Arianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Arians)
Jump to: navigation, search
"Arian" redirects here. For other uses, see Arian (disambiguation).
Not to be confused with "Aryanism", which is a racial theory.

Arianism is the nontrinitarian, theological teaching attributed to Arius (c. AD 250–336), a Christian presbyter 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" (Proverbs 8:22).[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 in heresy;[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 the Council of Nicea, only two bishops did not sign the Nicene Creed, which condemned Arianism.[9] Two Roman emperors, Constantius II and Valens, 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, then Reccared I of the Visigoths in 587 and Aripert I of the Lombards in 653. 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 Arian Eusebius 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 in Basilica 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 Emperor Valens, 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]

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 (the Visigoths 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 early Unitarians 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.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

Bibliography[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, book 1, chapter 33. Anthony F. Beavers, Chronology of the Arian Controversy.
  2. ^ "First Council of Constantinople, Canon 1". ccel.org. 
  3. ^ Williams, Rowan (2002). Arius: heresy and tradition. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. p. 98. ISBN 978-0-8028-4969-4. 
  4. ^ The latter three of which consider themselves not Protestants, but primitive 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. ^ a b http://www.ritchies.net/p2wk2.htm.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  6. ^ M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopedia, Volume 7, page 45a.
  7. ^ 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. ^ 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. ^ 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. ^ "Emperor Constantine's Edict against the Arians". fourthcentury.com. 2010-01-23. Retrieved 2011-08-20. 
  11. ^ Newton, Sir Issac. "Newton's Arian beliefs". 
  12. ^ a b http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/auxentius.trans.html.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  13. ^ http://biblehub.com/nasb/john/1.htm.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  14. ^ Heather and Matthews. Goths in the Fourth Century. p. 143. 
  15. ^ http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/auxentius.html.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  16. ^ NPNF2-14. "The Seven Ecumenical Councils". Christian Classics Ethereal Library. 
  17. ^ a b http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Extras/Newton_Arian.html.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  18. ^ 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. ^ 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. ^ 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. ^ 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. ^ Gonzalez, Justo (1984). The Story of Christianity Vol.1. Harper Collins. p. 176. ISBN 0-06-063315-8. 
  23. ^ "Sozomen's Church History VII.4". ccel.org. 
  24. ^ 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. ^ Kelly J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines A&G Black 1965, p. 249
  26. ^ Frassetto, Michael, Encyclopedia of barbarian Europe, (ABC-CLIO, 2003), 128.
  27. ^

    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 king Sigibert 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.

  28. ^ Roland Bainton, Hunted Heretic. The Life and Death of Michael Servetus
  29. ^ George Huntston Williams. The Radical Reformation, 3rd edition. Volume 15 of Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies. Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards Brothers, 1992
  30. ^ William Gibson, Robert G. Ingram Religious identities in Britain, 1660–1832 p92
  31. ^ "Arianism." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica 2007 Deluxe Edition. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2007.
  32. ^ 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. ^ "FAQs". Churchofgod-7thday.org. Retrieved 18 September 2013. 
  34. ^ Bienvenido Santiago "Is Jesus Christ Called 'God' in John 1:1?" in God's Message magazine July–September 1995
  35. ^ Pearce F. Jesus: God the Son or Son of God? CMPA
  36. ^ 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]