The heresy of Arianism – a quick view

The great fourth-century heresy, originated by Arius, a presbyter in the church of Alexandria. Arius postulated that Christ was created by God from nothing, from which he reasoned that the Son is not co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, but is subordinate to God, and a changeable creature. First condemned by Arius’s bishop Alexander, it was also condemned in 325 at the Council of Nicaea, where Alexander’s deacon Athanasios led the opposition to Arius. The council rejected the view that Christ was homoiousios, “of like substance” with the Father, in favor of the word homoousios (a term first conceived of by Origin), “of the same substance” with the Father, implying full equality. Arianism continued to be a potent force, in part because the emperor Constantine I reversed his position and recalled Arius in 328. The emperor was baptized by an Arian bishop on his death-bed. His son Constantius II was an Arian, so Arianism received state support during his reign (337–361). The failure of the local Council of Serdica in ca. 343 to find a solution to the Arian controversy demonstrated how intractable the problem had become. The emperor Valens (364–378) was the last Arian emperor. After his death, Theodosius I, a fervent supporter of the Nicene Creed, used the Council of Constantinople to condemn Arianism yet again (in 381). Thus, Arianism further intertwined church-state relations, and it compelled the church to define its most fundamental theology.

(Source: «Historical Dictionary of Byzantium», by John H. Rosser)


Arianism, in Christianity, the Christological (concerning the doctrine of Christ) position that Jesus, as the Son of God, was created by God. It was proposed early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius and was popular throughout much of the Eastern and Western Roman empires, even after it was denounced as a heresy by the Council of Nicaea (325).

Arianism is often considered to be a form of Unitarian theology in that it stresses God’s unity at the expense of the notion of the Trinity, the doctrine that three distinct persons are united in one Godhead. Arius’s basic premise was the uniqueness of God, who is alone self-existent (not dependent for its existence on anything else) and immutable; the Son, who is not self-existent, cannot therefore be the self-existent and immutable God. Because the Godhead is unique, it cannot be shared or communicated. Because the Godhead is immutable, the Son, who is mutable, must, therefore, be deemed a creature who has been called into existence out of nothing and has had a beginning. Moreover, the Son can have no direct knowledge of the Father, since the Son is finite and of a different order of existence.

According to its opponents, especially the bishop Athanasius, Arius’s teaching reduced the Son to a demigod, reintroduced polytheism (since worship of the Son was not abandoned), and undermined the Christian concept of redemption, since only he who was truly God could be deemed to have reconciled humanity to the Godhead.

The Council of Nicaea, which condemned Arius as a heretic and issued a creed to safeguard “orthodox” Christian belief, was convened to settle the controversy. The creed adopted at Nicaea states that the Son is homoousion tō Patri (“of one substance with the Father”), thus declaring him to be all that the Father is: he is completely divine. In fact, however, this was only the beginning of a long-protracted dispute.

From 325 to 337, when the emperor Constantine died, those church leaders who had supported Arius and had been exiled after the Council of Nicaea attempted to return to their churches and sees (ecclesiastical seats) and to banish their enemies. They were partly successful. From 337 to 350 Constans, sympathetic to non-Arian Christians, was emperor in the West, and Constantius II, sympathetic to the Arians, was emperor in the East. At a church council held at Antioch (341), an affirmation of faith that omitted the homoousion clause was issued. Another church council was held at Sardica (modern Sofia) in 342, but little was achieved by either council. In 350 Constantius became sole ruler of the empire, and under his leadership the Nicene party was largely crushed. The extreme Arians then declared that the Son was “unlike” (anomoios) the Father. Those anomoeans succeeded in having their views endorsed at Sirmium in 357, but their extremism stimulated the moderates, who asserted that the Son was “of similar substance” (homoiousios) with the Father. Constantius at first supported those homoiousians but soon transferred his support to the homoeans, led by Acacius, who affirmed that the Son was “like” (homoios) the Father. Their views were approved in 360 at Constantinople, where all previous creeds were rejected; the term ousia (“substance” or “stuff”) was repudiated; and a statement of faith was issued stating that the Son was “like the Father who begot him.”

After Constantius’s death (361), the non-Arian Christian majority in the West largely consolidated its position. The persecution of non-Arian Christians conducted by the Arian emperor Valens (364–378) in the East and the success of the teaching of Basil the Great of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus led the homoiousian majority in the East to a fundamental agreement with the Nicene party. When the emperors Gratian (367–383) and Theodosius I (379–395) took up the defense of non-Arian theology, Arianism collapsed. In 381 the second ecumenical council met at Constantinople. Arianism was proscribed, and a statement of faith, the Nicene Creed, was approved.

That did not, however, end Arianism as a viable force in the empire. It maintained favour among some groups, most notably some of the Germanic tribes, to the end of the 7th century. The Polish and Transylvanian Socinians of the 16th and 17th centuries propounded Christological arguments that were similar to those of Arius and his followers. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the Unitarians in England and America were unwilling either to reduce Christ to a mere human being or to attribute to him a divine nature identical with that of the Father. The Christology of Jehovah’s Witnesses is also a form of Arianism, for it upholds the unity and supremacy of God the Father.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: