Arianism
Arianism (Koine Greek: Ἀρειανισμός, Areianismós)[1] is a Christological doctrine considered heretical by all modern mainstream branches of Christianity.[2] It is first attributed to Arius (c. AD 256–336),[1][3][4] a Christian presbyter who preached and studied in Alexandria, Egypt.[1] Arian theology holds that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,[5][a][6][b] who was begotten by God the Father[3] with the difference that the Son of God did not always exist but was begotten/made[c] before time by God the Father;[d] therefore, Jesus was not coeternal with God the Father,[3] but nonetheless Jesus began to exist outside time.[e]
"Arian" redirects here. For other uses, see Arian (disambiguation).
Arius' trinitarian theology, later given an extreme form by Aetius and his disciple Eunomius and called anomoean ("dissimilar"), asserts a total dissimilarity between the Son and the Father.[9] Arianism holds that the Son is distinct from the Father and therefore subordinate to him.[4] The term Arian is derived from the name Arius; it was not what the followers of Arius' teachings called themselves, but rather a term used by outsiders.[10] The nature of Arius's teachings and his supporters were opposed to the theological doctrines held by Homoousian Christians, regarding the nature of the Trinity and the nature of Christ.
There was a controversy between two interpretations of Jesus's divinity (Homoousianism and Arianism) based upon the theological orthodoxy of the time, one trinitarian and the other also a derivative of trinitarian orthodoxy,[11] and both of them attempted to solve its respective theological dilemmas.[12] Homoousianism was formally affirmed by the first two ecumenical councils;[12] since then, Arianism has been condemned as "the heresy or sect of Arius".[13] Trinitarian (Homoousian) doctrines were vigorously upheld by Patriarch Athanasius of Alexandria, who insisted that Jesus (God the Son) was "same in being" or "same in essence" with God the Father. Arius stated: "If the Father begat the Son, then he who was begotten had a beginning in existence, and from this it follows there was a time when the Son was not."[12] The ecumenical First Council of Nicaea of 325 declared Arianism to be a heresy.[14] According to Everett Ferguson, "The great majority of Christians had no clear views about the nature of the Trinity and they did not understand what was at stake in the issues that surrounded it."[14]
Arianism is also 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 begotten creature of a similar or different substance to that of the Father, but not identical (as Homoiousian and Anomoeanism) or as neither uncreated nor created in the sense other beings are created (as in semi-Arianism).
Little of Arius's own work survives except in quotations selected for polemical purposes by his opponents, and there is no certainty about what theological and philosophical traditions formed his thought.[37] The influence from the One of Neo-Platonism was widespread throughout the Eastern Roman Empire and this influenced Arius.[38][39][40][41][42]
Arius's basic premise is that only God is independent for his existence. Since the Son is dependent he must therefore be called a creature.[43] Arians put forward a question for their belief: "Has God birthed Jesus willingly or unwillingly?" This question was used to argue that Jesus is dependent for his existence since Jesus exists only because God wants him to be.[8]
Arianism taught that the Logos was a divine being begotten by God the Father before the creation of the world, made him a medium through whom everything else was created, and that the Son of God is subordinate to God the Father.[44] The Logos is an inner attribute of God that is wisdom, while Jesus is called Logos only because of resemblance with the inner Logos of God.[8]
A verse from Proverbs was used for the creation of the Son: "The Lord created me at the beginning of his work."[45][46] Therefore, the Son was rather the very first and the most perfect of God's creatures, and he was called "God" only by the Father's permission and power.[47][48] The definition of "Son" is ambiguous as Arians have applied an adoptionist theology to defend the creation ex nihilo of Jesus from God.[8]
Arians do not believe in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity.[49][50] The letter of the Arian bishop Auxentius of Durostorum[51] regarding the Arian missionary Ulfilas gives a picture of Arian beliefs. The Arian Ulfilas, who was ordained a bishop by the Arian bishop 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.[52] The Son of God, Jesus Christ, ("only-begotten god"[53]), was begotten before time began.[54] The Holy Spirit is the illuminating and sanctifying power of God. 1 Corinthians 8:5–6 was cited as proof text:
The creed of Arian Ulfilas (c. 311–383), which concludes the above-mentioned letter by Auxentius,[51] distinguishes God the Father ("unbegotten"), who is the only true God, from the Son of God ("only-begotten"); and the Holy Spirit, the illuminating and sanctifying power, which is neither God the Father nor the Lord Jesus Christ:
A letter from Arius (c. 250–336) to the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia (died 341) states the core beliefs of the Arians:
Principally, the dispute between Trinitarianism and Arianism was about:
For Constantine, these were minor theological points that stood in the way of uniting the Empire, but for the theologians, it was of huge importance; for them, it was a matter of salvation.[12]
For the theologians of the 19th century it was already obvious that in fact Arius and Alexander/Athanasius did not have much to quarrel about, the difference between their views was very small, and that the end of the fight was by no means clear during their quarrel, both Arius and Athanasius suffering a great deal for their own views. Arius was the father of Homoiousianism and Alexander the father of Homoousianism, which was championed by Athanasius. For those theologians it was clear that Arius, Alexander and Athanasius were far from a true doctrine of Trinity, which developed later, historically speaking.[57]
Guido M. Berndt and Roland Steinacher state clearly that the beliefs of Arius were acceptable ("not especially unusual") to a huge number of orthodox clergy; this is the reason why such a major conflict was able to develop inside the Church, since Arius's theology received widespread sympathy (or at least was not considered to be overly controversial) and could not be dismissed outright as individual heresy.[3]
From the 5th to the 7th century[edit]
Much of south-eastern Europe and central Europe, including many of the Goths and Vandals respectively, had embraced Arianism (the Visigoths converted to Arian Christianity in 376 through their bishop Wulfila), which led to Arianism being a religious factor in various wars in the Roman Empire.[j] 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. Visigothic Spain converted to Nicene Christianity through their king Reccared I at the Third Council of Toledo in 589.[102] Grimoald, King of the Lombards (662–671), and his young son and successor Garibald (671), were the last Arian kings in Europe.[103][104]
From the 16th to the 19th century[edit]
Following the Protestant Reformation from 1517, it did not take long for Arian and other nontrinitarian 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 Michael Servetus, who was burned alive by the orders of John Calvin in 1553, and these were promulgated by Giorgio Biandrata and others into Poland and Transylvania.[105]
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.[106]
In 1683, when Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, lay dying in Amsterdam—driven into exile by his outspoken opposition to King Charles II—he spoke to the minister Robert Ferguson, and professed himself an Arian.[107]
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.[108] 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."[109]
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. Although the Pneumatomachi's beliefs were somewhat reminiscent of Arianism,[110] they were a distinct group.[110]