Arianism

Arianism was a theological position within early Christianity that was directly represented by its namesake theologian Arius (ca. 260-327 AD) and his followers. Arius considered the equality of God, God the Father and God the Son, as claimed for example in the Confession of Nicaea (325), as false doctrine, since it contradicted monotheism, in which the Son and the Holy Spirit were only conceivable in a subordinate position and dignity, not equal to God. Positions such as the Trinity elevated to dogma in the Niceno-Constantinopolitanum (381) with a Son and Holy Spirit equal in rank to God were from his theological point of view even more "heretical". Conversely, from the point of view of the then representatives of the doctrine of the Trinity of Nicaea or Constantinople and the Christian communities as well as churches that still recognize it today, Arianism was and is regarded as heresy (Arian Controversy).

Since late antiquity, however, the term "Arian" was often used by followers of the "Nicene" doctrine of the Trinity as a fighting term for various non-Nicene Christologies or non-Nicene conceptions of the Trinity, even if these currents and their followers did not share Arius' particular views. In contrast to earlier research, therefore, for a few decades now many ancient historians and church historians have restricted the term "Arians" to the immediate followers of Arius, while the Homoians, for example, with their non-Nicene doctrine of the Trinity, since late antiquity also factually inaccurately labeled "Arians," have meanwhile been established in scholarly research as an independent, "non-Aryan" Trinitarian/Christological current of late antiquity. Supposed "New Arians" in the stricter sense existed from the late 350s only in the followers of Aetius, the Heterousians (earlier also "Anhomoeans" or "Neuarians"), who denied a similarity of essence of Father and Son, but claimed an equality of will between both.

Theology of Arius

The Arian doctrine is based on a special interpretation of Origen's subordinatianism of the three hypostases of the Trinity consisting of God, Logos-Son and Holy Spirit:

Arius, based on his religious philosophical education (which was primarily based on Plato), held the following positions regarding the Trinity and Christology:

• that God begat the Logos Son by his own will out of nothing, that the Logos Son was thus not begotten out of the being of God
• that the Logos and the Father are accordingly not of the same essence (equality of essence)
• that only God is therefore true God, the Logos Son, on the other hand, is not true God
• that the Son is a creature of the Father, albeit a unique one.
• that God only became Father when he begat the Logos Son.
• that there was a time when the Son did not yet exist; he had a beginning (denial of the beginningless equality of Father and Son, see pre-existence of Christ)
• that the Logos Son is therefore subordinate to God (see subordinatianism)

For Arius, God "the Father" is thus unbegotten and unbegotten, beginningless and eternal, unchangeable as well as unchangeable and absolutely transcendent. The Logos Son is created as an independent hypostasis like everything outside of God, yet directly from God, yet not identical with the Logos indwelling God. Accordingly, Christ as the bearer of the created Logos was also created before an unthinkable time, but there was a - logical - time in which Christ had not yet been created. With Arius the Logos becomes the not divine, but special mediator of creation, with which God created all further creatures. Accordingly, Jesus is regarded by Arius as created and thus as not divine, not consubstantial with God. Moreover, only a man could die suffering on the cross, not a God; the human nature was therefore dominant in Christ.

The following disputes about Arius' statements concentrated mainly on the theses that Logos Son/God's Son respectively Father Son was "created" and had a beginning. Analogously, the Logos Son was not a true God for Arius. But for the critics of Arius' theses the redemption through the New Testament Christ was inevitably connected with the fact that the Logos Son respectively Father Son was also true God.

The Christological and Trinitarian questions shaped the time until the 6th century. Arius found followers especially in educated Hellenistic circles, since his understanding of the Trinity had been co-influenced by Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism and had been communicated especially by Clement of Alexandria and Origen in the educated, Greek-speaking Christianity of the Eastern Mediterranean. The postulate of the unity of God against gnosis led them to hold to the subordination of the Son to the Father.

Just like the "Nicene Trinitarians" the "Arians" referred to the Bible; as with them, in some directions of supposedly "Arian" currents the inspiration by the Spirit of God played an important role, in others the appeal to Aristotelian philosophy. In the biblical justification of their doctrine the Arians often quoted other passages than the Nicene (= followers of the Council of Nicaea); for the New Testament contains no clear statements about the nature of Jesus. In particular, they referred to the Bible commentary of Origen, who held to the unity of essence of the Father with the Son, who came to his divine nature before all time through inner divine procreation: "Now it is possible that some do not appreciate what we said by putting the Father as the one true God and admitting that other beings besides the true God could become gods by partaking of God" and to Tertullian, who had taught that Jesus was subordinate to the Father (subordinatianism).

Ceiling mosaic from the Arian Baptistery in Ravenna, made during the Arian rule of the Goths. It is possible that the commissioning Arian bishops wanted to express their doctrine with some symbols: Thus, Christ is facing east, the direction opposite to that of the Christ in the older Baptistery of the Orthodox. Moreover, the shroud wrapped around the richly decorated cross is sometimes interpreted as a special emphasis on the human nature of Christ.

Heterousian, Homousian and Homousian

Between the first Council of Nicaea in 325 and the first Council of Constantinople in 381, various Christologies and doctrines of the Trinity arose, some of them only supposedly Arian, some mainly non-Aryan-Origenist ("Origenist Middle Group"), and thus non-Nicene, some of which contradicted each other.

The directions mentioned below, Heterousians, Homoeans and Homoeusians, developed only from about 357 AD, whereby the emerging, supposed 'New Arianism' of the Heterousians with its radicalism had mainly triggered this development dynamic.

• The Heterousians (from Greek ἑτερο-ούσιος [hetero-oúsios] 'another in essence [sc. than God the Father]') around Aëtios of Antioch and Eunomius taught that the Father and the Son were different in essence, but agreed in will with regard to salvation. Followers of this direction were formerly also called - not correctly - Neuarians or Anomoeans or Anhomoeans.
• The Homœans (from Greek ὁμοῖος κατὰ τᾶς γραφάς [homoîos katà tâs grafás] 'similar according to the scriptures') like Acacius of Caesarea distinguished descriptions of God the Father and Logos the Son, and taught that the Father and the Son were consequently similar.
• The Homoeusians (from Greek ὁμοι-ούσιος [homoi-oúsios] 'similar in essence'), who were close to the Trinitarian doctrine, according to Basil of Ancyra, taught that the Father and the Son were similar in essence and equal in substance.

The different directions were not only in dispute with the Nicenians (Homousia), but also among themselves. Homoeans and Homoeusians are now no longer assigned to "Arianism", but to the "Origenist middle group", a direction from the theology of Origen.