Embedded Files
Arianism and its Consequences
By: Evangelos Dim. Kepenes (December 12, 2025, 19:55)
Arianism
Arianism was a theological crisis that profoundly shaped 4th-century Christianity, centered on the nature of Jesus Christ and His relationship with God the Father.
Core Doctrine: Its founder was the Alexandrian presbyter Arius (c. 256-336 AD), a student of the Lucian of Antioch, founder of the Antiochene School. Arianism advocated the absolute monarchy and uniqueness of the Father, encouraged by the Neoplatonic and Middle Platonic transmission of Aristotelian logic, particularly the notion of the absolutely simple and immutable Prime Mover or “The Unmoved Mover”, which excluded any division or shared substance. To safeguard this, it taught that:
The Son (Logos) is a creation of the Father (a ktisma, created, and pre-existing, whereas the Father is unbegotten).
There was a time when the Son did not exist ("ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν").
Therefore, the Son is a superior, primordial, and exceptional creation, through whom the Father created the world.
Trinitarian Implications: Arius believed in a divine triad, which, however, was not eternal but was formed progressively.
It demoted the Son to an inferior theological rank compared to the Father.
It constituted a hierarchical and subordinated Trinity, where only the Father is the true, eternal, and unbegotten God (Monad).
The Logos (Dyad), though divine, was a mutable entity that needed moral development. For Arius, the Holy Spirit was the first and greatest creation of the Son, resulting in a 'Trinity' in hierarchical order.
Legacy and Impact of the Crisis: Arianism was decisive for the theologico-political unification of the Roman Empire under Hellenic-Christianity. The necessity to address it forced the fundamental theological questions that the Church could no longer avoid.
Official Resolution: The First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325 AD), convened by Emperor Constantine I, was a politico-religious council with the primary aim of restoring peace and unity to the empire. The Council functioned as an institutional mechanism for transforming a spiritual and interpretive dispute into a rule of faith to be imposed by political authority. Its decision to condemn Arianism and adopt the term "homoousios" (of the same substance) was a politically unifying and theologically authoritarian act. The term "homoousios" was non-biblical and had a problematic history (it had been used by Gnostic groups like the Valentinians). This "resolution" did not end the controversy but intensified it, with repercussions to this day.
The Nature of the Terms: The final orthodox formulation of the Trinity (one ousia in three hypostases) was not a self-evident or unique interpretation of the Biblical texts. It was the result of intense philosophical disputes (using Greek, often synonymous, metaphysical terms like "ousia" and "hypostasis"), political maneuvers, and ecclesiastical alliances. It was a "paradoxological" solution that attempted, through improvisations, to reconcile the contradictory Greek philosophical thought with the liberating, experiential message of the Gospel delivered through the Holy Spirit.
Complexity of Greek Thought: "Greek philosophy" was not a single, monolithic body of ideas. Rather, it was a mosaic of schools (Platonism, Neoplatonism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism, etc.) that were often in direct opposition to each other. The Church Fathers and heretics (such as Arius) used different philosophical tools and concepts (e.g., Aristotelian logic by Arius, Neoplatonism by Athanasius) which, in fact, led to conflicting theological conclusions. The controversy over the terms homoousios (of the same substance) and homoiousios (of similar substance) or heteroousios (of different substance) was a controversy over which philosophical "language" could best express the philosophical "trinitarian doctrine" in Christian doctrine, highlighting the inherent contradictions of the very terms, which were treated as divine revelation.
In conclusion, the victory of "homoousios" (of the same substance) was politically decisive and ideologically definitive. It created an institutional theological framework for the entire Western civilization, but it did not constitute a natural or inevitable evolution of the Christian message. From a critical perspective, it was the affirmation of a specific authority (the Emperor and the Bishops of the court faction) to define "orthodox faith" with improvised terms that served the unification and control of the state.
Commonalities and Differences with Modern Groups:
Jehovah's Witnesses: The affinity with Arianism is significant. Both hold that Jesus is the "only-begotten Son" of God, a created and distinct entity, the chief of creation, and not the almighty, eternal God. Arianism is often considered their predecessor in the history of ideas.
Mormons (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints): There is a welcome idea of the pre-existent Jesus as a spiritual child of the Father, but Mormon theology is more complex and different (e.g., they believe in progressive deity and that humans can become gods).
Although these modern groups do not derive historically and directly from Arianism, they share a fundamental subordinationist Christology, which is their main common theological characteristic with the ancient heresy.
-------------------------------------------------
Google Sites
Report abuse