Arianism: early Christian teaching on Christ's nature
Arianism was a 4th‑century Christian doctrine, associated with Arius of Alexandria, which held that the Son was created and not fully God; it was condemned at Nicaea and shaped early Trinitarian debates.
Overview
Arianism refers to a set of theological teachings attributed to the presbyter Arius, who taught in Alexandria in the early fourth century. At its core the teaching denied that the Son shared the same uncreated, eternal being as the Father: the Son was described as a distinct, generated being. This position placed Arianism in opposition to the developing orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and led many churches to label it heretical.
Image gallery
10 Images
Core teachings and terms
Arian theology taught that Jesus, the Son, was not identical in essence with the Father and therefore not fully the same as God in the way later orthodox creeds would assert. Key points often associated with Arian thought include:
- The Son is begotten or created by the Father and had a beginning in time.
- The Son is subordinate to the Father in rank and being.
- The doctrine rejects the language and implications of the orthodox dogma that the three persons of the Trinity are of one essence.
- Arian positions contradicted the terminology used to defend the Holy Trinity, especially terms that imply identical divine substance.
Council of Nicaea and immediate aftermath
The debate reached imperial and church authorities and was a principal reason for the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The council produced the original Nicene Creed, formulated at a time identified as 325 AD, which affirmed that the Son is "begotten, not made" and is "consubstantial" with the Father. The term consubstantial (Latin: consubstantialis; Greek: homoousios) was adopted to express that the Father and the Son share the same divine essence. Although the creed was intended to settle the controversy, debates continued for decades with variants such as semi‑Arian formulations that tried to bridge differences.
Historical development and influence
After Nicaea, Arian ideas persisted among many influential figures and communities. Several later church leaders and some imperial supporters favored formulations that differed from the Nicene position. Outside the Roman Empire's Greek and Latin‑speaking heartlands, Arian Christianity gained converts among various Germanic peoples (for example, Visigoths, Ostrogoths and Vandals), where it remained a significant form of Christianity for several centuries before most of those kingdoms eventually embraced Nicene orthodoxy. The long controversy continued until subsequent ecumenical councils, such as Constantinople (381), reinforced Trinitarian definitions.
Legacy, distinctions and modern usage
"Arianism" has continued to be a useful historical label for a particular set of fourth‑century Christological claims, but scholars caution about overextension: the term was often used polemically in antiquity and later to describe a range of non‑trinitarian views. In modern times the name has been applied broadly to various groups that deny or reinterpret the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, though those groups differ significantly from Arius's specific formulations. The controversy is important for understanding how early Christians defined terms like "person," "nature," and "essence," and how theological language became standardized.
Notable facts and examples
- The label "Arian" was used both by supporters and opponents, and its application can vary by context.
- Opponents such as Athanasius of Alexandria argued forcefully for the eternal, uncreated divinity of the Son.
- The Nicene settlement shaped creedal Christianity and influenced later doctrinal formulations across East and West.
- For further summaries and primary‑source excerpts, see general introductions and collections of councils and creeds (Arianism overview, Nicene Creed).
For additional reading and resources, consult introductory histories of early Christianity and studies of fourth‑century theological disputes (heresiological accounts, Arius, Alexandria). These provide context for how questions about Christ's nature shaped the institutional and doctrinal development of the church.
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:
"If the Father and the Son are two persons, then one would violate the precept of monotheism if one supposed that the Father and the Son were of the same essence, for then one would have two gods; but, on the other hand, they cannot be one person, for that would be modalism, which has likewise already been condemned."
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).
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.
See also: Essential Equality
Related articles
Author
AlegsaOnline.com Arianism: early Christian teaching on Christ's nature Leandro Alegsa
URL: https://en.alegsaonline.com/art/5526