Arianism
- This article is about theological views like those of Arius. Aryan is an unrelated ethnic concept.
Arianism was a Christological view held by followers of Arius in the early Christian Church, claiming that Jesus Christ and God the Father were not always contemporary, seeing the Son as a divine being, created by the Father (and consequently inferior to Him) at some point in time, before which he did not exist. The First Council of Nicaea in 325 condemned Arianism, after much controversy, and declared it heretical, and Arius, Theonas, Secundus, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis were exiled. Similar views, and in some cases revival of the name, have recurred.
Origins
The letter of Auxentius[1], a 4th century Arian bishop of Milan, regarding the missionary Ulfilas, gives the clearest picture of Arian beliefs on the nature of the Trinity: God the Father ("unbegotten"), always existing, was separate from the lesser Jesus Christ ("only-begotten"), born before time began and creator of the world. The Father, working through the Son, created the Holy Spirit, who was subservient to the Son as the Son was to the Father. The Father was seen as "the only true God". 1st Corinthians 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 — yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." -1Cor8:5-6(NRSV)
The conflict between Arianism and the Trinitarianism that has since become dominant was the first important doctrinal difficulty in the Church after the legalization of Christianity by Emperor Constantine I. At one point in the conflict, Arianism held sway in the family of the Emperor and the Imperial nobility, and, because Ulfilas was the apostle to the Goths, the Ostrogoths and the Visigoths, they arrived in western Europe already Christianized, but also Arians.
Arius was a Christian priest in Alexandria, Egypt. In 321 he was denounced by a synod at Alexandria for teaching a heterodox view of the relationship of Jesus to God the Father. But of course there were a number of early councils. The Council of Antioch 264-268 condemned the term "homoousios", later adopted by the Council of Nicaea 325, because of its gnostic roots. The Council of Jerusalem 335 reversed the Council of Nicaea's condemnation of Arius. Athanasius, the primary opponent of Arius, was condemned at the Council of Tyre 335. The 2nd Council of Sirmium 357 condemned the Council of Nicaea. Arius and his followers agreed that Jesus was the son of God, but inferior or subordinate to God the Father. A specific summary statement that came to be at issue was that "there was a stage when Jesus Christ was not"; this statement implied Jesus to be a created being, "firstborn of all creation" [Colossians 1:15], rather than one coeternal with the Father, and thereby denied the doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ.
The Council of Nicea and its aftermath
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 Emperor Constantine I called an assembly of bishops, the First Council of Nicaea (modern Iznik, Turkey), which condemned Arius' doctrine and formulated the Nicene Creed, which is still recited in Catholic, Orthodox, and some Protestant services, and whose central term is homoousios, 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.
Constantine sent Arius and the two bishops that refused to join in his condemnation, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicea, into exile and also ordered all copies of the Thalia, the book in which Arius had expressed his teachings in verses, to be burned.
Though unwavering in his adherence to the Nicean creed, Constantine tried to pacify the situation and became more lenient towards the Arians. First he allowed Eusebius and Theognis to return once they had signed an ambigious statement of faith. The two and other friends of Arius worked for Arius' rehabilitation. At the synod of Tyre in 335 they brought accusations against Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, the primary opponent of Arius, and after this Constantine had Athanasius banished since he considered him an impediment to reconciliation. In the same year the synod of Jerusalem readmitted Arius to communion and in 336 Constantine allowed Arius to return to his hometown. Arius however died on the day he was scheduled to depart from Constantinople. 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.
The dispute resumes
The Council of Nicea had not ended 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 synods in 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, the head of the Arian party after Arius' death, who also was made bishop of Constantinople.
Constantius used his power to exile bishops adhering to the Nicene creed, especially Athanasius of Alexandria, who fled to Rome. In 355 Constantius became the sole Emperor and extended his pro-Arian policy towards the western provinces, frequently using force to push through his creed, even exiling Pope Liberius.
In the disputes about a new formula, three camps evolved among the opponents of the Nicene creed: The first group opposed mainly 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. Despite and because of this centrist position they were called "Semi-Arians" by their opponents. The second group 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 (homoi) the Father. A third group explicitely called upon Arius and described the Son as unlike (ahomoi) the Father. Constantius wavered in his support between the first and the second party, while harshily persecuting the third. Various synods assembled to draw up a new creed: the council of Sardica in 343, the council of Sirmium in 358 and the double council of Rimini and Selecia in 359, which settled with a homoian creed. About these procedings Saint Jerome remarked that the world "awoke with a groan to find itself Arian."
After Constantius' death in 361, his successor Julian Apostata returned to Rome's pagan gods and allowed all exiled bishops to return, with the objective of 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. Hilarius 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.
After Valens's death in the battle of Adrianople in 378, the firm Nicene Theodosius I succeeded and settled the dispute in 381: at the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople mainly Eastern bishops assembled and accepted the Nicene Creed, which was supplemented in regards to the Holy Spirit. This is generally considered the end of the dispute about the Trinity and the end of Arianism among the Roman, non-germanic peoples.
Arianism in the early medieval Germanic kingdoms
However, during the time of Arianism's flowering in Constantinople, the Goth convert Ulfilas (later the subject of the letter of Auxentius cited above) was sent as a missionary to the Gothic barbarians across the Danube. His 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, most had been Arian Christians for more than a century. The conflict in the 4th century had seen Arian and Nicene factions struggling for control of the Church; in contrast, in the kingdoms these Arian Germans 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. Many scholars see the persistence of the Germans' Arian religion as a strategy to differentiate the Germanic elite from the local inhabitants and maintain their group identity against the local culture.
For more information on these Arian kingdoms, see the articles on the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Burgundians, and Lombards. (The Franks were unique among the Germanic peoples in that they entered the empire as pagans and converted to Nicene Christianity directly.) 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).
Parallels to later groups
Trinitarians often use the term Arianism to draw parallels to some modern groups, defining the view in broad terms. Like the Arians, many modern groups embrace the belief that Jesus is not the one God, but a separate being subordinate to the Father, who at one time did not exist. Some of these profess as the Arians did, that God made all things through the pre-existent Christ. Some, similar to Arian belief, profess that Jesus became divine, through exaltation. Parallels to nontrinitarian groups, in terms of aspects of Arian beliefs like these, are usually accurate enough for the purpose of distinguishing a type of unbelief in the Trinity. But, despite the frequency with which this name is used, and regardless of any seeming subtleties of the difference on particular points, all acknowledge that Arianism has not survived into the modern era, and has become extinct. The groups so labelled do not hold beliefs identical to Arianism. For this reason, they reject the name for their self-description, even if they acknowledge that their beliefs are at points in agreement with, or in broad terms similar to, Arianism.
Reformation, Enlightenment and Unitarianism
The name Arians was widely (and misleadingly) applied to Unitarian Christian sects, initially in Poland to the Polish brethren (Frater Polonorum), and the Socinians. These groups invented radical social theories, and were precursors of the Enlightenment.
Modern groups
A more contemporary example is the application of the term Arianism to the group known as Jehovah's Witnesses. They, like Arius, hold that at one point in time Jesus did not exist. However Jehovah's Witnesses urge that, this is the extent of their agreement; beyond that point, their Christology differs significantly. For instance, Arius taught that Jesus was created "out of nothing" and not "begotten" of the same substance as the Father, thus making the relationship between the two a form of adoption, rather than that of a natural Son and Father. Contrary to this view, Jehovah's Witnesses hold that Jehovah God is the Father, or Life-Giver, to the pre-human Jesus as his firstborn Son. They teach that Jesus is "preeminently and uniquely the Christ, the spirit Son of the living God." They also believe that Jehovah created all things by means of the Word, who is Jesus. But, they distinguish this instumentality of the Word from the Arian belief as they understand it, which conceives of the Word as a co-creator with Jehovah God.
There are also points of similarity, among some sharp differences, between Arianism and the doctrine of the Godhead in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("LDS Church"; see also Mormon). The LDS doctrine of the unity of the Godhead is reminiscent of the Arian explanation of the unity of the Son with the Father: Jesus is seen as a deity subordinate to God the Father, whose complete unity of purpose and mission is such that, it is unthinkable that there would be any disagreement between them. They are both perfect and without sin or error - there cannot be contradiction between them - and in this sense they are very much "one". The LDS also believe, somewhat comparably to the Arians, that Christ is a separate being (although "co-eternal" with God the Father, unlike Arianism), and yet with the Holy Ghost (another separate being) they are all worthy of worship by humans and angels. However, the LDS are unique in believing that there are innumerable exalted beings, or gods, and that all humans are innately divine beings who may eventually be exalted; also very much unlike the Arians, the Son was not "created out of nothing" (a key phrase especially in early Arianism) according to the LDS; and, Arians would disagree with LDS belief that three distinct beings comprise the Godhead (the Godhead is an intimate ruling council comprised of three distinct beings according to LDS doctrine). In sum, trinitarians usually label the LDS idea of the Godhead as tritheism, compared to Arianism's unitarianism - although this label conflicts with LDS self-description too. Complicating their interaction with orthodox trinitarians, the Mormons in some languages and situations use the word Trinity to explain their view of the Godhead; which they sometimes assert is merely a very different idea of the Trinity than is professed by other trinitarians. In any case, Mormons do not self-label as trinitarians.
Archbishop Dmitri of the Orthodox Church in America has identified Islam as the largest descendant of Arianism today. There is some superficial similarity in Islam's teaching that Jesus was a great prophet, but very distinct from God, although Islam sees Jesus as a human messenger of God without the divine properties that Arianism attributes to the Christ. Islam sees itself as a continuation of the Jewish and Christian traditions and reveres many of the same prophets.