Council of Nicea goes the other way

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'.

I'll look up my references later if you want more detail, but when the Arians called Jesus "God" and "maker of all creation" they meant that he was a sort of demiurge, not God himself. That's why the Nicene Creed explicitly calls Jesus "true God of true God", to rule out this position by making it clear that he is God in the same way that God the Father is.
 

Philip

Donor
I wonder why Arianism didn't become the dominant Christianity?

That's probably worthy of a PhD thesis or two. I'll throw out a couple of thoughts.

  • Head Start. Going into Nicea, the (eventual) Nicene position appears to have a lead in sophistication if not popularly. This could be (but I doubt) an illusion due to the Nicene 's eventual victory and at best just moves the question to 'How did it get this head start?'.
  • Monotheism. The Nicene position asserted monotheism. A non-simple monotheism to be sure, but this seems to have been more well-received than the Arian's monotheism plus a not-really-God-God. Why is not clear. It may be that Arianism was perceived as mixing Creator and creation. It may be that there was a pre-existing (hellenized) Jewish tradition that anticipated the Nicene tradition. That might explain the head start.
  • Salvation. At that time, the Christian concept of salvation focused on the idea of restoration and recapitulation. In short, Adam broke creation when he sinned. It was downhill from there, death and universal decay. The Son restored the creation by bringing the divine into creation and defeating death. Here, the Nicene had an advantage. Their idea of the Son allowed the Son to bring creation into union with the Eternal God, the source of light and life. The Arians could at best offer a union with a non-eternal being.
  • Great Man Theory. Athanasius seems to have been a gifted, iron-willed theologian and orator who inspired great loyalty among his followers. He is not enough alone to explain the triumph of the Nicene position, but he was to capitalise on the advantages above. The next generation of Nicene theologians, the Cappadocians Fathers and John Chrysostrom, formed a dream-team that the embattled Arians just couldn't match.
  • The Nicenes' Explanation. If you were to travel back to the council and ask them while the Nicene position prevailed, their answer would be simple: It seemed good to the Holy Spirit.

Isn't Arianism related to modern Jehovah's Witnesses?

JW resembles Arianism in some ways, but they are not descendent from the Arians. Honestly I don't know enough about JW to say much other than I suspect that Arian is largely a convenient label that avoids actually addressing their beliefs. Something like labeling those that disagree with you (generically) a socialist or fascist rather than engaging.

And what other differences does Arianism have to mainstream Christianity?

That's another good question. Obviously, with 1700 years of development, there would be a kaleidoscope of butterflies. I suspect that initially much would be familiar (at least to Catholics/Orthodox) but not quite the same.

  • Father, Son, Spirit. The Three would remain, but probably something closer (but not quite) to tri-theism. Of course there are many OTL Nicene Christians who probably can't articulate the difference. Further, there are major current Nicene groups that I would describe as trending this direction. This would touch on many aspects of Christian theology. Recently, there was some debate (to be polite) in Protestant circles about how the will of the Son was related to the will of the Father. If the Son always does the Father's will, is always obedient to the Father, are they really co-equal? Arians could completely avoid this since they have no problem saying the Son is inferior to the Father. (The Orthodox and some others avoid the conflict by saying the Father's will is the Son's will rather than their wills are in agreement.)
  • Jesus the God-man. The Nicenes and Arians agreed that Word was made flesh in Jesus. He is both God and man. To the Arians, he is the not-quite-the-Father kind of God. But the Arians will still have to explain how the Eternal Word is related to the fleshy Jesus --- an ATL-Chalcedon. I suspect they would tend more towards Nestorianism.
  • Death and Resurrection. Probably no difference, except maybe the Arians being more insistent that the Father raised the Son.
  • Virgin Birth. Again, no difference. If the Arians tend towards Nestorianism, they would presumably avoid using the title Mother of God. If they don't, I suspect they would prefer Mother of Our God to maintain the separation of Father and Son.
  • Veneration of the Saints. I'm less certain here, but I suspect it would follow the Catholic route. Maybe they eventually developed a three tiered system of worship for the Father, semi-worship for the Son and Spirit, and veneration for the saints.
 
Last edited:

Philip

Donor
I'll look up my references later if you want more detail, but when the Arians called Jesus "God" and "maker of all creation" they meant that he was a sort of demiurge, not God himself.

I don't disagree. My point is that Arianism and Islam do not (almost) agree on the nature of Jesus. The Arians were perfectly happy and even insisted on giving him titles such as God, Lord, Word of God, Son of God, Only Begotten, Creator, Mediator, and so on.
 
  • Head Start. Going into Nicea, the (eventual) Nicene position appears to have a lead in sophistication if not popularly. This could be (but I doubt) an illusion due to the Nicene 's eventual victory and at best just moves the question to 'How did it get this head start?'.

FWIW, the histories of the period generally suggest that Nicene Christianity was more popular with the masses, with Arianism being strongest in the army/imperial household.

JW resembles Arianism in some ways, but they are not descendent from the Arians. Honestly I don't know enough about JW to say much other than I suspect that Arian is largely a convenient label that avoids actually addressing their beliefs. Something like labeling those that disagree with you (generically) a socialist or fascist rather than engaging.

From what I understand, Russel came to his anti-Trinitarian views independently, but later the JWs noticed the similarities with Arianism and started pointing to Arius as a forerunner of their beliefs.

I don't disagree. My point is that Arianism and Islam do not (almost) agree on the nature of Jesus. The Arians were perfectly happy and even insisted on giving him titles such as God, Lord, Word of God, Son of God, Only Begotten, Creator, Mediator, and so on.

They're not the same, but I'd still argue that Arianism is much closer to the Islamic position than it is to the Catholic or Orthodox.
 
Top