Council of Nicea goes the other way

samcster94

Banned
I am no expert, but I do know that the central issue was Arianism. What if Arianism, which is that Jesus is less than the Father, had somehow had won???
 
Last edited:
I'm no expert, either, but my very rough guess would be a faster spread of Christianity. I'm under the impression that trying to explain the Trinity, that God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct manifestations of one God, to the heathen masses leaves a lot of them scratching their heads. "Yeah? You wanna go over that again?"

Arianism might make more sense to folks at large, being perhaps a little more intuitive.
 

Philip

Donor
I am no expert, but I do know that the central issue was Arianism and that the debate was close.

It really wasn't close. Athanasius was a singular personality, and the Arians lack anyone who could match his arguments.

What if Arianism, which is that God created Jesus early in creation

Nope. Arianism agreed that the Word was begotten before all creation, and that all creation was created through the Word. There was a once when the Word was not, but there was never a time when the Word was not.
 
I'm no expert, either, but my very rough guess would be a faster spread of Christianity. I'm under the impression that trying to explain the Trinity, that God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct manifestations of one God, to the heathen masses leaves a lot of them scratching their heads. "Yeah? You wanna go over that again?"

Arianism might make more sense to folks at large, being perhaps a little more intuitive.

I’m not inclined to agree. Most religions have aspects that are hard to grasp for a lay person, thats not much of a stumbling block unless you’re trying to convert a philosopher.
 
It really wasn't close. Athanasius was a singular personality, and the Arians lack anyone who could match his arguments.

Yeah, as I recall the bishops voted something like 300 to 10 in favour of Trinitarianism (and all but one or two of the Arians came over to the majority when they saw how much of a minority they were in).
 

Philip

Donor
This is one of the times where you have to go deeper than 'what if the council decided differently?'. Why would the bishops think differently? Athanasius provided convincing arguments (and may have had the easier task), but the bishops seemed predisposed to agree with him. They continued to support him through five imperial exiles from four different emperors. Why? And why in ATL would they oppose him? Once we figure out that, we can begin to address how things evolve from there.

Personally, I think the victory of the Orthodox position at Nicea was a forgone conclusion. What was to be decided was how accommodating of the (semi-)Arian position they would be. To change this, you need to go back at least to Hippolytus of Rome (late 2nd Century CE), probably to Irenaeus of Lyons (mid to late 2nd Century CE). An argument can be made that you would need to go back to Philo of Alexandria (early 1st Century CE) or even before.
 

Md139115

Banned
Honestly, given how schismatic the history of Christianity has proven to be, the fact that Arianism was never really able to gain any sort of ground is probably proof that it was just too out there for the Early Church to countenance.
 

Philip

Donor
Christianity becomes Islam.

Except Arianism is fundamentally incompatible with Islam. In particular

  • Arians believed that Christ was the Son of God, begotten of the Father. This is unacceptable to Islam.
  • Arians believed that Christ, despite being separate from the Father, was worthy of worship. This is unacceptable to Islam.
  • Arians believed that the Christ died on the cross, was physically resurrected, and physically ascended to the right hand of the Father. Again, unacceptable to Islam.
That's just a start to theological differences and doesn't begin to address the differences in practice and organisation.
 

samcster94

Banned
Except Arianism is fundamentally incompatible with Islam. In particular

  • Arians believed that Christ was the Son of God, begotten of the Father. This is unacceptable to Islam.
  • Arians believed that Christ, despite being separate from the Father, was worthy of worship. This is unacceptable to Islam.
  • Arians believed that the Christ died on the cross, was physically resurrected, and physically ascended to the right hand of the Father. Again, unacceptable to Islam.
That's just a start to theological differences and doesn't begin to address the differences in practice and organisation.
Islam is more hardline monotheism. It'd still be Trinitarian, but the details would be different.
 
I am no expert, but I do know that the central issue was Arianism. What if Arianism, which is that Jesus is less than the Father, had somehow had won???

You may have just removed a source of trouble, OTL the Goths went all Arian. They will still attack Rome, but may better integrate ITTL.
That said, Arianism was a minority and reeked of earlier heresies, so I see Christianity in a weaker position overall.
 
I'm no expert, either, but my very rough guess would be a faster spread of Christianity. I'm under the impression that trying to explain the Trinity, that God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct manifestations of one God, to the heathen masses leaves a lot of them scratching their heads. "Yeah? You wanna go over that again?"

Arianism might make more sense to folks at large, being perhaps a little more intuitive.
Look at "triune gods".

Pagan europe was full of them. Lugus, the Dagda, the Morrigan etc for celtic polytheism alone.
 
Hey, I'm just a simple simian. A god like Crom who might smite you because he's pissed off about something but otherwise doesn't give much a crap about us is what would make sense to me.
 
Except Arianism is fundamentally incompatible with Islam. In particular

  • Arians believed that Christ was the Son of God, begotten of the Father. This is unacceptable to Islam.
  • Arians believed that Christ, despite being separate from the Father, was worthy of worship. This is unacceptable to Islam.
  • Arians believed that the Christ died on the cross, was physically resurrected, and physically ascended to the right hand of the Father. Again, unacceptable to Islam.
That's just a start to theological differences and doesn't begin to address the differences in practice and organisation.

1. Arianism is a step in the direction of Islam, because it breaks the idea that Jesus and god are the same person. Islam says that Jesus was a Prophet: a holy man inspired by god. Arianism also says that Jesus was a separate entity from god, albeit his son. Whether he was the son of God or merely inspired by god is kind of hair splitting in the scheme of things. Either way, the essential point that he is a separate entity has been conceded.

2. Again, Jesus is highly esteemed in Islam and in fact is the most mentioned person in the Qur'an, being mentioned more times than Muhammad. Whether he is worshipped or merely a divinely inspired example is again a rather hair splitting difference in practice.

3. Point three here you're on stronger ground. The resurrection is not in Islam and it says in the Qur'an that he only appeared to die on the cross (The implied point being either that he didn't really die, or more metaphorically that you can't kill an idea).
 
1. Arianism is a step in the direction of Islam, because it breaks the idea that Jesus and god are the same person. Islam says that Jesus was a Prophet: a holy man inspired by god. Arianism also says that Jesus was a separate entity from god, albeit his son. Whether he was the son of God or merely inspired by god is kind of hair splitting in the scheme of things. Either way, the essential point that he is a separate entity has been conceded.

2. Again, Jesus is highly esteemed in Islam and in fact is the most mentioned person in the Qur'an, being mentioned more times than Muhammad. Whether he is worshipped or merely a divinely inspired example is again a rather hair splitting difference in practice.

3. Point three here you're on stronger ground. The resurrection is not in Islam and it says in the Qur'an that he only appeared to die on the cross (The implied point being either that he didn't really die, or more metaphorically that you can't kill an idea).
Hair splitting matters a lot in religion, especially in Christianity. You can not argue that religions could be compatible on the assumption that differences are hair splitting when many different religions are literally just different hair splittingsto moderns. It caused a lot of blood to be shed. Even a single point of difference, even of spelling, would cause controversy and differences and irreconcilable schisms.
 
Hair splitting matters a lot in religion, especially in Christianity. You can not argue that religions could be compatible on the assumption that differences are hair splitting when many different religions are literally just different hair splittingsto moderns. It caused a lot of blood to be shed. Even a single point of difference, even of spelling, would cause controversy and differences and irreconcilable schisms.
In orthodox calvinistic circles in the Netherlands, there was a schism about if a previous schism was the work of God or the work of man.
 

Philip

Donor
Well, they said that Christ was the Son of God, begotten of the Father, but they didn't mean the same things by that as the Trinitarians did.

I never said they believed the same as Nicene Trinitarians, but they were certainly closer (in as much as they can be said to have a single position) to Nicenes than to Islam. Consider the creed of Ulfilas, the Arian apostle to the Goths:

I, Ulfila, bishop and confessor, have always so believed, and in this, the one true faith, I make the journey to my Lord; I believe in one God the Father, the only unbegotten and invisible, and in his only-begotten son, our Lord and God, the designer and maker of all creation, having none other like him (so that one alone among all beings is God the Father, who is also the God of our God); and in one Holy Spirit, the illuminating and sanctifying power...​

It is not consistent with Nicene Trinitarianism because it establishes a hierarchy between Father, Son, and Spirit. However, it clearly establishes three persons and explicitly identifies the Son as 'our God' and the 'maker of all creation'.

1. Arianism is a step in the direction of Islam, because it breaks the idea that Jesus and god are the same person. Islam says that Jesus was a Prophet: a holy man inspired by god. Arianism also says that Jesus was a separate entity from god, albeit his son. Whether he was the son of God or merely inspired by god is kind of hair splitting in the scheme of things. Either way, the essential point that he is a separate entity has been conceded.

You seem to vastly underestimate the Arian opinion of the Son. Here is what Arius wrote to his ally Eusebius:

But we say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that He does not derive His subsistence from any matter; but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not. For He was not unbegotten.​

Let me emphasize that: 'that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable.' Arianism says the Son is separate from the Father, but that does not mean that he is not God. In particular, Arius affirmed that the Son has existed from before time as 'perfect God'. This is not a hair-splitting difference from 'a holy man inspired by god'.

If you wish to discuss hair-splitting, try to explain the difference between the Arian 'the Son has existed since before time, but before that he didn't exist' and the Nicene 'the Son has always existed since before all ages.'

2. Again, Jesus is highly esteemed in Islam and in fact is the most mentioned person in the Qur'an, being mentioned more times than Muhammad. Whether he is worshipped or merely a divinely inspired example is again a rather hair splitting difference in practice.

Islam is quite clear that only the One God, Allah, is worthy of worship. It is shirk to worship anyone or anything else. There is no flexibility here, and (depending on the Islamic scholar) may be the only unforgivable sin. As Arius confessed the Son to be 'perfect God', he considered the Son not only worthy of worship, but that he was obligated to render such worship. Indeed, the Arian position is further from the Islamic position than the Nicene position is (though both are still shirk). The Nicene position asserts that the Father and Son are One God. The Arian position seems to require (at least) two separate Gods.
 
Last edited:
@Philip interesting, thanks for posting. I defer to your superior knowledge of Arianism.

I wonder why Arianism didn't become the dominant Christianity? Isn't Arianism related to modern Jehovah's Witnesses? And what other differences does Arianism have to mainstream Christianity?
 
Top