea, which condemned Arius's doctrine and formulated the originalNicene Creed of 325.[53] The Nicene Creed's central term, used to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son, isHomoousios (Ancient Greek:ὁμοούσιος),[54][55][56] orConsubstantiality, meaning "of the same substance" or "of one being". TheAthanasian Creed is less often used but is a more overtly anti-Arian statement on the Trinity.[57][58]
The focus of the Council of Nicaea was the nature of the Son of God and his precise relationship to God the Father. (SeePaul of Samosata and theSynods of Antioch.) Arius taught that Jesus Christ was divine or holy and was sent to Earth for the salvation of mankind,[41] but that Jesus Christ was not equal to God the Father (infinite, primordial origin) in rank, and that God the Father and the Son of God were not equal to the Holy Spirit.[28] Under Arianism, Christ was instead not consubstantial with God the Father since both the Father and the Son under Arius were made of "like" essence or being (seehomoiousia) but not of the same essence or being (seehomoousia).[60]
In the Arian view, God the Father is adeity and is divine; the Son of God is not a deity, but is still divine.[41] God the Father sent Jesus to earth for salvation of mankind.[61]Ousia is essence or being, inEastern Christianity, and is the aspect of God that is completely incomprehensible to mankind and human perception. It is all that subsists by itself and which has not its being in another,[62] God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit all being uncreated.[g]
According to the teaching of Arius, the preexistent Logos and thus the incarnate Jesus Christ was a begotten being; only the Son was directly begotten by God the Father, before ages, but was of a distinct, though similar, essence or substance from the Creator. His opponents argued that this would make Jesus less than God and that this was heretical.[59] Much of the distinction between the differing factions was over the phrasing that Christ expressed in the New Testament to express submission to God the Father.[59] The theological term for this submission iskenosis. This ecumenical council declared that Jesus Christ was true God, co-eternal and consubstantial (i.e., of the same substance) with God the Father.[63][h]
Constantine is believed to have exiled those who refused to accept the Nicaean Creed—Arius himself, the deacon Euzoios, and the Libyan bishops Theonas of Marmarica andSecundus of Ptolemais, along with the bishops who signed the creed but refused to join in condemnation of Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia andTheognis of Nicaea. The emperor also ordered all copies of theThalia, the book in which Arius had expressed his teachings, to beburned. However, there is no evidence that his son and ultimate successor,Constantius II, a Semi-Arian Christian, was exiled.[citation needed]
Although he was committed to maintaining what theGreat Church had defined at Nicaea, Constantine was also bent on pacifying the situation and eventually became more lenient toward those condemned and exiled at the council. First, he allowed Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was a protégé of his sister, and Theognis to return once they had signed an ambiguous statement of faith. The two, and other friends of Arius, worked for Arius's rehabilitation.[65][66][67]
At theFirst Synod of Tyre in AD 335, they brought accusations againstAthanasius, now bishop of Alexandria, the primary opponent of Arius. After this, Constantine had Athanasius banished since he considered him an impediment to reconciliation. In the same year, the Synod of Jerusalem under Constantine's direction readmittedArius to communion in 336. Arius died on the way to this event in Constantinople. Some scholars suggest that Arius may have been poisoned by his opponents.[65] Eusebius and Theognis remained in the Emperor's favor; when Constantine -who had been acatechumen much of his adult life- acceptedbaptism on his deathbed, it was from Eusebius of Nicomedia.[68]
EmperorConstantine the Great summoned theFirst Council of Nicaea, which defined the dogmatic fundaments of Christianity; these definitions served to rebut the questions posed by Arians.[69] Since Arius was not a bishop, he was not allowed to sit on the council, and it was Eusebius of Nicomedia who spoke for him and the position he represented.[68] All the bishops who were there were in agreement with the major theological points of theproto-orthodoxy,[70] since at that time all other forms of Christianity "had by this time already been displaced, suppressed, reformed, or destroyed".[70][71]
Although the proto-orthodox won the previous disputes, due to the more precise defining oforthodoxy, they were vanquished with their own weapons, ultimately being declared heretics, not because they would have fought against ideas regarded as theologically correct, but because their positions lacked the precision and refinement needed by the fusion of several contradictory theses accepted at the same time by later orthodox theologians.[72]
Of the roughly 300 bishops in attendance at theCouncil of Nicaea, two bishops did not sign theNicene Creed that condemned Arianism.[73] Constantine the Great also ordered a penalty of death for those who refused to surrender the Arian writings:
In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offence, he shall be submitted for capital punishment. ...
— Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians[74]
Ten years after the Council of Nicaea,Constantine the Great, who was himself later baptized by the Arian bishopEusebius of Nicomedia in 337 AD,[75][68][76] convened another gathering of church leaders at the regionalFirst Synod of Tyre in 335, attended by 310 bishops, to address various charges mounted againstAthanasius by his detractors, such as "murder, illegal taxation, sorcery, and treason", following his refusal to readmit Arius into fellowship.[13] Athanasius was exiled toTrier (in modernGermany) following his conviction atTyre of conspiracy, and Arius was, effectively, exonerated.[77]
Athanasius eventually returned to Alexandria in 346, after the deaths of both Arius and Constantine. Though Arianism had spread, Athanasius and otherNicene Christian church leaders crusaded against Arian theology, and Arius wasanathemised and condemned as a heretic once more at the ecumenicalFirst Council of Constantinople of 381, attended by 150 bishops.[78][13] The Roman EmperorsConstantius II (337–361) andValens (364–378) were Arians orSemi-Arians, as was the firstKing of Italy,Odoacer (433?–493), and theLombards were also Arians or Semi-Arians until the 7th century. The ruling elite ofVisigothic Spain was Arian until 589. ManyGoths adopted Arian beliefs upon their conversion to Christianity. TheVandals actively spread Arianism in North Africa.
Once the orthodox Trinitarians succeeded in defeating Arianism, theycensored any signs that the perceived heresy left behind. This mosaic in theBasilica of Sant'Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna has had images of the Arian king, Theoderic, and his court removed. On some columns their hands remain.
The First Council of Nicaea did not end the controversy, as many bishops of the Eastern provinces disputed thehomoousios, the central term of the Nicene Creed, as it had been used byPaul of Samosata, who had advocated amonarchianistChristology. Both the man and his teaching, including the termhomoousios, had been condemned by theSynods of Antioch in 269.[79]Hence, after Constantine's death in 337, open dispute resumed again. Constantine's sonConstantius II, who had become emperor of the eastern part of theRoman Empire, actually encouraged the Arians and set out to reverse the Nicene Creed.[80] His advisor in these affairs was Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had already at the Council of Nicaea been the head of the Arian party, and was made the bishop of Constantinople.
Constantius used his power to exile bishops adhering to the Nicene Creed, especially StAthanasius of Alexandria, who fled to Rome.[81] In 355 Constantius became the sole Roman emperor and extended his pro-Arian policy toward the western provinces, frequently using force to push through his creed, even exilingPope Liberius and installingAntipope Felix II.[82]
TheThird Council of Sirmium in 357 was the high point of Arianism. The Seventh Arian Confession (Second Sirmium Confession) held that bothhomoousios (of one substance) andhomoiousios (of similar substance) were unbiblical and that the Father is greater than the Son.[83] This confession was later known as the Blasphemy of Sirmium.
But since many persons are disturbed by questions concerning what is called in Latinsubstantia, but in Greekousia, that is, to make it understood more exactly, as to 'coessential,' or what is called, 'like-in-essence,' there ought to be no mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in divine Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they are above men's knowledge and above men's understanding;[84]
As debates raged in an attempt to come up with a new formula, three camps evolved among the opponents of the Nicene Creed. The first group mainly opposed the Nicene terminology and preferred the termhomoiousios (alike in substance) to the Nicenehomoousios, while they rejected Arius and his teaching and accepted the equality and co-eternality of the persons of the Trinity. Because of this centrist position, and despite their rejection of Arius, they were called "Semi-Arians" by their opponents.
The second group also avoided invoking the name of Arius, but in large part followed Arius's teachings and, in another attempted compromise wording, described the Son as being like (homoios) the Father. A third group explicitly called upon Arius and described the Son as unlike (anhomoios) the Father. Constantius wavered in his support between the first and the second party, while harshly persecuting the third.
Epiphanius of Salamis labeled the party ofBasil of Ancyra in 358 "Semi-Arianism". This is considered unfair by Kelly who states that some members of the group were virtually orthodox from the start but disliked the adjectivehomoousios while others had moved in that direction after the out-and-out Arians had come into the open.[85]
The debates among these groups resulted in numerous synods, among them theCouncil of Serdica in 343, theFourth Council of Sirmium in 358 and the doubleCouncil of Rimini and Seleucia in 359, and no fewer than fourteen further creed formulas between 340 and 360. This lead the pagan observerAmmianus Marcellinus to comment sarcastically: "The highways were covered with galloping bishops."[86] None of these attempts was acceptable to the defenders of Nicene orthodoxy. Writing about the latter councils, SaintJerome remarked that the world "awoke with a groan to find itself Arian."[87][88]
After Constantius's death in 361, his successorJulian, a devotee ofRome's pagan gods, declared that he would no longer attempt to favor one church faction over another, and allowed all exiled bishops to return. This increased dissension among Nicene Christians. The emperorValens, however, revived Constantius's policy and supported the "Homoian" party,[89] exiling bishops and often using force. During this persecution many bishops were exiled to the other ends of the Roman Empire, e.g., SaintHilary of Poitiers to the eastern provinces. These contacts and their common plight led to a rapprochement between the western supporters of the Nicene Creed and thehomoousios and the eastern Semi-Arians.
It was not until the co-reigns of Gratian and Theodosius that Arianism was effectively wiped out among the ruling class and elite of the Eastern Empire. Valens died in theBattle of Adrianople in 378 and was succeeded byTheodosius I, who adhered to the Nicene Creed.[i] This allowed for settling the dispute. Theodosius's wife StFlacilla was instrumental in his campaign to end Arianism.[citation needed]
Two days after Theodosius arrived in Constantinople, 24 November 380, he expelled theArian bishop,Demophilus of Constantinople, and surrendered the churches of that city toGregory of Nazianzus, theHomoiousian leader of the rather small Nicene community there, an act which provoked rioting. Theodosius had just been baptized, by bishop Acholius of Thessalonica, during a severe illness, as was common in the early Christian world. In February he andGratian had published an edict that all their subjects should profess the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria (i.e., the Nicene faith),[91][92] or be handed over for punishment for not doing so.
Although much of the church hierarchy in the East had opposed the Nicene Creed in the decades leading up to Theodosius's accession, he managed to achieve unity on the basis of the Nicene Creed. In 381, at theSecond Ecumenical Council in Constantinople, a group of mainly Eastern bishops assembled and accepted theNicene Creed of 381,[93] which was supplemented in regard to theHoly Spirit, as well as some other changes: seeComparison of Nicene Creeds of 325 and 381. This is generally considered the end of the dispute about the Trinity and the end of Arianism among the Roman, non-Germanic peoples.[94]
Ulfilas's translation of the Bible into Gothic language and his initial success in converting the Goths to Arianism was strengthened by later events. The conversion of Goths led to a widespread diffusion of Arianism among other Germanic tribes as well, theVandals,Langobards,Svevi, andBurgundians.[7] When the Germanic peoples entered the provinces of theWestern Roman Empire and began founding their own kingdoms there, most of them were Arian Christians.[7]
The conflict in the 4th century had seen Arian and Nicene factions struggling for control of Western Europe. In contrast, among the Arian German kingdoms established in the collapsing Western Empire in the 5th century, there existed entirely separate Arian and Nicene Churches with parallel hierarchies, each serving different sets of believers. The Germanic elites were Arians, and the Romance-majority population was Nicene.[96]
The Arian Germanic tribes were generally tolerant towards Nicene Christians and other religious minorities, including theJews.[7]
The apparent resurgence of Arianism after Nicaea was more an anti-Nicene reaction exploited by Arian sympathizers than a pro-Arian development.[97] By the end of the 4th century it had surrendered its remaining ground toTrinitarianism. In Western Europe, Arianism, which had been taught byUlfilas, the Arian missionary to the Germanic tribes, was dominant among theGoths,Langobards andVandals.[98] By the 8th century, it had ceased to be the tribes' mainstream belief as the tribal rulers gradually came to adopt Nicene orthodoxy. This trend began in 496 with Clovis I of the Franks, thenReccared I of theVisigoths in 587 andAripert I of theLombards in 653.[99][100]
The remaining tribes – the Vandals and the Ostrogoths – did not convert as a people nor did they maintain territorial cohesion. Having been militarily defeated by the armies of EmperorJustinian I, the remnants were dispersed to the fringes of the empire and became lost to history. TheVandalic War of 533–534 dispersed the defeated Vandals.[102] Following their final defeat at theBattle of Mons Lactarius in 553, theOstrogoths went back north and re-settled in south Austria.[citation needed]
Much of south-eastern Europe and central Europe, including many of theGoths andVandals respectively, had embraced Arianism (theVisigoths converted to Arian Christianity in 376 through their bishopWulfila), which led to Arianism being a religious factor in various wars in the Roman Empire.[j]
The anti trinitarian wing of thePolish Reformation separated from theCalvinistecclesia maior to form theecclesia minor orPolish Brethren. These were commonly referred to as "Arians" due to their rejection of the Trinity, though in fact theSocinians, as they were later known, went further than Arius to the position ofPhotinus. The epithet "Arian" was also applied to the earlyUnitarians such asJohn Biddle; though in denial of thepre-existence of Christ they were again largely Socinians, not Arians.[108]
In the 18th century the "dominant trend" inBritain, particularly inLatitudinarianism, was toward Arianism, with whichSamuel Clarke,Benjamin Hoadly,William Whiston andIsaac Newton are associated.[110] To quote theEncyclopædia Britannica's article on Arianism: "In modern times someUnitarians are virtually Arians in that they are unwilling either to reduce Christ to a mere human being or to attribute to him a divine nature identical with that of the Father."[111]
Modern groups that currently appear to embrace some of the principles of Arianism includeUnitarians andJehovah's Witnesses. Although the origins of their beliefs are not necessarily attributed to the teachings of Arius, many of the core beliefs of Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses are very similar to them.[112][113][114]
Jehovah's Witnesses are often referred to as "modern-day Arians",[115][116] usually bytheir opponents,[117][118][119] although Jehovah's Witnesses themselves have denied these claims.[120] Significant similarities in doctrine include the identification of the Father as the only true God and of Jesus Christ as the first creation of God and the intermediate agent in the creation of all other things. They also deny the personhood of theHoly Spirit, which some Arians historically affirmed. Jehovah's Witnesses exclusively worship and pray to God the Father, orJehovah, only through Jesus (the Son) as a mediator.[120][121]
Iglesia ni Cristo'sChristology has parallels with Arianism in that it affirms that the Father is the only true God, but it denies the preexistence of Christ. Thus, Iglesia ni Cristo isSocinian rather than Arian in its Christology.[122]
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) teaches anontrinitariantheology concerning the nature of the Godhead. Similarities between LDS doctrines and Arianism were alleged as early as 1846.[125] There are a number of key differences between Arianism and Latter-day Saint theology. Whereas Arianism is a unitarian Christian form ofclassical theism, Latter-day Saint theology is a non-trinitarian (but not unitarian) form of Christianity outside of classical theism. Arianism also teaches that God is eternal, was never a man, and could not incarnate as a man; in contrast, the LDS Church teaches that "God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme."[126]
Whereas Arianism denies that humans can become gods, the LDS Church affirms that humans can become gods through exaltation.[127] Whereas Arianism teaches that the Son was created, the LDS Church also teaches that the Son was procreated as a literal spirit child of the Heavenly Father and theHeavenly Mother[128] and denies any form ofcreationex nihilo; the creation of Christex nihilo is, in contrast, a fundamental premise of Arianism.[129]
The LDS church, in contrast to the Arian teaching that God is incorporeal, also teaches that God has a tangible body: "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us."[130] Arianism traditionally taught that God is incomprehensible even to the Son. In contrast, the LDS Church rejects the doctrine that God is incomprehensible.[131] Though Arianism teaches that Christ is ontologically inferior and subordinate to the Father, the LDS Church teaches that Christ is equal in power and glory with the Father.
The LDS Church teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate beings united in purpose: "the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost)[...] are three physically separate beings, but fully one in love, purpose and will",[132] as illustrated in Jesus'Farewell Prayer, hisbaptism at the hands ofJohn the Baptist, histransfiguration, and themartyrdom of Stephen.[133] Thus, the church's firstArticle of Faith states: "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost."[134]
Latter-day Saints believe that the three are collectively "one eternal God"[135] but reject theNicene definition of theTrinity, that the three areconsubstantial.[131] In some respects, Latter-day Saint theology is more similar tosocial trinitarianism than to Arianism.
According to thereincarnationist religion ofSpiritism started by French educatorAllan Kardec in the 19th century, Jesus is the highest-order of spirit that has ever incarnated on Earth and is distinct from God, by whom he was created. Jesus is not considered God or part of God as in Nicene Christianity, but is nonetheless the ultimate model of human love, intelligence, and forgiveness,[136] often cited as the governor of Earth.
^"Arius wanted to emphasise the transcendence and sole divinity of God [...]. God alone is, for Arius, without beginning, unbegotten and eternal. In the terminology of negative theology, Arius stresses monotheism with ever-renewed attempts. God can only be understood as creator. He denies the co-eternal state of the Logos with God since otherwise God would be stripped of his absolute uniqueness. God alone is, and thus he was not always Father. [...] Following Proverbs 8:22–25, Arius is able to argue that the Son was created. For Arius the Logos belongs wholly on the side of the Divine, but he is markedly subordinate to God.Berndt & Steinacher 2014
^"Aheresy of theChristian Church, started by Arius, bishop of Alexandria (d. 336), who taught that the Son is not equivalent to the Father (ὁμοούσιος gr:homoousios ≅ lt:consubstantialis) ... The very insistence upon the more subordinate relationship of the Son—that is, the Messiah—to God-the-father is much nearer to theJewish doctrine of the Messiah than to the conception of the full divinity of the Son, as enunciated atNicaea."[7]
God is unoriginate, unending, eternal, constant, uncreated, unchanging, unalterable, simple, incomplex, bodiless, invisible, intangible, indescribable, without bounds, inaccessible to the mind, uncontainable, incomprehensible, good, righteous, that Creator of all creatures, the almightyPantocrator.[59]: 57
^First, the central focus of the creed is the Trinitarian nature of God. The Nicene fathers argued that the Father was always a Father, and consequently that the Son always existed with him, co-equally and con-substantially. The Nicene fathers fought against the belief that the Son was unequal to the Father, because it effectively destroyed the unity of the Godhead. Rather, they insisted that such a view was in contravention of such Scriptures as John 10:30 "I and the Father are one" and John 1:1 "the Word was God." Saint Athanasius declared that the Son had no beginning, but had an "eternal derivation" from the Father, and therefore was co-eternal with him, and equal to God in all aspects. In a similar vein the Cappadocian Fathers argued that the Holy Spirit was also co-eternal with the Father and the Son and equal to God in all aspects. The Church Fathers held that to deny equality to any of the Persons of the Trinity was to rob God of existence and constituted the greatest heresy.[64]
^Early in his reign, during a serious illness, Theodosius had accepted Christian baptism. In 380 he proclaimed himself a Christian of the Nicene Creed, and he called a council at Constantinople to put an end to the Arian heresy (which, contrary to Nicene doctrine, claimed Jesus was created), which had divided the empire for over half a century. At Constantinople, 150 bishops gathered and revised the Nicene Creed of A.D. 325 into the creed we know today. Arianism has never made a serious challenge since.[90]
^The inhibiting and paralyzing force of superstitious beliefs penetrated to every department of life, and the most primary and elementary activities of society were influenced. War, for example, was not a simple matter of a test of strength and courage, but supernatural matters had to be taken carefully into consideration. WhenClovis said of the Goths in southern Gaul, 'I take it hard that these Arians should hold a part of the Gauls; let us go with God's aid and conquer them and bring the land under our dominion', [note: see p. 45 (Book II:37)] he was not speaking in a hypocritical or arrogant manner but in real accordance with the religious sentiment of the time. What he meant was that the Goths, being heretics, were at once enemies of the true God and inferior to the orthodox Franks in their supernatural backing. Considerations of duty, strategy, and self-interest all reinforced one another in Clovis's mind. However, it was not always the orthodox side that won. We hear of a battle fought a few years before Gregory became Bishop of Tours between KingSigebert and theHuns, [note: Book IV:29] in which the Huns 'by the use of magic arts caused various false appearances to arise before their enemies and overcame them decisively.[103]
^abcdPomazansky, Michael (Protopresbyter) (1984).Pravoslavnoye Dogmaticheskoye Bogosloviye [Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A concise exposition]. Translated by Rose, Seraphim (Hieromonk). Platina, California: Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood.
^"The oneness of Essence, the Equality of Divinity, and the Equality of Honor of God the Son with the God the Father."[59]: 92–95
Lenski, Noel Emmanuel (2006)."The Reign of Constantine".The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine. Cambridge Companions to the Ancient World. Cambridge University Press. p. 82.ISBN978-0-521-52157-4. Retrieved18 September 2024.Instead, only 80 kilometers into his journey the infirm emperor fell deathly ill at Nicomedia, where he received baptism at the hands of the Arianizing bishop Eusebius.
Smith, Kyle (2019) [2016].Constantine and the Captive Christians of Persia: Martyrdom and Religious Identity in Late Antiquity. Transformation of the Classical Heritage. University of California Press. p. 58 fn. 41.ISBN978-0-520-30839-8. Retrieved18 September 2024.That the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia presided over Constantine's baptism was perhaps the most embarrassing aspect of the emperor's last days for some commentators writing several centuries later. Theophanes, a ninth-century Byzantine chronicler, claims it is a lie and that the bishop Sylvester baptized Constantine in Rome.
Canella, Tessa (2018)."Sylvester I". In Hunter, David G.; Geest, Paul van; Lietaert Peerbolte, L. J. (eds.).Brill encyclopedia of early Christianity online. Leiden: Brill.ISSN2589-7993.OCLC1079362334.Its purpose was also to hand down another version of Constantine's conversion, one that was different to that disseminated by pagan sources, and especially to amend the historical memory of the Arian baptism that the emperor received at the end of his life, and instead to attribute an unequivocally orthodox baptism to him, imparted by Sylvester himself to a leprous and persecuting Constantine.
^Hall, Christopher A. (July 2008)."How Arianism Almost Won".Christian History | Learn the History of Christianity & the Church. Retrieved16 January 2021.
^Reardon, Patrick Henry (8 August 2008)."Athanasius".Christian History | Learn the History of Christianity & the Church. Retrieved16 January 2021.
^Schaff, Philip (18 December 2019).The Complete History of the Christian Church (With Bible). e-artnow.The pagan Ammianus Marcellinus says of the councils under Constantius: "The highways were covered with galloping bishops;" and even Athanasius rebuked the restless flutter of the clergy.
^"7.5: Successor Kingdoms to the Western Roman Empire".Humanities LibreTexts. 16 December 2016. Retrieved16 January 2021.Most of them were Christians, but, crucially, they were not Catholic Christians, who believed in the doctrine of the Trinity, that God is one God but three distinct persons of the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. They were rather Arians, who believed that Jesus was lesser than God the Father (see Chapter Six). Most of their subjects, however, were Catholics.
Carroll, Warren (1987).The building of Christendom. Front Royal, VA: Christendom College Press.ISBN0-931888-24-7.OCLC16875022.
Chadwick, Henry (July 1960). "Faith and Order at the Council of Nicaea: a Note on the Background of the Sixth Canon".The Harvard Theological Review.53 (3):171–195.doi:10.1017/S0017816000027000.JSTOR1508399.S2CID170956611.
.svg)
