Introduction
The trinity has always been a matter of debate among spiritual circles, eliciting violence in some instances in the past. The main issue of controversy fueling this debate is the divinity of Jesus Christ. Arianism was one of the notable heretical teachings of the past that threatened the Christian church. This belief challenged the core tenet of the orthodoxy regarding the divinity of Jesus Christ. This view held that Jesus was a creation of God and as such did not possess the divine substance of the Father. The Arian view was majorly advanced by Arius, a Libyan, born around 256 A.D. He received his theological training at Antioch and later became a priest in Alexandria. He began publicly preaching his doctrine in 318 A.D. and died in 256 A.D. at Constantinople at the age of over eighty years.
Other views regarding the trinity also existed before the Nicene Council such as Sabellianism and the Orthodox view. Thus, Arianism caused doubts in many Christians who started questioning the validity of their faith. By minimizing the power of the Son in the Godhead, Arianism threatened to dilute the Christian faith by minimizing the role of Jesus, the tenet of modern Christianity. In addition, the church feared losing its grip on the people and a decline of its power thereof.
The rise of Arianism
- Views Held Prior to the Council of Nicaea
Sabellianism believed in the unity of the trinity. This view held that there was only one God, who could manifest himself in three forms of the trinity. However, this God could not show himself in these three ways simultaneously, but rather assumed one form at any given time. For instance, when considering his creation the term “Father” was used. The terms “Son” and “Holy Spirit” applied when referring to his ‘union with the essence of human nature and his mercy to man’ respectively (Muhammad 90). This view discounted the belief that the Godhead consisted of three distinct persons. The founder of this view was Sabellius, who lived in the third century A.D. Therefore, the Father and the Son referred to one entity.
The Orthodox view postulates that the Godhead consists of three separate entities, each with a distinct character. However, these entities share similarities such as eternal majesty, omnipresence and infiniteness. These entities are equal in all aspects, and none is greater than the others in ‘priority nor posterity’ (Muhammad 91). In addition, the Son, is made of the same essence as the Father and is thus divine and should be worshiped in his right. The majority of orthodox Christians hold this view to date, a belief prescribed in the Nicene Creed. Therefore, Christians worship the trinity both as one Godhead and as individual entities.
Arianism challenged the divinity of Jesus as part of the Godhead. This view held that Jesus was subordinate to God the Father because he was ‘begotten’ of the Father. Arianism implied that the Father existed before the Son existed, and is thus, superior (Ignat 110-112). It also followed that the Son was dissimilar in essence to that of the Father. Therefore, Jesus is not eternal but the greatest of God’s creations. Furthermore, this view held that the Holy Spirit was a derivative of the Son. Hence, the Spirit was also subordinate to both the Son and the Father. Thus, Arianism disproved the divinity of the Son and maintained that the level of worship accorded to the trinity should decrease in magnitude from the Father to the Holy Spirit.
- Confrontation and the Council of Nicaea
The Council of Nicaea was convened in 325 A.D. by Constantine after his ascension to power as the ruler of the Roman Empire. This convention stemmed from his fears that the divisive Christian views would cause internal strife that would destabilize his rule. The council brought together more than 318 bishops and members of the lower clergy, who held diverse opinions regarding the divinity issue. There were three distinct factions in the council: Arianism, Orthodoxy and Semi-Arians. Arius and his allies defended Arianism while Alexander and his followers defended orthodoxy. The Semi-Arians sought a middle ground between these two extremist views and were led by Eusbesius of Nicomedia. Arius failed to garner support for his views, and the council agreed on a creed that favored orthodoxy: the son and the father were of the same substance. Arius and a few other refused to sign the creed, leading to their exile to Illyria (Ray 23-24). Consequently, Arianism followers were called enemies of Christianity, leading to many executions and persecutions.
- Resulting Views After the Council
- Orthodox View
The decision of the council resulted in a temporary win for the proponents of the orthodox view. The Nicene Creed held that the Father and Son were of the same substance (Hanko). In addition, the Son was also eternal and deserved equal worship just as the Father did. Constantine. This view was dominant in the Western region of the empire. The key proponents of this view were Alexander and Athanasius. They were able to garner much support from other bishops and the emperor himself who favored orthodox Christianity. Therefore, Constantine declared orthodoxy as the official view and anyone who rebelled was excommunicated, exiled or persecuted.
- Semi-Arian View
The Semi-Arian view originated from the Nicene Council. Following a disagreement between Arianism and orthodoxy proponents, Eusebesius proposed a creed that toned down the extreme views held by Arius and incorporated some components of orthodoxy (Ray 24). Eusebesius viewed Arianism as very radical and could cause a dilution of the Christian faith is left unchecked. On the other hand, he felt that orthodoxy’s views were similar to the Sabellian view of the trinity.
- Arian View
The Arian view held fast to their belief of the Son’s subordination even after the Nicene Creed was accepted. Its main proponent, Arius, agreed that the Son deserved worship as part of the trinity, but in a limited capacity to that of the Father (Hanko).
- The Resulting Political and Theological Conflicts
During the period of their exile, Arius drew up a creed and presented it to the Emperor to show that he was acting in good faith. Eusebius, who had been recalled from exile earlier, acted as the Emperor’s religious advisor. Thus, he managed to convince Constantine to accept Arius’ views in a ploy to exact revenge against those who had caused his exile. Thus, an anti-Nicene coalition resulted between Arius, Eusebius and their followers in a plan to entrench their views and eliminate orthodoxy.
Constantine finally joined Arius, and his followers, especially after Arius convinced him of Athanasius’ rigid stance. In addition, Arius and Eusebius discredited Athanasius’ reputation, bringing malicious accusations against him in a bid to have him exiled. They accused him of heresy and brought false witnesses to testify against him. Athanasius tried to defend himself before the Emperor several times but was finally exiled to Treves (Hanko).
Following his exile, orthodoxy supporters were persecuted, and many exiled. After the death of Constantine, his son Constantius, an Arian supporter, ruled the eastern region. He later defeated his brother and became the sole ruler of both the eastern and western regions of the empire. Arians, thus, found the chance of propagating their views throughout the empire. Hence, the extremist faction of Arianism prevailed upon the empire to declare the unadulterated version of their view. This view held that the Son is unlike the Father (Scrum). As a result, the Semi-Arians felt betrayed and fearing the uninhibited power of the Arians, began advocating a compromise of views. Eventually, they joined the orthodoxy group against the Arians. Thus, their anti-Nicene coalition was short-lived.
The final triumph of the orthodox view took place at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D (Scrum). The new emperor, Theodosius, convened the council that was attended by close to 150 bishops. The council condemned the Arian view that denied the divinity of Jesus and that of the Holy Spirit. In addition, it discredited the Sabellian view of oneness in trinity and eventually installed orthodoxy. As a result, the emperor removed Arians from church leadership and installed those associated with orthodoxy. This removal marked the decline of Arianism and its extinction from the Roman Empire.
- Why does it matter?
The Arian view was a threat to orthodox Christianity because it challenged the basic tenet that held the Christian faith together. People began questioning the validity of the trinity and its relationship to their faith. In addition, Arius was an articulate speaker who used logic to persuade people easily to agree with his doctrine. Thus, he gained favorable support among the populace that threatened to dilute the Christian faith and extinguish it. In addition, Constantine wanted to consolidate his rule over Rome and viewed the discord between the bishops as a threat to his rule. Despite the sharp differences in opinion, these beliefs highlight the dogmatic trust that people place in the representative of the church. They rarely question the teachings handed to them until a controversy arises that challenges their complacency. Such blind faith acts as a tool for political leaders to establish their reign. Therefore, people should logically analyze the doctrines presented to them and make informed choices regarding their faith.
Theology serves as a tool for gaining spiritual insight and development into the meaning of life. Christians refer to the Bible when developing various doctrines to guide their lives. However, the dangers of theology arise when others twist doctrinal words to suit their hidden agendas such as gaining power, prestige or recognition. Sadly, many Christians fall prey to these false teachings and get derailed from their faith. In its extreme sense, it may give rise to extremist groups who resort to violent acts in order to propagate their views. Both the Arians and the Orthodox proponents were intolerant to one another and sought to institutionalize their respective doctrines by eliminating the other. None wanted to back down nor reach a compromise to avoid appearing weak. Consequently, many innocent Christians suffered retributions for holding on to beliefs that disagreed with the prevailing doctrine at any one time.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Arianism raised significant questions regarding the trinity in the Christian faith. Its main bone of contention was the divinity of the Son in the trinity. It held that the Son was subordinate to the Father, and his essence was unlike that of the Father. The opponents of Arianism, orthodox view, challenged this view and instead held that the Son possessed the exact essence as that of the Father. Both camps, however, resorted to violence and persecution of those who opposed their beliefs. The orthodox view won in the end and has been the main belief in modern Christianity. Other views such as the Sabellianism lost ground without facing much resistance. This debate is likely to continue over the years to come as people keep shifting their beliefs in their spiritual quest for truth and fulfilment. Modern states give people the right to choose whatever belief appeals to them so long as they do not perpetrate violence in a bid to gain religious dominance over others.
Work cited
Hanko, Ronald. “The Arian Controversy.” Reformed Perspectives Magazine 9.10. 1 Jan. 2007. Web. 3 Nov. 2014. <http://reformedperspectives.org/article.asp/link/http:%5E%5Ereformedperspectives.org%5Earticles%5Eron_hanko%5Eron_hanko.ArianControversy.html/at/The%20Arian%20Controversy>.
Ignat, Adrian. “The Spread Out of Arianism: A Critical Analysis of the Arian Heresy.” International Journal of Orthodox Theology 3.3. (2012): 105-127. Web. 3 Nov. 2014. <http://orthodox-theology.com/media/PDF/IJOT3.2012/Ignat.Arianism.pdf>.
Muhammad, T. “Trinity or Monotheism: A Mystical-Qur’anic Approach.” Philosophical-Theological Research 13.1. 89-113. Web. 3 Nov. 2014. <http://www.ensani.ir/storage/Files/20120504165851-9015-83.pdf>.
Ray, Davis. “Nicea and its Aftermath: A Historical Survey of the First Ecumenical Council and the Ensuing Conflicts.” Ashland Theological Journal (2007): 19-32. Web. 3 Nov. 2014. <http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ashland_theological_journal/39-1_019.pdf>.
Scrum, D.S. “Biography of Arius.” The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge 1. Web. 3 Nov. 2014. <http://www.tlogical.net/bioarius.htm>.
