Council of Nicaea drawing

The Arian Crisis: How One Controversy Clarified Christian Belief

Arianism, named after the Alexandrian presbyter Arius (c. 250–336 AD), represents one of the most significant theological challenges in early Christian history.1 It sparked one of the most contentious and long-lasting conflicts within the early Church, leaving an indelible mark on Christian doctrine and ecclesiastical politics. The Arian controversy revolved around the nature of Christ’s divinity, particularly His relationship to God the Father, and whether Christ was fully divine or a created being. This question would lead to the near-destruction of the unity of the early Church but also ultimately to its strengthening through theological and political struggle. The resolution of the Arian controversy at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD and subsequent councils would shape the future of Christian doctrine, but the heresy resurfaced in various forms throughout history, continuing to challenge orthodoxy.2

The Origins and Teachings of Arianism

Arianism originated in the early 4th century through the teachings of Arius, a priest in Alexandria, who began to articulate his controversial views about the nature of Christ.3 At the heart of Arianism was the belief that Jesus Christ, while the Son of God and the Logos (Word) through whom the world was created, was not co-eternal or consubstantial with God the Father. Arius argued that Christ was a created being, distinct from and subordinate to the Father, though exalted above all other creatures.4

Arius’ central argument can be summarised as follows:

The Son is not eternal: Arius asserted that “there was a time when the Son was not,” implying that the Son had a beginning and was therefore a creature, even if a highly exalted one.5

The Son is of a different substance (ousia) from the Father: Arius denied the doctrine of consubstantiality, which holds that the Father and the Son share the same divine essence.

The Son is subordinate to the Father: In Arius’ view, the Son was subordinate to the Father, not equal in power or glory. The Son was seen as a mediator between God and the world, but not as God in the full sense.

Arius’ teachings were not developed in a vacuum; they arose within the broader context of theological debates in the early Church about how to understand the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ.6 Early Christian thinkers had struggled with how to articulate the mystery of the Incarnation and the Trinity. Arius’ views were seen by his followers as a solution to the problem of maintaining monotheism while acknowledging Christ’s role in salvation.7

The Early Church’s Response: St. Athanasius and the Council of Nicaea

Arius’ views quickly garnered both followers and detractors, sparking a significant controversy within the Alexandrian church and beyond. Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373 AD), a staunch defender of orthodox Christianity and later one of the most prominent opponents of Arianism, became the key figure in articulating the Church’s response.8

Athanasius’ Theological Opposition to Arianism

Athanasius, who would become bishop of Alexandria and a central figure in the fight against Arianism, argued forcefully for the full divinity of Christ. In his view, the Arian position undermined the very foundation of Christian faith and salvation. For Athanasius, the crux of the matter was that only if Christ was fully divine could He be the Saviour of humanity.9 He wrote extensively on the topic, including in his treatises Against the Arians, where he argued:

The Son is eternal and consubstantial with the Father: Athanasius upheld the Nicene doctrine that Christ was homoousios (of the same substance) as the Father, meaning that He shared in the divine nature and was co-eternal with the Father.10

Salvation depends on the full divinity of Christ: Athanasius emphasised that only if Christ was fully divine could He bridge the gap between God and humanity.11 If Christ were merely a creature, even an exalted one, He would be unable to grant salvation, for only God can redeem humanity from sin.

The Incarnation is essential to the Christian message: In his famous work On the Incarnation, Athanasius argued that God became man in the person of Christ to restore the divine image in humanity.12 The doctrine of the Incarnation, where the divine and human natures coexist fully in Christ, was critical for Athanasius in opposing Arianism’s separation of Christ from the Godhead.

Athanasius’ theological work was not merely academic; it was part of a broader struggle to preserve what he saw as the integrity of the Christian faith. His efforts to combat Arianism would define his life and lead him into multiple exiles.13

The First Council of Nicaea (325 AD)

In response to the growing controversy, the Roman Emperor Constantine called the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 325 AD to address the division.14 The council was attended by over 300 bishops from across the Roman Empire and was the first gathering of its kind in the history of the Church.

At Nicaea, the Arian controversy was debated intensely, but the majority of bishops, led by Athanasius and other defenders of orthodoxy, rejected Arius’ teachings.15 The council produced the Nicene Creed, a formal statement of Christian belief that condemned Arianism and affirmed the full divinity of Christ. The creed explicitly stated that Christ is “begotten, not made, consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father.”16

The Nicene Creed was a clear victory for those who opposed Arianism, and Arius and his followers were condemned.17 However, the struggle was far from over.18

The Impact of Arianism on the Early Church

Despite the victory at Nicaea, Arianism continued to thrive, particularly with the support of several Roman emperors and influential bishops who favoured Arian theology.19 The Emperor Constantius II (r. 337–361 AD), for example, was sympathetic to Arianism, and under his reign, the Arian faction gained significant political and ecclesiastical power.20

Persecutions and Consequences for the Early Church Defenders

While the theological debates of the Arian controversy were monumental in shaping Christian doctrine, the conflict had serious real-world consequences for the lives of individuals involved in the struggle, especially those who supported Nicene orthodoxy. Persecutions, exiles, and the violent suppression of anti-Arian sentiment became a defining feature of the period, particularly as the Arian faction gained political influence and support from various Roman emperors.21

The Emperor Constantius II, a staunch Arian sympathiser, made life extremely difficult for defenders of the Nicene Creed. Many bishops and theologians who refused to accept Arian or semi-Arian positions were persecuted or sent into exile. One of the most notable examples was Athanasius of Alexandria, who was exiled five times over the course of his life for his refusal to compromise on the issue of Christ’s divinity.22

The period of Athanasius’ exiles highlights the immense hardship that defenders of Nicene orthodoxy faced. Forced to flee multiple times, Athanasius spent much of his episcopacy in hiding, often moving between remote monasteries and the homes of supporters.23 He continued his theological writing and correspondence during these periods, but the psychological toll of being a hunted figure weighed heavily on him and his followers. Despite these hardships, Athanasius remained steadfast, famously declaring, “Athanasius contra mundum” (“Athanasius against the world”).24

Many bishops who supported the Nicene position were deposed and replaced with Arian sympathisers, which caused great unrest in their dioceses. The laity, caught in the middle of these disputes, often faced confusion and instability as their religious leaders were removed and replaced. In some regions, violence erupted between the Arian and Nicene factions, with churches being attacked and property seized.

In Constantinople, under the Arian emperor Valens, the Nicene Christians suffered greatly. Gregory of Nazianzus described how many Christians were harassed, tortured, or even killed for refusing to accept Arian interpretations of Christ. The Gothic Wars, during which many Goths adhered to Arianism, also brought further persecution to Nicene Christians, particularly in the West, where the Arian Vandals persecuted Nicene believers in North Africa.

The Council of Rimini in 359 AD, which was intended to be a unifying council, instead became a symbol of Arian dominance. Many bishops were coerced into signing semi-Arian creeds, and those who resisted were exiled or deposed. Jerome famously lamented the council’s outcome, stating, “The whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian.”25

These persecutions not only threatened the spiritual and theological unity of the Church but also had deep personal consequences for those caught in the conflict. The widespread violence, displacement, and fear that accompanied the Arian controversy reminded Christians that doctrinal disputes were not merely intellectual matters but struggles that could—and did—destroy lives, families, and communities.

Near-Destruction of Orthodoxy

During this period, Athanasius and other defenders of Nicene orthodoxy faced intense persecution. Athanasius was exiled multiple times (a total of five exiles) as pro-Arian factions gained the upper hand in the imperial court. The Church, at times, seemed on the brink of splitting permanently over the issue, as Arianism gained footholds in various regions of the Empire, particularly in the East.26

Several regional councils held after Nicaea, such as the Council of Sirmium in 357 AD, attempted to find compromise formulas that watered down the Nicene position,27 with some even promoting a semi-Arian stance that Christ was “like” the Father but not of the same essence (homoiousios vs. homoousios). The debate over a single letter (the Greek letter iota) symbolised the deep theological divisions within the Church.

Athanasius and his allies, however, remained steadfast. In his writings, Athanasius lamented the chaos Arianism had caused within the Church but maintained hope that truth would prevail. In his Festal Letters, he often exhorted his fellow bishops to stand firm against the pressures of the Arian-influenced imperial authorities.28

Strengthening of Orthodoxy through Struggle

Though Arianism threatened to tear the Church apart, the struggle also forced the Church to more clearly define its doctrines and strengthen its theological foundations. The theological debates of this era prompted the development of a more sophisticated understanding of the Trinity, particularly through the work of Cappadocian Fathers such as Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa, who helped clarify the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in ways that would become central to orthodox Christian theology.29

Moreover, the controversy fostered a greater sense of unity among those who defended Nicene orthodoxy. Despite political pressures, these bishops maintained a firm commitment to the truth of the faith as they understood it, and their persistence would eventually bear fruit.

Later Resurgences of Arianism

Although the Arian controversy was largely settled in the Roman Empire by the end of the 4th century, Arianism continued to reappear in different forms throughout history.

The Gothic and Vandal Kingdoms

Arianism found new life among the Goths and Vandals, Germanic tribes that had been converted to Christianity by Arian missionaries such as Ulfilas (c. 311–383 AD).30 These tribes carried Arianism with them as they established kingdoms in the Western Roman Empire after its fall. The Arianism of the Goths and Vandals posed a significant challenge to the orthodox Roman Church, particularly in the regions they controlled, such as Italy, Spain, and North Africa.

The Arian Vandals, for example, persecuted Nicene Christians in North Africa, leading to significant tensions between the two branches of Christianity in the 5th and 6th centuries.31

Semi-Arianism

Even after the formal defeat of Arianism at the Council of Nicaea, various Semi-Arian factions persisted within the Eastern Church, particularly in regions where Arian sympathisers held ecclesiastical power. Semi-Arians attempted to offer a compromise by arguing that the Son was “homoiousios” (of similar substance) rather than “homoousios” (of the same substance) as the Father. This seemingly minor difference in terminology still left room for Christ to be considered a created being, subordinate to the Father, while acknowledging His exalted status.

The Semi-Arian controversy led to further councils and discussions, and although these factions caused significant divisions, the orthodox position eventually prevailed. The theological precision required to defeat both Arianism and Semi-Arianism contributed to a more robust and defined doctrine of the Trinity.

The final defeat of Arianism and its offshoots came with the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, which reaffirmed the Nicene Creed and expanded upon the doctrine of the Trinity. This council is often seen as the definitive end of Arianism within the Roman Empire, as it solidified the orthodox teaching of the co-equality and consubstantiality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The Defeat of Arianism in the Empire

The official defeat of Arianism came with the backing of key imperial figures and church leaders in the late 4th century. After the death of the pro-Arian Emperor Constantius II and the rise of the pro-Nicene Emperor Theodosius I (r. 379–395 AD), Arianism rapidly lost its political and theological power within the empire.32

Theodosius, in particular, played a decisive role in enforcing Nicene orthodoxy throughout the Roman Empire. Upon his ascension to power, he immediately sought to restore unity to the Church by calling the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. This council not only reaffirmed the Nicene Creed but also expanded it to include a clearer articulation of the Holy Spirit’s divinity, completing the doctrine of the Trinity as we know it today.33

The Cappadocian Fathers—Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa—were instrumental in developing the theology that ultimately triumphed over Arianism. Their work on the Trinity, particularly their insistence that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were distinct yet fully divine and of the same essence, helped clarify the Christian understanding of God and left little room for the semi-Arian compromise.

Arius and his teachings were condemned again, and Arian bishops were replaced with orthodox ones throughout the empire. The Edict of Thessalonica in 380 AD, issued by Theodosius, made Nicene Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire and ordered all subjects to adhere to the Nicene Creed.34 This political backing was essential in ensuring that Arianism was no longer tolerated within the empire’s borders.

The Legacy of Arianism

Arianism Among the Barbarian Kingdoms

While Arianism was effectively eradicated within the Roman Empire, it found refuge and new life among the Germanic tribes, most notably the Goths, Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Visigoths. These tribes had been converted to Arian Christianity by Arian missionaries like Ulfilas, who translated the Bible into the Gothic language and spread Arian beliefs among the Gothic tribes.

For a time, Arianism flourished in the Western territories after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The Visigothic and Vandal kingdoms in Spain and North Africa, as well as the Ostrogoths in Italy, were staunchly Arian, creating significant tension between the Arian Germanic rulers and their predominantly Nicene Christian Roman subjects.

The Arian Vandals, for instance, were known for their persecution of Nicene Christians in North Africa, leading to a significant theological and political divide between the ruling class and the local populations. These Arian kingdoms maintained their theological distinctiveness for a few centuries, but gradually, they converted to Nicene Christianity.

Conversion of the Visigoths

The final death knell for Arianism in the West came in 589 AD, when the Visigothic King Reccared I converted from Arianism to Nicene Christianity at the Third Council of Toledo. This council marked the official end of Arianism as a state religion in Europe, as the Visigoths, who had been the last major Arian kingdom, officially embraced the Nicene Creed.

With the conversion of the Visigoths, Arianism was largely eradicated from the Western world. Though remnants of Arianism persisted in some small communities, the heresy as a major force had been defeated.

Arianism’s Influence in Later History

Though Arianism was largely extinguished by the end of the 7th century, its theological legacy and influence persisted in various forms throughout Christian history. Several later movements and theological debates were seen as echoing Arian principles, particularly the subordination of the Son to the Father.35

Unitarianism and Socinianism

In the post-Reformation era, the rise of Unitarianism in the 16th and 17th centuries revived many Arian themes, particularly the rejection of the Trinity and the emphasis on God as a singular, indivisible being. Unitarianism denied the doctrine of the Trinity and viewed Jesus as a moral teacher but not as divine. This, in some ways, mirrored the Arian denial of Christ’s consubstantiality with the Father.

Socinianism, a related movement within Reformation-era Poland, also denied the Trinity and the pre-existence of Christ, viewing Him as a human being who achieved a special relationship with God. These movements, though distinct from classical Arianism, shared its core critique of Trinitarian theology.

Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christadelphians

In more recent history, groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christadelphians have been seen as modern successors to Arianism in their theological rejection of the traditional Christian understanding of Christ’s divinity. Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, deny the Trinity and teach that Jesus is a created being, subordinate to God the Father, much like the original Arian position.36

While these groups do not directly descend from ancient Arianism, their theological views reflect the same central concerns about Christ’s nature that animated the Arian controversy in the 4th century.

Conclusion: The Triumph Over Arianism and Its Lasting Impact

The Arian controversy, which dominated the theological and political landscape of the early Church for much of the 4th century, was one of the most critical challenges to Christian orthodoxy. Through the tireless efforts of figures like Athanasius of Alexandria, the theological work of the Cappadocian Fathers, and the decisive actions of Church councils such as Nicaea and Constantinople, Arianism was ultimately defeated.

The struggle against Arianism forced the Church to articulate its doctrine of the Trinity with greater precision and theological depth. The debates surrounding Arianism also fostered a deeper understanding of the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, resulting in the development of the Nicene Creed, which remains a cornerstone of Christian orthodoxy.

Although Arianism was largely eradicated by the early Middle Ages, its legacy persisted in various forms throughout history, continuing to challenge orthodox Christianity in new guises. The Arian controversy serves as a powerful example of how the early Church, through struggle and debate, refined its understanding of Christ and preserved the integrity of the faith.

Footnotes

  1. Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001). ↩︎
  2. Richard Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 AD (London: SCM Press, 1988). ↩︎
  3. Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (London: Penguin, 1993). ↩︎
  4. Warren H. Carroll, The Founding of Christendom: A History of Christendom Vol. 1 (Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 1985). ↩︎
  5. Richard Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 AD (London: SCM Press, 1988). ↩︎
  6. J.N.D. Kelly, Creeds, Councils and Controversies (London: Duckworth, 1972). ↩︎
  7. Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001). ↩︎
  8. Thomas Weinandy, Athanasius: A Theological Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). ↩︎
  9. Warren H. Carroll, The Founding of Christendom: A History of Christendom Vol. 1 (Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 1985). ↩︎
  10. Athanasius, On the Incarnation (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1953). ↩︎
  11. John Behr, Athanasius Contra Mundum (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). ↩︎
  12. Henry Chadwick, The Early Church. ↩︎
  13. Thomas Weinandy, Athanasius: A Theological Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). ↩︎
  14. Ibid. ↩︎
  15. J.N.D. Kelly, Creeds, Councils and Controversies (London: Duckworth, 1972). ↩︎
  16. Ibid. ↩︎
  17. Richard Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 AD (London: SCM Press, 1988). ↩︎
  18. Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (London: Penguin, 1993). ↩︎
  19. Warren H. Carroll, The Founding of Christendom: A History of Christendom Vol. 1 (Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 1985). ↩︎
  20. Ibid. ↩︎
  21. Richard Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 AD (London: SCM Press, 1988). ↩︎
  22. Thomas Weinandy, Athanasius: A Theological Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). ↩︎
  23. Ibid. ↩︎
  24. Ibid. ↩︎
  25. Jerome, Letters (London: Penguin, 1993). ↩︎
  26. Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (London: Penguin, 1993). ↩︎
  27. J.N.D. Kelly, Creeds, Councils and Controversies (London: Duckworth, 1972). ↩︎
  28. Richard Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 AD (London: SCM Press, 1988). ↩︎
  29. J.N.D. Kelly, Creeds, Councils and Controversies (London: Duckworth, 1972). ↩︎
  30. James Russell, The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994). ↩︎
  31. Ibid. ↩︎
  32. Richard Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 AD (London: SCM Press, 1988). ↩︎
  33. Ibid. ↩︎
  34. J.N.D. Kelly, Creeds, Councils and Controversies (London: Duckworth, 1972). ↩︎
  35. Ibid. ↩︎
  36. George D. Chryssides, Jehovah’s Witnesses: Continuity and Change (Farnham: Ashgate, 2015). ↩︎

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top