Arianism Arius and Nestorianism

3:03 PM | BY ZeroDivide EDIT
Part of a series of articles on
Arianism
Christian cross
History and theology
Arian leaders
Other Arians
Modern semi-Arians
Opponents
Portal icon Christianity portal
Arianism is the nontrinitarian, theological teaching attributed to Arius (c. AD 250–336), a Christianpresbyter in Alexandria, Egypt, concerning the relationship of God the Father to the Son of God,Jesus Christ. Arius asserted that the Son of God was a subordinate entity to God the Father. Deemed a heretic by the Ecumenical First Council of Nicaea of 325, Arius was later exonerated in 335 at the regional First Synod of Tyre,[1] and then, after his death, pronounced a heretic again at the Ecumenical First Council of Constantinople of 381.[2] The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337–361) and Valens (364–378) were Arians or Semi-Arians.
The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from—God the Father. This belief is grounded in the Gospel of John (14:28)[3]passage: "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."
Arianism is defined as those teachings attributed to Arius, supported by the Council of Rimini, which are in opposition to the post-Nicaean Trinitarian Christological doctrine, as determined by the first two Ecumenical Councils and currently maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, all Reformation-founded Protestant churches (Lutheran, Reformed/Presbyterian, and Anglican), and a large majority of groups founded after the Reformation and calling themselves Protestant (such as Methodist, Baptist, most Pentecostals). Modern Christian groups which may be seen as espousing some of the principles of Arianism include Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Iglesia ni Cristo and Branhamism, though the origins of their beliefs are not necessarily attributed to the teachings of Arius.[4] "Arianism" is also often used to refer to other nontrinitarian theological systems of the 4th century, which regarded Jesus Christ—the Son of God, the Logos—as either a created being (as in Arianism proper and Anomoeanism), or as neither uncreated nor created in the sense other beings are created (as in Semi-Arianism).

Origin[edit]

Main articles: Arius and Arian controversy
Arius taught that God the Father and the Son of God did not always exist together eternally.[5] Arians taught that the Logos was a divine being created by God the Father before the world. The Son of God is subordinate to God the Father.[6] In English-language works, it is sometimes said that Arians believe that Jesus is or was a "creature", in the sense of "created being". Arius and his followers appealed to Bible verses such as Jesus saying that the father is "greater than I" (John 14:28), and "The LORD/Yahweh created me at the beginning of his work" (Proverbs8:22).[7]
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. Such a deep controversy within the Church during this period of its development could not have materialized without significant historical influences providing a basis for the Arian doctrines.[8]Some historians define and minimize the Arian conflict as the exclusive construct of Arius and a handful of rogue bishops engaging inheresy;[citation needed] but others reinvent Arius as a defender of 'original' Christianity,[citation needed] or as providing a conservative response against the politicization of Christianity seeking union with the Roman Empire.[citation needed] Of the roughly three hundred bishops in attendance at theCouncil of Nicea, only two bishops did not sign the Nicene Creed, which condemned Arianism.[9] Two Roman emperors, Constantius II andValens, became Arians, as did prominent Gothic, Vandal and Lombard warlords both before and after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
Lucian of Antioch had contended for a Christology very similar to what would later be known as Arianism[citation needed] and is thought to have influenced its development.[citation needed] (Arius was a student of Lucian's private academy in Antioch.) After the dispute over Arianism became politicized and a general solution to the divisiveness was sought—with a great majority holding to the Trinitarian position—the Arian position was officially declared heterodox.
Arianism continued to exist for several decades, even within the family of the emperor, the imperial nobility, and higher-ranking clergy.[citation needed] But, by the end of the 4th century it had surrendered its remaining ground to Trinitarianism in the official Roman church hierarchy.[citation needed] In western Europe, Arianism, which had been taught by Ulfilas, the Arian missionary to the Germanic tribes, was dominant among the Goths and Lombards (and, significantly for the late Empire, the Vandals); but it ceased to be the mainstream belief by the 8th century, as the rulers of these Germanic tribes gradually adopted Catholicism, beginning with Clovis I of the Franks in 496. It was crushed through a series of military and political conquests,[citation needed] culminating in religious and political domination of Europe over the next 1,000 years by Trinitarian forces in the Catholic Church. Trinitarianism has remained the dominant doctrine in all major branches of the Eastern and Western Church and later within Protestantism.
"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[10]

Beliefs[edit]

Virtually all extant written material on Arianism is criticism and refutations written by opponents, with most literature written by Arian advocates long having been destroyed by the Trinitarian churches. As such the original teachings of Arius and his followers are difficult to define precisely today.
Arians do not believe in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, which holds that God encompasses three persons in one being.[11] The letter of Arian Auxentius [12] regarding the Arian missionary Ulfilas, gives the clearest picture of Arian beliefs. Arian Ulfilas who was ordained a bishop by ArianEusebius of Nicomedia and returned to his people to work as a missionary believed: God, the Father, ("unbegotten" God; Almighty God) always existing and who is the only true God (John 17:3). The Son of God, Jesus Christ, ("only-begotten God" John 1:18;[13] Mighty God Isaiah 9:6) begotten before time began (Proverbs 8:22-29; Revelation 3:14; Colossians 1:15) and who is Lord/Master (1 Cor 8:6). The Holy Spirit (the illuminating and sanctifying power, who is neither God nor Lord/Master. First Corinthians 8:5-8:6 was cited as proof text:
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 – θεος), the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord/Master (kyrios – κυριος), Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
—NRSV
The creed of Arian Ulfilas (c. 311 – 383), which concludes a letter praising him written by Auxentius,[12] distinguishes God the Father ("unbegotten"), who is the only true God from Son of God ("only-begotten"), who is Lord/Master; and the Holy Spirit (the illuminating and sanctifying power), who is neither God nor Lord/Master:
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" (Luke 24:49) and again "But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Ghost is come upon you" (Acts 1:8); Neither God nor Lord/Master, 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.[14]
The creed of Arian Ulfila in Latin:
Ego Ulfila episkopus et confessor semper sic credidi et in hac fide sola et uera transitum facio ad dominum meum: unum esse deum patrem solum ingenitum et inuisiuilem et in unigenitum filium eius dominum et deum nostrum, opificem et factorem uniuerse creature non habentem similem suum ideo unus est omnium deus pater, qui et dei nostri est deus et unum spiritum sanctum, uirtutem inluminantem et sanctificantem, ut ait Cristus post resurrectionem ad apostolos suos: ecce ego mitto promissum patris mei in uobis, uos autem sedete in ciuitate[m] Hierusalem, quoadusque induamini uirtute[m] ab alto; item et: accipietis uirtutem superueniente[m] in uos sancto spiritu-- nec deum nec dominum sed ministrum Cristi fidelem, nec equalem sed subditum et oboedientem in omnibus filio et filium subditum et oboedientem suo in omnibus deo patri.[15]
A letter from Arius (c. 250–336) to the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia (died 341) succinctly states the core beliefs of the Arians:
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

First Council of Nicaea and its aftermath[edit]

In 321, Arius was denounced by a synod 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.
By 325, the controversy had become significant enough that the Emperor Constantine called an assembly of bishops, the First Council of Nicaea, which condemned Arius' doctrine and formulated the original Nicene Creed of 325.[16] The Nicene Creed's central term, used to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son, is Homoousios (Ancient Greek: ὁμοούσιος), or Consubstantiality, meaning "of the same substance" or "of one being". (The Athanasian Creed is less often used but is a more overtly anti-Arian statement on the Trinity.)
The focus of the Council of Nicaea was the nature of the Son of God, and his precise relationship to God the Father. (see Paul of Samosata and the Synods of Antioch). Arius taught that Jesus Christ was divine/holy and was sent to earth for the salvation of mankind [17] 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 (power of God the Father).[5] Under Arianism, Christ was instead not consubstantial with God the Father [18] since both the Father and the Son under Arius were made of "like" essence or being (see homoiousia) but not of the same essence or being (see homoousia).[18] God the Father is a Deity and is divine and the Son of God is not a Deity but divine (I, the LORD, am Deity alone. Isaiah 46:9).[17] God the Father sent Jesus to earth for salvation of mankind (John 17:3). Ousia is essence or being, in Eastern 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,[19] God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit all being uncreated.[20] According to the teaching of Arius, the preexistent Logos and thus the incarnate Jesus Christ was a created being; that only the Son was directly created and 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.[18] 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.[18] The theological term for this submission is kenosis. This Ecumenical council declared that Jesus Christ was a distinct being of God in existence or reality (hypostasis), which the Latin fathers translated as persona. Jesus was God in essence, being and or nature (ousia), which the Latin fathers translated as substantia.
Constantine burning Arian books, illustration from a compendium of canon law, c. 825
Constantine is believed to have exiled those who refused to accept the Nicean creed—Arius himself, the deacon Euzoios, and the Libyan bishops Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais—and also the bishops who signed the creed but refused to join in condemnation of Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea. The Emperor also ordered all copies of the Thalia, the book in which Arius had expressed his teachings, to be burned. However, there is no evidence that his son and ultimate successor, Constantius II, who was an Arian Christian, was exiled.
Although he was committed to maintaining what the 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' rehabilitation. At the First Synod of Tyre in AD 335, they brought accusations against Athanasius, 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 readmitted Arius to communion in AD 336. Arius, however, died on the way to this event in Constantinople. Some scholars suggest that Arius may have been poisoned by his opponents.[21] Eusebius and Theognis remained in the Emperor's favour, and when Constantine, who had been a catechumen much of his adult life, accepted baptism on his deathbed, it was from Eusebius of Nicomedia.[22]

Theological debates[edit]

Once the Orthodox Trinitarians succeeded in defeating Arianism, they censored any signs that the perceived heresy left behind. This mosaic inBasilica of Sant'Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna has had images of the Arian king, Theoderic, and his court removed. However, on some columns their hands remain.
The Council of Nicaea did not end the controversy, as many bishops of the Eastern provinces disputed the homoousios, the central term of the Nicene creed, as it had been used by Paul of Samosata, who had advocated a monarchianist Christology. Both the man and his teaching, including the term homoousios, had been condemned by the Synods of Antioch in 269.
Hence, after Constantine's death in 337, open dispute resumed again. Constantine's son Constantius II, who had become Emperor of the eastern part of the Empire, actually encouraged the Arians and set out to reverse the Nicene creed. His advisor in these affairs was Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had already at the Council of Nicea been the head of the Arian party, who also was made bishop of Constantinople.
Constantius used his power to exile bishops adhering to the Nicene creed, especially St Athanasius of Alexandria, who fled to Rome. In 355 Constantius became the sole Emperor and extended his pro-Arian policy toward the western provinces, frequently using force to push through his creed, even exiling Pope Liberius and installing Antipope Felix II.
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 term homoiousios (alike in substance) to the Nicene homoousios, while they rejected Arius and his teaching and accepted the equality and coeternality 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' 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.
The debates among these groups resulted in numerous synods, among them the Council of Sardica in 343, the Council of Sirmium in 358 and the double Council of Rimini and Seleucia in 359, and no fewer than fourteen further creed formulas between 340 and 360, leading the pagan observer Ammianus Marcellinus to comment sarcastically: "The highways were covered with galloping bishops." None of these attempts were acceptable to the defenders of Nicene orthodoxy: writing about the latter councils, Saint Jerome remarked that the world "awoke with a groan to find itself Arian."
After Constantius' death in 361, his successor Julian, a devotee of Rome'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 resulted in further increasing dissension among Christians. The EmperorValens, however, revived Constantius' policy and supported the "Homoian" party, exiling bishops and often using force. During this persecution many bishops were exiled to the other ends of the Empire, (e.g., St Hilary of Poitiers to the Eastern provinces). These contacts and the common plight subsequently led to a rapprochement between the Western supporters of the Nicene creed and the homoousios and the Eastern semi-Arians.

Theodosius and the Council of Constantinople[edit]

Main article: Theodosius I
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. Theodosius' wife St Flacilla was instrumental in his campaign to end Arianism. Valens died in the Battle of Adrianople in 378 and was succeeded by Theodosius I, who adhered to the Nicene creed. This allowed for settling the dispute.
Two days after Theodosius arrived in Constantinople, 24 November 380, he expelled the Homoiousian bishop, Demophilus of Constantinople, and surrendered the churches of that city to Gregory Nazianzus, the 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 and Gratian had published an edict[23] that all their subjects should profess the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria (i.e., the Nicene faith), 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' accession, he managed to achieve unity on the basis of the Nicene creed. In 381, at the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople, a group of mainly Eastern bishops assembled and accepted the Nicene Creed of 381,[24] which was supplemented in regard to the Holy Spirit, as well as some other changes: see Comparison between Creed of 325 and Creed of 381. This is generally considered the end of the dispute about the Trinity and the end of Arianism among the Roman, non-Germanic peoples.

Later debates[edit]

Epiphanius of Salamis labelled the party of Basil 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 adjective homoousios while others had moved in that direction after the out-and-out Arians had come into the open.[25]

Early medieval Germanic kingdoms[edit]

Main articles: Gothic Christianity and Germanic Christianity
However, during the time of Arianism's flowering in Constantinople, the Gothic convert Ulfilas (later the subject of the letter of Auxentius cited above) was sent as a missionary to the Gothic barbarians across the Danube, a mission favored for political reasons by emperor Constantius II. Ulfilas' initial success in converting this Germanic people to an Arian form of Christianity was strengthened by later events. When the Germanic peoples entered the Roman Empire and founded successor-kingdoms in the western part, most had been Arian Christians for more than a century.
Ceiling Mosaic of the Arian Baptistry
The conflict in the 4th century had seen Arian and Nicene factions struggling for control of the Church. In contrast, in the Arian German kingdoms established on the wreckage of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, there were entirely separate Arian and Nicene Churches with parallel hierarchies, each serving different sets of believers. The Germanic elites were Arians, and the majority population was Nicene. Many scholars see the persistence of Germanic Arianism as a strategy that was followed in order to differentiate the Germanic elite from the local inhabitants and their culture and also to maintain the Germanic elite's separate group identity.[citation needed]
Most Germanic tribes were generally tolerant of the Nicene beliefs of their subjects. However, the Vandals tried for several decades to force their Arian beliefs on their North African Nicene subjects, exiling Nicene clergy, dissolving monasteries, and exercising heavy pressure on non-conforming Christians.
By the beginning of the 8th century, these kingdoms had either been conquered by Nicene neighbors (Ostrogoths, Vandals, Burgundians) or their rulers had accepted Nicene Christianity (Visigoths, Lombards).
The Franks and the Anglo-Saxons were unique among the Germanic peoples in that they entered the empire as pagans and converted to Nicene (Catholic) Christianity directly, guided by their kings, Clovis[26] and Æthelberht of Kent.

Remnants in the West, 5th to 7th centuries[edit]

However, much of southeastern Europe and central Europe, including many of the Goths and Vandals respectively, had embraced Arianism (theVisigoths converted to Arian Christianity in 376), which led to Arianism being a religious factor in various wars in the Roman Empire.[27] In the west, organized Arianism survived in North Africa, in Hispania, and parts of Italy until it was finally suppressed in the 6th and 7th centuries.Grimwald, King of the Lombards (662–671), and his young son and successor Garibald (671), were the last Arian kings in Europe.

"Arian" as a polemical epithet[edit]

The term "Arian" bestowed by Athanasius upon his opponents in the Christological debate was polemical. Even in Athanasius' Orations against the Arians, Arius hardly emerges consistently as the creative individual originator of the heresy that bears his name, even though it would have greatly strengthened Athanasius' case to present him in that light[citation needed]. Arius was not really very important to general Arianism after his exile at Nicaea[citation needed]. The efforts to get Arius brought out of exile on the parts of Eusebius of Nicomedia were chiefly political concerns and there is little evidence that any of Arius' writings were used as doctrinal norms even in the East[citation needed]. Labels such as 'semi-Arian' or 'neo-Arian' are misleading, for those labelled so would have disavowed the importance of their relation to Arius[citation needed].
In many ways, the conflict around Arian beliefs in the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries helped firmly define the centrality of the Trinity in Nicene Christian theology. As the first major intra-Christian conflict after Christianity's legalization, the struggle between Nicenes and Arians left a deep impression on the institutional memory of Nicene churches.[citation needed]
Thus, over the past 1,500 years, some Christians have used the term Arian to refer to those groups that see themselves as worshiping Jesus Christ or respecting his teachings, but do not hold to the Nicene creed. Despite the frequency with which this name is used as a polemical label, there has been no historically continuous survival of Arianism into the modern era.[citation needed]

Arianism resurfaces after the Reformation, 16th century[edit]

Following the Protestant Reformation from 1517, it did not take long for Arian and other non-trinitarian views to resurface. The first recorded English antitrinitarian was John Assheton who was forced to recant before Thomas Cranmer in 1548. At the Anabaptist Council of Venice 1550, the early Italian instigators of the Radical Reformation committed to the views of Miguel Servet (d.1553), and these were promulgated by Giorgio Biandrata and others into Poland and Transylvania.[28] The antitrinitarian wing of the Polish Reformation separated from the Calvinist ecclesia maior to form the ecclesia minor or Polish Brethren. These were commonly referred to as "Arians" due to their rejection of the Trinity, though in fact the Socinians, as they were later known, went further than Arius to the position of Photinus. The epithet "Arian" was also applied to the earlyUnitarians such as John Biddle though in denial of the pre-existence of Christ they were again largely Socinians not Arians.[29]
In the 18th century the "dominant trend" in Britain, particularly in Latitudinarianism, was towards Arianism, with which the names of Samuel Clarke,Benjamin Hoadly, William Whiston and Isaac Newton are associated.[30] To quote the Encyclopædia Britannica's article on Arianism: "In modern times some Unitarians 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."[31] However, their doctrines cannot be considered representative of traditional Arian doctrines or vice-versa.[citation needed]
A similar view was held by the ancient anti-Nicene Pneumatomachi (Greek: Πνευματομάχοι, “breath” or “spirit” and “fighters”, combining as “fighters against the spirit”), so called because they opposed the deifying of the Nicene Holy Ghost. However, the Pneumatomachi were adherents of Macedonianism, and though their beliefs were somewhat reminiscent of Arianism,[32] they were distinct enough to be distinguishably different.[32]
The Iglesia ni Cristo is one of the largest groups that teaches a similar doctrine, though they are really closer to Socinianism, believing the Word in John 1:1 is God's plan of salvation, not Christ. So Christ did not preexist.
Another group that may be considered Arian is the Church of God (7th day) - Salem Conference.
We believe in one true God who is the creator of all. He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He sent his son to Earth to be a sacrifice for our sins. He is a separate being from his son, Jesus. The Holy Spirit is the power of God and not a separate being with a separate consciousness. We do not believe in the teaching of the Trinity, in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three parts of a single being who is God. We believe the Father and the Son are separate beings with separate consciousnesses and that the Holy Spirit is not a conscious being but instead the power of God.
— FAQs – Does the Church of God (7th Day) believe in the Trinity?[33]
Another group that may be considered Arian is the Christian Churches of God.
Other groups opposing the Trinity are not necessarily Arian.
  • Oneness Pentecostalism is a grouping of denominations and believers within the Pentecostal movement with various non-trinitarian views, usually modalist.
  • The Iglesia ni Cristo,[34]Christadelphians,[35] Church of God General Conference[36] and other "Biblical Unitarians" are typically Socinian in their Christology, not Arian.
  • There are also various Binitarian churches, believing basically that God is two persons, the Father and Son, but the Holy Spirit is not a person. They include the Church of God (Seventh Day) and various offshoots, in particular the former Radio Church of God, founded by Herbert W. Armstrong, renamed the Worldwide Church of God, which after Armstrong's death converted to Trinity, causing many small churches to break off, most still loyal to the teachings of Armstrong, for example Philadelphia Church of God, the Living Church of God, and many others. Other Binitarian churches include the Gospel Assemblies, a group of Pentecostal denominations that believe God adopted the name Jesus, and theChurch of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite), an offshoot of Mormonism, which believes God is two personages, not persons. Binitarian churches generally believe that the Father is greater than the Son. So that is a view somewhat similar to Arianism.
  • The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also rejects Trinitarian doctrine. Joseph Smith taught that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct entities, three omnipotent Gods, with the Father and the Son possessing physical bodies of flesh and bone but the Holy Ghost existing only as a spirit, enabling it to dwell within us. However, Mormon doctrine differs from Arianism in a number of ways, particularly in the doctrines of eternal progression and exaltation.

See also[edit]

Arius (Ancient Greek: Ἄρειος, AD 250 or 256–336) was an ascetic Christian presbyter of Libyanbirth, possibly of Berber extraction, and priest in Alexandria, Egypt, of the church of the Baucalis.[1]His teachings about the nature of the Godhead, which emphasized the Father's divinity over the Son,[2] and his opposition to Homoousian Trinitarian Christology, made him a primary topic of theFirst Council of Nicea, convened by Roman Emperor Constantine in AD 325.
Although virtually all positive writings on Arius' theology have been suppressed or destroyed[citation needed], negative writings describe Arius' theology as one in which there was a time before the Son of God, when only God the Father existed. Despite concerted opposition, 'Arian', ornontrinitarian Christian churches persisted throughout Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, and also in various Gothic and Germanic kingdoms, until suppressed by military conquest or voluntary royal conversion between the fifth and seventh centuries.
Although "Arianism" suggests that Arius was the originator of the teaching that bears his name, the debate over the Son’s precise relationship to the Father did not begin with him. This subject had been discussed for decades before his advent; Arius merely intensified the controversy and carried it to a Church-wide audience, where other "Arians" such as Eusebius of Nicomedia (not to be confused with his contemporary, Eusebius of Caesarea) proved much more influential in the long run. In fact, some later "Arians" disavowed the name, claiming not to have been familiar with the man or his specific teachings.[3][4] However, because the conflict between Arius and his foes brought the issue to the theological forefront, the doctrine he proclaimed—though not originated—is generally labeled as "his".

Early life and personality[edit]

Reconstructing the life and doctrine of Arius has proven to be a difficult task, as none of his original writings survive. Emperor Constantine ordered their burning while Arius was still living, and any that survived this purge were later destroyed by his Orthodox opponents. Those works which have survived are quoted in the works of churchmen who denounced him as a heretic. This leads some—but not all—scholars to question their reliability.[5]
Arius was possibly of Libyan Berber descent. His father's name is given as Ammonius. Arius is believed to have been a student at the exegetical school in Antioch, where he studied under Saint Lucian.[6] Having returned to Alexandria, Arius, according to a single source, sided with Meletius of Lycopolis in his dispute over the re-admission of those who had denied Christianity under fear of Roman torture, and was ordained a deacon under the latter's auspices. He was excommunicated by Bishop Peter of Alexandria in 311 for supporting Meletius,[7] but under Peter's successor Achillas, Arius was re-admitted to Christian communion and in 313 made presbyter of the Baucalis district in Alexandria.
Although his character has been severely assailed by his opponents, Arius appears to have been a man of personal ascetic achievement, pure morals, and decided convictions. Paraphrasing Epiphanius of Salamis, an opponent of Arius, Catholic historian Warren H. Carroll describes him as"tall and lean, of distinguished appearance and polished address. Women doted on him, charmed by his beautiful manners, touched by his appearance of asceticism. Men were impressed by his aura of intellectual superiority."[8]
Arius was also accused of being too liberal and loose in his theology, engaging in heresy (as defined by his opponents). However, some historians argue that Arius was actually quite conservative,[9] and that he deplored how, in his view, Christian theology was being too freely mixed with Greek pagan philosophy.[10]

The Arian controversy[edit]

Main article: Arian controversy
Arius is notable primarily because of his role in the Arian controversy, a great fourth-century theological conflict that rocked the Christian world and led to the calling of the first ecumenical council of the Church. This controversy centered upon the nature of the Son of God, and his precise relationship to God the Father. Leading up to the council of Nicaea, the Christian world had many different competing Christological formulae.[11][12] After Nicaea, the dominant orthodox worked to conceal the earlier disagreement, portraying "Arianism" as a radical disagreement to the "norm". The Nicaean formula was a rapidy concluded solution to the general Christological debate that did not have prior agreement.[11]

Beginnings[edit]

The Trinitarian historian Socrates of Constantinople reports that Arius ignited the controversy that bears his name when St. Alexander of Alexandria, who had succeeded Achillas as the Bishop of Alexandria, gave a sermon stating the similarity of the Son to the Father. Arius interpreted Alexander's speech as being a revival of Sabellianism, condemned it, and then argued that "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 [the Son] had his substance from nothing."[13] This quote describes the essence of Arius' doctrine.
Socrates of Constantinople believed that Arius was influenced in his thinking by the teachings of Lucian of Antioch, a celebrated Christian teacher and martyr. In a letter to Patriarch Alexander of Constantinople Arius' bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, wrote that Arius derived his theology from Lucian. The express purpose of Alexander's letter was to complain of the doctrines that Arius was diffusing, but his charge of heresy against Arius is vague and unsupported by other authorities. Furthermore, Alexander's language, like that of most controversialists in those days, is quite bitter and abusive. Moreover, even Alexander never accused Lucian of having taught Arianism; rather, he accused Lucian ad invidiam of heretical tendencies—which apparently, according to him, were transferred to his pupil, Arius.[14] The noted Russian historian Alexander Vasiliev refers to Lucian as "the Arius before Arius".[15]

Origen and Arius[edit]

Like many third-century Christian scholars, Arius was influenced by the writings of Origen, widely regarded as the first great theologian of Christianity.[16] However, while he drew support from Origen's theories on the Logos, the two did not agree on everything. Arius clearly argued that the Logos had a beginning and that the Son, therefore, was not eternal. By way of contrast, Origen taught that, though the Son was subordinate and less than the Father in power and rank, the relation of the Son to the Father had no beginning, and that the Son was "eternally generated".[17]

Initial responses[edit]

The Bishop of Alexandria exiled the presbyter following a council of local priests. Arius's supporters vehemently protested. Numerous bishops and Christian leaders of the era supported his cause, among them Eusebius of Nicomedia.[18]

The First Council of Nicaea[edit]

Main article: First Council of Nicaea
See also: Nicene Creed
The Council of Nicaea, with Arius depicted beneath the feet of the Emperor Constantine and the bishops
The Christological debate could no longer be contained within the Alexandrian diocese. By the time Bishop Alexander finally acted against Arius, Arius's doctrine had spread far beyond his own see; it had become a topic of discussion—and disturbance—for the entire Church. The Church was now a powerful force in the Roman world, with Emperors Licinius and Constantine I having legalized it in 313 through theEdict of Milan. Emperor Constantine had taken a personal interest in several ecumenical issues, including the Donatist controversy in 316, and he wanted to bring an end to the Christological dispute. To this end, the emperor sent Hosius, bishop of Córdoba to investigate and, if possible, resolve the controversy. Hosius was armed with an open letter from the Emperor: "Wherefore let each one of you, showing consideration for the other, listen to the impartial exhortation of your fellow-servant." But as the debate continued to rage despite Hosius' efforts, Constantine in AD 325 took an unprecedented step: he called an council to be composed of church prelates from all parts of the empire to resolve this issue, possibly at Hosius' recommendation.[14]
All secular dioceses of the empire sent one or more representatives to the council, save for Roman Britain; the majority of the bishops came from the East. Pope Sylvester I, himself too aged to attend, sent two priests as his delegates. Arius himself attended the council, as did his bishop, Alexander. Also there were Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Nicomedia and the young deacon Athanasius, who would become the champion of the Trinitarian dogma ultimately adopted by the council and spend most of his life battling Arianism. Before the main conclave convened, Hosius initially met with Alexander and his supporters at Nicomedia.[19] The council would be presided over by the emperor himself, who participated in and even led some of its discussions.[14]
At this First Council of Nicaea twenty-two bishops, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius. But when some of Arius's writings were read aloud, they are reported to have been denounced as blasphemous by most participants.[14] Those who upheld the notion that Christ was co-eternal and con-substantial with the Father were led by the priest Alexander. Athanasius was not allowed to sit in on the Council since he was only an arch-deacon. But Athanasius is seen as doing the legwork and concluded (as Bishop Alexander conveyed in the Athanasian Trinitarian defense) that the Son was of the same essence (homoousios) than the Father, and was eternally generated from that essence of the Father.[20] Those who instead insisted that the Son of God came after God the Father in time and substance, were led by Arius the presbyter. For about two months, the two sides argued and debated,[21] with each appealing to Scripture to justify their respective positions.
Arius arguing for the supremacy of God the Father, and that the Son had a beginning as a true Firstborn
Arius argued for the supremacy of God the Father, and maintained the Son of God was a Creature, made from nothing; and that he was God's First Production (the very first thing that God actually ever did in His entire eternal existence up to that point), before all ages. Thus he insisted that only God the Father had no beginning, and that the Father alone was infinite and eternal. Arius maintained that the Son had a beginning. And he argued that everything else was created through the Son. Thus, said Arius, only the Son was directly created and begotten of God; furthermore, there was a time that He had no existence. He was capable of His own free will, said Arius, and thus "were He in the truest sense a son, He must have come after the Father, therefore the time obviously was when He was not, and hence He was a finite being."[22] Arius appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I". And also Colossians 1:15: "the firstborn of all creation." Thus, Arius insisted that the Father's Divinity was greater than the Son's, and that the Son was under God the Father, and not co-equal or co-eternal with Him.
According to some accounts in the hagiography of Nicholas of Myra, debate at the council became so heated that at one point, Nicholas struck Arius across the face.[23][24] The majority of the bishops ultimately agreed upon a creed, known thereafter as the Nicene creed. It included the word homoousios, meaning "consubstantial", or "one in essence", which was incompatible with Arius' beliefs.[25] On June 19, 325, council and emperor issued a circular to the churches in and around Alexandria: Arius and two of his unyielding partisans (Theonas and Secundus)[25] were deposed and exiled to Illyricum, while three other supporters—Theognis of Nicaea, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Maris of Chalcedon—affixed their signatures solely out of deference to the emperor. However, Constantine soon found reason to suspect the sincerity of these three, for he later included them in the sentence pronounced on Arius.
"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 offense, he shall be submitted for capital punishment....."
— Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians[26]

Exile, return, and death[edit]

The Homoousian party's victory at Nicaea was short-lived, however. Despite Arius's exile and the alleged finality of the Council's decrees, the Arian controversy recommenced at once. When Bishop Alexander died in 327, Athanasius succeeded him, despite not meeting the age requirements for a hierarch. Still committed to pacifying the conflict between Arians and Trinitarians, Constantine gradually became more lenient toward those whom the Council of Nicaea had exiled.[14] Though he never repudiated the council or its decrees, the emperor ultimately permitted Arius (who had taken refuge in Palestine) and many of his adherents to return to their homes, once Arius had reformulated his Christology to mute the ideas found most objectionable by his critics. Athanasius was exiled following his condemnation by the First Synod of Tyre in 335 (though he was later recalled), and the Synod of Jerusalem the following year restored Arius to communion. The emperor directed Alexander of Constantinople to receive Arius, despite the bishop's objections; Bishop Alexander responded by earnestly praying that Arius might perish before this could happen.[27]
Socrates Scholasticus (a detractor of Arius) described Arius's death as follows:
It was then Saturday, and Arius was expecting to assemble with the church on the day following: but divine retribution overtook his daring criminalities. For going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian partisans like guards, he paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine’s Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient place near, and being directed to the back of Constantine’s Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died. The scene of this catastrophe still is shown at Constantinople, as I have said, behind the shambles in the colonnade: and by persons going by pointing the finger at the place, there is a perpetual remembrance preserved of this extraordinary kind of death.
— Socrates Scholasticus[28]
Many post-Nicene Christians asserted that Arius's death was miraculous—a consequence of his heretical views. Several recent writers have speculated that Arius may have been poisoned by his opponents.[29][30][31] Even with its namesake's demise, the Arian controversy was far from over, and would not be settled for decades—or centuries, in parts of the West.
Constantine I burning Arian books, illustration from a book of canon law, ca. 825

Arianism after Arius[edit]

Immediate aftermath[edit]

Historians report that Constantine, who had never been baptized as a Christian during his lifetime, was baptized on his deathbed by the Arian bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia.[14][32]
Constantius II, who succeeded Constantine, was an Arian sympathizer[33] Following the abortive effort byJulian the Apostate to restore paganism in the empire, the emperor Valens—himself an Arian—renewed the persecution of Nicene hierarchs. However, Valens' successor Theodosius I effectively wiped out Arianism once and for all among the elites of the Eastern Empire through a combination of imperial decree, persecution, and the calling of the Second Ecumenical Council in 381, which condemned Arius anew while reaffirming and expanding the Nicene Creed.[33] This generally ended the influence of Arianism among the non-Germanic peoples of the Roman Empire.
The Arian Baptistry erected byOstrogothic king Theodoric the Great inRavenna, Italy, around 500

Arianism in the West[edit]

Main articles: Gothic Christianity and Germanic Christianity
Things went differently in the Western Empire. During the reign of Constantius II, the Arian Gothic convert Ulfilas was consecrated a bishop by Eusebius of Nicomedia and sent to missionize his people. His success ensured the survival of Arianism among the Goths and Vandals until the beginning of the eighth century, when these kingdoms succumbed to their Nicean neighbors or accepted Nicean Christianity. Arians also continued to exist in North Africa, Spain and portions of Italy, until finally suppressed during the sixth and seventh centuries.[34]
In the 12th century, Peter the Venerable saw Muhammad as "the successor of Arius and the precursor to the Anti-Christ".
During the Protestant Reformation, a Polish sect known as the Polish Brethren were often referred to as Arians, due to their rejection of the Trinity.[35]

Arianism today[edit]

A modern English church called the The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Arian Catholicism claims to follow Arian teachings, canonizing Arius on June 16, 2006.[36] They teach that the Father alone is absolute God, and that Jesus had a beginning, in the flesh, and is subordinate to the Father. They teach that Jesus Christ was the sinless Messiah and Redeemer, however, they do not accept the Virgin Birth, some miracles, the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, any divinity or worship of Christ, or Biblical infallibility, placing them in opposition to Arius himself, who accepted all of these, as well as a high-level divinity of Christ. The teachings of the ACAC are more in line with Socinianism than with true Arianism. Whereas Arius himself clearly taught Christ's pre-existence before Mary, the ACAC does not. The ACAC believe that Jesus was the natural son of Joseph and Mary, with the Holy Spirit overseeing the conception. And they teach that Christ's resurrection was not in the flesh, but was spiritual. Furthermore, their "Arian Catholic Creed" is a modern creation, not an ancient statement of faith.
Jehovah's Witnesses are often referred to as "modern-day Arians" or sometimes "Semi-Arians",[37][38] usually by their opponents.[39][40][41] While there are some significant similarities in theology and doctrine, the Witnesses differ from Arians by saying that the Son can fully know the Father (something Arius himself denied), and by the Witnesses' denial of literal personality to the Holy Spirit. Arius considered the Holy Spirit to be a person or a high-ranking angel, which had a beginning as a creature, whereas the Witnesses consider the Holy Spirit to be God's "active force" or "energy", or "divine breath", which had no beginning, and is not an actual person. The original Arians also generally prayed directly to Jesus, while the Witnesses, though they homage and revere Jesus as God's Son and Messiah, and pray through Him as Mediator and High Priest, give highest worship and service only to God the Father,[42] oft citing in support Jesus reference to the first commandment in Matthew 4:10. However the Witnesses do have a high regard for Arius and view him as a forerunner of Charles Taze Russell.[43]
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) are sometimes accused of being Arians by their detractors.[44]However, the Christology of the LDS religion differs in several significant aspects from Arian theology.[45]

Arius's doctrine[edit]

Main article: Arianism

Introduction[edit]

In explaining his actions against Arius, Alexander of Alexandria wrote a letter to Alexander of Constantinople and Eusebius of Nicomedia (where the emperor was then residing), detailing the errors into which he believed Arius had fallen. According to Alexander, Arius taught:
That God was not always the Father, but that there was a period when he was not the Father; that the Word of God was not from eternity, but was made out of nothing; for that the ever-existing God (‘the I AM’—the eternal One) made him who did not previously exist, out of nothing; wherefore there was a time when he did not exist, inasmuch as the Son is a creature and a work. That he is neither like the Father as it regards his essence, nor is by nature either the Father’s true Word, or true Wisdom, but indeed one of his works and creatures, being erroneously called Word and Wisdom, since he was himself made of God’s own Word and the Wisdom which is in God, whereby God both made all things and him also. Wherefore he is as to his nature mutable and susceptible of change, as all other rational creatures are: hence the Word is alien to and other than the essence of God; and the Father is inexplicable by the Son, and invisible to him, for neither does the Word perfectly and accurately know the Father, neither can he distinctly see him. The Son knows not the nature of his own essence: for he was made on our account, in order that God might create us by him, as by an instrument; nor would he ever have existed, unless God had wished to create us.
— Socrates Scholasticus (Trinitarian)[46]
Alexander also refers to Arius's poetical Thalia:
God has not always been Father; there was a moment when he was alone, and was not yet Father: later he became so. The Son is not from eternity; he came from nothing.
— Alexander (Trinitarian)[8]

The Logos[edit]

This question of the exact relationship between the Father and the Son (a part of the theological science of Christology) had been raised some fifty years before Arius, when Paul of Samosata was deposed in 269 for agreeing with those who used the word homoousios (Greek for same substance) to express the relation between the Father and the Son. This term was thought at that time to have a Sabellian tendency,[47] though—as events showed—this was on account of its scope not having been satisfactorily defined. In the discussion which followed Paul's deposition,Dionysius, the Bishop of Alexandria, used much the same language as Arius did later, and correspondence survives in which Pope Dionysiusblames him for using such terminology. Dionysius responded with an explanation widely interpreted as vacillating. The Synod of Antioch, which condemned Paul of Samosata, had expressed its disapproval of the word homoousios in one sense, while Bishop Alexander undertook its defense in another. Although the controversy seemed to be leaning toward the opinions later championed by Arius, no firm decision had been made on the subject; in an atmosphere so intellectual as that of Alexandria, the debate seemed bound to resurface—and even intensify—at some point in the future.
Arius endorsed the following doctrines about The Son or The Word (Logos, referring to Jesus; see the John 1:1):
  1. that the Word (Logos) and the Father were not of the same essence (ousia);
  2. that the Son was a created being (ktisma or poiema); and
  3. that the worlds were created through him, so he must have existed before them and before all time.
  4. However, there was a "once" [Arius did not use words meaning "time", such as chronos or aion] when He did not exist, before he was begotten of the Father.

The Thalia[edit]

Ceiling Mosaic of the Arian Baptistry, in Ravenna, Italy, depicting the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost present, with John the Baptist
According to Athanasius, Arius authored a poem called the Thalia ("abundance", "good cheer" or "banquet"): a summary of his views on the Logos.[48] Part of this Thalia is quoted in Athanasius's Four Discourses Against the Arians:
"And so God Himself, as he really is, is inexpressible to all.
He alone has no equal, no one similar ('homoios'), and no one of the same glory.
We call Him unbegotten, in contrast to him who by nature is begotten.
We praise Him as without beginning, in contrast to him who has a beginning.
We worship Him as timeless, in contrast to him who in time has come to exist.
He who is without beginning made the Son a beginning of created things. He produced him as a son for Himself, by begetting him.
He [the Son] has none of the distinct characteristics of God's own being ('kat' hypostasis')
For he is not equal to, nor is he of the same being ('homoousios') as Him."
Also from the Thalia:
"At God’s will the Son has the greatness and qualities that he has.
His existence from when and from whom and from then—are all from God.
He, though strong God, praises in part ('ek merous') his superior".
Thus, said Arius, God's first thought was the creation of the Son, before all ages, therefore time started with the creation of the Logos or Word in Heaven.
In this portion of the Thalia, Arius endeavors to explain the ultimate incomprehensibility of the Father to the Son:
"In brief, God is inexpressible to the Son.
For He is in himself what He is, that is, indescribable,
So that the Son does not comprehend any of these things or have the understanding to explain them.
For it is impossible for him to fathom the Father, who is by Himself.
For the Son himself does not even know his own essence ('ousia').
For being Son, his existence is most certainly at the will of the Father.
What reasoning allows, that he who is from the Father should comprehend and know his own parent?
For clearly that which has a beginning is not able to conceive of or grasp the existence of that which has no beginning".
Here, Arius explains how the Son could still be God, even if he did not exist eternally:
"Understand that the Monad [eternally] was; but the Dyad was not before it came into existence.
It immediately follows that, although the Son did not exist, the Father was still God.
Hence the Son, not being [eternal] came into existence by the Father’s will,
He [the Son] is the Only-begotten God, and this one is alien from [all] others."

Extant writings[edit]

Three surviving letters attributed to Arius are his letter to Alexander of Alexandria,[49] his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia,[50] and his confession to Constantine.[51] In addition, several letters addressed by others to Arius survive, together with brief quotations contained within the polemical works of his opponents. These quotations are often short and taken out of context, and it is difficult to tell how accurately they quote him or represent his true thinking.
Arius' Thalia (literally, "Festivity"), a popularized work combining prose and verse, survives in quoted fragmentary form. The two available references from this work are recorded by his opponent Athanasius: the first is a report of Arius's teaching in Orations Against the Arians, 1:5-6. This paraphrase has negative comments interspersed throughout, so it is difficult to consider it as being completely reliable.[52] The second quotation is found in the document On the Councils of Arminum and Seleucia, pg. 15. This passage is entirely in irregular verse, and seems to be a direct quotation or a compilation of quotations;[53] it may have been written by someone other than Athanasius, perhaps even a person sympathetic to Arius.[3] This second quotation does not contain several statements usually attributed to Arius by his opponents, is in metrical form, and resembles other passages that have been attributed to Arius. It also contains some positive statements about the Son.[54] But although these quotations seem reasonably accurate, their proper context is lost, thus their place in Arius' larger system of thought is impossible to reconstruct.[53]

Nestorianism is a Christological doctrine advanced by Nestorius (386–450), Patriarch of Constantinople from 428–431. The doctrine, which was informed by Nestorius' studies under Theodore of Mopsuestia at the School of Antioch, emphasizes the disunion between the human and divine natures of Jesus. Nestorius' teachings brought him into conflict with some other prominent church leaders, most notably Cyril of Alexandria, who criticized especially his rejection of the title Theotokos ("Bringer forth of God") for the Virgin Mary. Nestorius and his teachings were eventually condemned as heretical at the First Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451, leading to the Nestorian Schism in which churches supporting Nestorius broke with the rest of the Christian Church. Afterward many of Nestorius' supporters relocated to Sassanid Persia, where they affiliated with the local Christian community, known as the Church of the East. Over the next decades the Church of the East became increasingly Nestorian in doctrine, leading it to be known alternately as the Nestorian Church.
Nestorianism is a form of dyophysitism, and can be seen as the antithesis to monophysitism, which emerged in reaction to Nestorianism. Where Nestorianism holds that Christ had two loosely-united natures, divine and human, monophysitism holds that he had but a single nature, his human nature being absorbed into his divinity. A brief definition of Nestorian Christology can be given as: "Jesus Christ, who is not identical with the Son but personally united with the Son, who lives in him, is one hypostasis and one nature: human."[1] Both Nestorianism and monophysitism were condemned as heretical at the Council of Chalcedon. Monophysitism survived and developed into the Miaphysitism of the modern Oriental Orthodox churches.
Following the exodus to Persia, scholars expanded on the teachings of Nestorius and his mentors, particularly after the relocation of the School of Edessa to the Persian city of Nisibis in 489 (where it became known as the School of Nisibis). Nestorianism never again became prominent in the Roman Empire or later Europe, though the diffusion of the Church of the East in and after the 7th century spread it widely across Asia. But not all churches affiliated with the Church of the East appear to have followed Nestorian Christology; indeed, the modern Assyrian Church of the East, which reveres Nestorius, does not follow all historically Nestorian doctrine.
Despite this initial Eastern expansion, the Nestorians' missionary success was eventually deterred. David J Bosch observes
By the end of the fourteenth century, however, the Nestorian and other churches—which at one time had dotted the landscape of all of Central and even parts of East Asia—were all but wiped out. Isolated pockets of Christianity survived only in India. The religious victors on the vast Central Asian mission field of the Nestorians were Islam and Buddhism...[2]

Nestorian doctrine[edit]

In the Nestorian view, the human and divine persons of Christ are separate.[3]
Nestorius developed his Christological views as an attempt to rationally explain and understand the incarnation of the divine Logos, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity as the man Jesus Christ. He had studied at theSchool of Antioch where his mentor had been Theodore of Mopsuestia; Theodore and other Antioch theologians had long taught a literalist interpretation of the Bible and stressed the distinctiveness of the human and divine natures of Jesus. Nestorius took his Antiochene leanings with him when he was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople by Eastern Roman Emperor Theodosius II in 428.
Nestorius' teachings became the root of controversy when he publicly challenged the long-used titleTheotokos[4] (Bringer forth of God) for the Virgin Mary. He suggested that the title denied Christ's full humanity, arguing instead that Jesus had two persons, the divine Logos and the human Jesus. As such he proposedChristotokos (Bringer forth of Christ) as a more suitable title for Mary.
Nestorius' opponents found his teaching too close to the heresy of adoptionism – the idea that Christ had been born a man who had later been "adopted" as God's son. Nestorius was especially criticized by Cyril, Pope (Patriarch) of Alexandria, who argued that Nestorius' teachings undermined the unity of Christ's divine and human natures at the Incarnation. Some of Nestorius' opponents argued that he put too much emphasis on the human nature of Christ, and others debated that the difference that Nestorius implied between the human nature and the divine nature created a fracture in the singularity of Christ, thus creating two Christ figures.[5] Nestorius himself always insisted that his views were orthodox, though they were deemed heretical at the First Council of Ephesus in 431, leading to the Nestorian Schism, when churches supportive of Nestorius and the rest of the Christian Church separated. A more elaborate Nestorian theology developed from there, which came to see Christ as having two natures united, or hypostases, [6][citation needed][dubious – discuss] the divine Logos and the human Christ. However, this formulation was never adopted by all churches termed "Nestorian". Indeed, the modern Assyrian Church of the East, which reveres Nestorius, does not fully subscribe to Nestorian doctrine, though it does not employ the title Theotokos.[7]

Nestorian Schism and early history[edit]

Main article: Nestorian Schism
Nestorianism became a distinct sect following the Nestorian Schism, beginning in the 430s. Nestorius had come under fire from Western theologians, most notably Cyril of Alexandria. Cyril had both theological and political reasons for attacking Nestorius; on top of feeling that Nestorianism was an error against true belief, he also wanted to denigrate the head of a competing patriarchate.[citation needed] Cyril and Nestorius asked Pope Celestine I to weigh in on the matter. Celestine found that the title Theotokos[8] was orthodox, and authorized Cyril to ask Nestorius to recant. Cyril, however, used the opportunity to further attack Nestorius, who pleaded with Emperor Theodosius II to call a council so that all grievances could be aired.[7]
In 431 Theodosius called the First Council of Ephesus. However, the council ultimately sided with Cyril, holding that Christ is one subsistence and nature, and that the Virgin Mary is the mother of God. The council accused Nestorius of heresy, and deposed him as patriarch.[9] Nestorianism was officially anathematized, a ruling reiterated at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. However, a number of churches, particularly those associated with the School of Edessa, supported Nestorius – though not necessarily his doctrine – and broke with the churches of the West. Many of Nestorius' supporters relocated to Sassanid Persia, home to a vibrant but persecuted Christian minority.[10]

Nestorianism and the Persian Church[edit]

Main article: Church of the East
Nestorian priests in a procession on Palm Sunday, in a 7th- or 8th-century wall painting from a Nestorian church in Qocho, China
Persia had long been home to a Christian community that had been persecuted by theZoroastrian majority, which had accused it of Roman leanings. In 424, the Persian Church declared itself independent of the Byzantine and all other churches, in order to ward off allegations of foreign allegiance. Following the Nestorian Schism, the Persian Church increasingly aligned itself with the Nestorians, a measure encouraged by the Zoroastrian ruling class. The Persian Church became increasingly Nestorian in doctrine over the next decades, furthering the divide between Chalcedonian Christianity and the Nestorians. In 486 the Metropolitan of Nisibis, Barsauma, publicly accepted Nestorius' mentor, Theodore of Mopsuestia, as a spiritual authority. In 489 when the School of Edessa in Mesopotamia was closed by Byzantine Emperor Zeno for its Nestorian teachings, the school relocated to its original home of Nisibis, becoming again the School of Nisibis, leading to a wave of Nestorian immigration into Persia. The Persian patriarch Mar Babai I (497–502) reiterated and expanded upon the church's esteem for Theodore, solidifying the church's adoption of Nestorianism.[10]
Now firmly established in Persia, with centers in Nisibis, Ctesiphon, and Gundeshapur, and several metropolitan sees, the Nestorian Persian Church began to branch out beyond the Persian Sassanid Empire. However, through the 6th century the church was frequently beset with internal strife and persecution from the Zoroastrians. The infighting led to a schism, which lasted from 521 until around 539, when the issues were resolved. However, immediately afterward Roman-Persian conflict led to the persecution of the church by the Sassanid King Khosrau I; this ended in 545. The church survived these trials under the guidance of Patriarch Mar Abba I, who had converted to Christianity from Zoroastrianism.[10]
The church emerged stronger after this period of ordeal, and increased missionary efforts farther afield. Missionaries established dioceses in theArabian Peninsula and India (the Saint Thomas Christians). They made some advances in Egypt, despite the strong Miaphysite (Oriental Orthodox) presence there.[11] Missionaries entered Central Asia and had significant success converting local Turkic tribes. Nestorian missionaries were firmly established in China during the early part of the Tang Dynasty (618–907); the Chinese source known as the Nestorian Stele records a mission under a Persian proselyte named Alopen as introducing Nestorian Christianity to China in 635. Following the Muslim conquest of Persia, completed in 644, the Persian Church became a dhimmi community under the Rashidun Caliphate. The church and its communities abroad grew larger under the Caliphate; by the 10th century it had fifteen metropolitan sees within the Caliphate's territories, and another five elsewhere, including in China and India.[10]

See also[edit]

See also[edit]


References[edit]

Bibliography[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. Jump up^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapter 33. Anthony F. Beavers, Chronology of the Arian Controversy.
  2. Jump up^ "First Council of Constantinople, Canon 1". ccel.org.
  3. Jump up^ Williams, Rowan (2002). Arius: heresy and tradition. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. p. 98. ISBN 978-0-8028-4969-4.
  4. Jump up^ The latter three of which consider themselves not Protestants, butprimitive Christians or Christian Restorationists, which is disputed by most traditions of mainstream historic Christianity ; Latter-day Saints believe they are within the fold of historic Christianity, but mainstream historic Christianity contests this identification (citation needed - how is this more outlandish than the Trinitarians? For the historic Christian view of the LDS, see the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, "Mormons", at Old Catholic Encyclopedia, "Mormons", and Is Mormonism Christian?, Gordon H Fraser, Moody Press 1977 (not available online). For the LDS view of historic Christianity, see both Is the LDS view of God Consistent with the Bible? Ensign, July 1987 and Are Mormons Christian? New Era, May 1998
  5. ^ Jump up to:a b http://www.ritchies.net/p2wk2.htm. Missing or empty |title=(help)
  6. Jump up^ M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopedia, Volume 7, page 45a.
  7. Jump up^ Francis Schüssler Fiorenza; John P. Galvin (1991). Systematic theology: Roman Catholic perspectives. Fortress Press. pp. 164–.ISBN 978-0-8006-2460-6. Retrieved 14 April 2010.
  8. Jump up^ Hanson, R P C (2007). The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. pp. 127–128. ISBN 0-8010-3146-X.
  9. Jump up^ Chadwick, Henry (July 1960). "Faith and Order at the Council of Nicea". The Harvard Theological Review 53 (3): 171–195.doi:10.1017/S0017816000027000. JSTOR 1508399.
  10. Jump up^ "Emperor Constantine's Edict against the Arians". fourthcentury.com. 2010-01-23. Retrieved 2011-08-20.
  11. Jump up^ Newton, Sir Issac. "Newton's Arian beliefs".
  12. ^ Jump up to:a b http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/auxentius.trans.html.Missing or empty |title= (help)
  13. Jump up^ http://biblehub.com/nasb/john/1.htm. Missing or empty |title=(help)
  14. Jump up^ Heather and Matthews. Goths in the Fourth Century. p. 143.
  15. Jump up^ http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/auxentius.html. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  16. Jump up^ NPNF2-14. "The Seven Ecumenical Councils". Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
  17. ^ Jump up to:a b http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Extras/Newton_Arian.html. Missing or empty|title= (help)
  18. ^ Jump up to:a b c d "The oneness of Essence, the Equality of Divinity, and the Equality of Honor of God the Son with the God the Father." Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky pages 92–95
  19. Jump up^ The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, SVS Press, 1997. (ISBN 0-913836-31-1) James Clarke & Co Ltd, 1991. (ISBN 0-227-67919-9) V Lossky pg 50–51
  20. Jump up^ Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky pages 57 As quoted by John Damascene:
    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 almighty Pantocrator.
  21. Jump up^ Edward Gibbons "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", Chapter 21, (1776–88), Jonathan Kirsch, "God Against the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism", 2004, and Charles Freeman, The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason, 2002.
  22. Jump up^ Gonzalez, Justo (1984). The Story of Christianity Vol.1. Harper Collins. p. 176. ISBN 0-06-063315-8.
  23. Jump up^ "Sozomen's Church History VII.4". ccel.org.
  24. Jump up^ The text of this version of the Nicene creed is available at "The Holy Creed Which the 150 Holy Fathers Set Forth, Which is Consonant with the Holy and Great Synod of Nice". ccel.org. Retrieved 27 November 2010.
  25. Jump up^ Kelly J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines A&G Black 1965, p. 249
  26. Jump up^ Frassetto, Michael, Encyclopedia of barbarian Europe, (ABC-CLIO, 2003), 128.
  27. Jump up^
    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. When Clovis 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 kingSigibert and the Huns, [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." Medieval Study Guide to Gregory of Tours History of the Franks.
    —St Gregory of Tours
  28. Jump up^ Roland Bainton, Hunted Heretic. The Life and Death of Michael Servetus
  29. Jump up^ George Huntston Williams. The Radical Reformation, 3rd edition. Volume 15 of Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies. Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards Brothers, 1992
  30. Jump up^ William Gibson, Robert G. Ingram Religious identities in Britain, 1660–1832 p92
  31. Jump up^ "Arianism." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica 2007 Deluxe Edition. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2007.
  32. ^ Jump up to:a b Wace, Henry; Piercy, William C., eds. Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century (1911, third edition) London: John Murray.
  33. Jump up^ "FAQs". Churchofgod-7thday.org. Retrieved 18 September 2013.
  34. Jump up^ Bienvenido Santiago "Is Jesus Christ Called 'God' in John 1:1?" in God's Message magazine July–September 1995
  35. Jump up^ Pearce F. Jesus: God the Son or Son of God? CMPA
  36. Jump up^ Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound

Further reading[edit]

  • Brennecke, Hanns Christof (1999), "Arianism", in Fahlbusch, Erwin, Encyclopedia of Christianity 1, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, pp. 121–122, ISBN 0-8028-2413-7

External links[edit]

↑