Arius wrote to Eusebius of Nicomedia referring to the eternal Word that, '[B]efore He was begotten ... He was not, for He was not without beginning.'1 Where he qualified his argument on the fact that the Son has an eternal beginning from the Father who alone has no beginning.2 Arius seems trying to say that the Son does not exist apart from being begotten. An idea he claimed to be shared by Church fathers before him. There is a debate on whether or not precursor to Arianism can be found among the earliest church fathers before the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea. Among the early Christian authors whom the early Church considered authoritative we can find some whose teachings are similar with the Arians that were used by the Arians to assert that their theology is patristic. What then differentiate these Ante Nicene Fathers3 from the Arians in terms of their Christology? --- 1 Arius' letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, NPNF II:3:41. 2 '[The Son] being begotten apart from time before all things.' NPNF II,4:458. 3 Ante Nicene refer to before the Council of Nicaea in 325. They're early Church fathers who are venerated in the 24 sui juris Catholic churches, 16 canonical Eastern Orthodox churches, 6 canonical Oriental Orthodox churches, and Church of the East. Such as St. Justin Martyr, St. Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian of Carthage, Origen of Alexandria, St. Dionysius of Alexandria, and St Lucian of Antioch.

Apparently, the terms “Arian,” “Arianism,” and “Arian Controversy” were derived from the name of Arius, who was in charge of one of the churches in Alexandria, and whose dispute with his bishop Alexander began the Arian Controversy. This implies that Arius was a very important person. It implies that Arius’ theology continued during that entire period of the Arian Controversy, namely: > From AD 318, when Arius publicly criticized his bishop Alexander for > teaching ‘erroneous’ doctrines about the nature of Christ, > > Until AD 380, when the emperor outlawed all 'Arian denominations’ > through the Edict of Thessalonica . However, recent scholars on the Arian Controversy claim that Arius was neither the leader of ‘Arianism’ nor regarded by the 'Arians' as a significant theologian. For example: > “Arius … was never unequivocally a hero for the parties associated > with his name” (RW, 82). And, again, “Arius … was not an obvious hero > for the enemies of Nicaea.” (RW, 166) > > “It was not just ecclesiastical protocol which made the bishops at > Antioch in 341 declare … that they were not 'followers of Arius … They > meant exactly what they went on to say, that they had accepted Arius > as orthodox, but did not look on him as a factional leader, or ascribe > any individual authority to him.” (RW, 82) > > “Those who suspected or openly repudiated the decisions of Nicaea … > certainly (did not have) a loyalty to the teaching of Arius as an > individual theologian” (RW, 233). > > “The people of his day, whether they agreed with him or not, did not > regard him (Arius) as a particularly significant writer” (RH, xvii). > > “Arius’ own theology is of little importance in understanding the > major debates of the rest of the century.” (LA, 56-57) > > “Those who follow his theological tradition seldom or never quote > him.” (RH, xvii) And, again, “the heirs of his theological tradition > hardly ever quote him.” (RH, 6) > > “Arius evidently made converts to his views … but he left no school of > disciples.” (RW, 233) > > “Arius’ role in ‘Arianism’ was not that of the founder of a sect. It > was not his individual teaching that dominated the mid-century eastern > Church.” (RW, 165) > > “Arius was not accepted as leader of a new movement.” (RH, xvii-xviii) > > “Arius was only the spark that started the explosion. He himself was > of no great significance.” (RH, xvii-xviii) Authors ------- > RH = Bishop RPC Hanson The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God - > The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987 > > RW = Archbishop Rowan Williams Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987 > > LA = Lewis Ayres Nicaea and its legacy, 2004 Ayres is a Professor of > Catholic and Historical Theology So, if Arius was of no great significance in the fourth-century controversy, why is it called the ‘Arian’ Controversy?

In summary, 2nd century Logos-theology taught that God's Logos was always part of God but later became a distinct Person. In 4th-century Nicene theology, the Son is the Father's only Mind. In Arian theology, the Father and Son are two distinct Minds. Did the Nicenes or the Arians follow the Logos-theologians in this regard? To explain in more detail: When the Church became Gentile dominated in the second century, the Apologists explained Jesus Christ as the Logos of Greek philosophy. In this philosophy, the Logos always existed as part of God but became a hypostasis (a distinct Person or Existence) when God decided to create. Through the Logos, the high God created and communicated with the creation: > “Ever since the work of Justin Martyr, Christian theologians had > tended to use the identification of the pre-existent Son with some > similar concept in contemporary Middle Platonism as a convenient > philosophical device” (Hanson, p 22-23). > > “They used to great effect several features of contemporary Greek > philosophy to enable them to construct their doctrines of God. They > identified the pre-existent Christ, thought of as manifesting himself > on critical occasions throughout the history of the Jewish people, > with the nous or **Second Hypostasis** of contemporary Middle > Platonist philosophy, and also borrowed some traits from the divine > Logos of Stoicism (including its name).” (Hanson Lecture ) > > "Greek-speaking theologians of the early fourth century had three > words for something that really exists, and exists in itself, as > distinguished from an accident or a quality. The words are ousia, > hypostasis, and hyparxis. ... As the fourth century progressed, > hypostasis became, more and more, the one term that was the center of > controversy." (Lienhard ) Logos-theology remained the dominant teaching right into the fourth century: > "The theological structure provided by the Apologists lasted as the > main, widely-accepted, one might almost say traditional framework for > a Christian doctrine of God well into the fourth century, and was, in > differing form, the basic picture of God with which the great majority > of those who were first involved in the Arian Controversy were > familiar and which they accepted" (Hanson ). Almost all delegates to Nicaea in 325 were from the East and the East maintained Logos-theology: > “Around 250–300 attended, drawn almost entirely from the eastern half > of the empire” (Ayres, p. 19). > > "The great majority of the Eastern clergy (at Nicaea) were ultimately > disciples of Origen. … they were simply concerned with maintaining the > traditional Logos-theology of the Greek-speaking Church" (Frend, > W.H.C. The Rise of Christianity. See also, Bible.ca). Alexander and Athanasius taught that the Son is the Father's only Logos or Wisdom. In other words, only one Logos existed: > “In Alexander, and in Athanasius … Christ is the one power and wisdom > of the Father” (Ayres, p. 54). > > Alexander stated that if, as Arius claims, there once was when the Son > was not, then “there was once when God was without wisdom, power, > brightness, and so on” (Anatolios, p. 87). > > Athanasius argued similarly that the Son is “present with Him (the > Father) as his Wisdom and his Word” (Ayres, p. 46). > > Athanasius wrote: “There is no need to postulate two Logoi” (Hanson, > p. 431), meaning two minds. > > “He (Athanasius) is appalled at the Arian statement that the Son > exercises his own judgment of free-will” (Hanson, p. 428). Origen, Arius, and the 'Arians' taught two Logoi. In other words, the Father has His own mind apart from the Son: > Origen argued that “Father and Son are two … in subsistence > (hupostasis), but are one in likemindedness, harmony … and … will” > (Williams, p. 132), implying two distinct minds. > > “Arius also talks of two wisdoms and powers, speaking of a Logos that > was not distinct from the Father's hypostasis, after whom the Son is > designated Word” (Ayres, p. 55). “God's own power and wisdom is the > source of Christ.” “The proper power of God Himself … is natural to > him and coexistent with him unoriginatedly” (Ayres, pp. 53-54, quoting > Asterius, a prominent early Arian). > > Asterius, a prominent early Arian, wrote: “There are … two Wisdoms, > one God's own who has existed eternally with God, the other the Son > who was brought into existence. … There is another Word in God besides > the Son” (Hanson, p. 13). My question is, therefore, did the Nicenes or the Arians follow second-century Logos-theology? The Nicenes taught one mind and the Arians two. Did Logos-theology teach one or two minds (Logoi)? I put a similar question to Bryan Litfin, a theologian who wrote in Logos-theology. He said: > The general idea of the Logos Theology is that there is only one > mind, which belongs to God. ... In his one, single mind, there is an > eternal existence which goes by several names. In particular, it can > be called Word, or Wisdom. What happens in Christian theology, due to > the 2nd century Logos Theologians, influenced by Stoicism and by > John's Prologue, is that the abstract Word/Wisdom of God comes to be > "hypostasized" as a separate Person, the Second Person of the Trinity. > He only becomes a Son when God decides to create the cosmos. Then > later, he becomes incarnate for salvation (at the virginal > conception). So the Word/Wisdom is eternal, residing in the eternal > mind of God. But Sonship is temporal, and so is Incarnation. If I understand this correctly, it seems to say that in Logos-theology, there is only one mind in God, which means that the Nicenes followed Logos-theology in this regard, while the Arians deviated from Logos-theology. Further insight will be appreciated.

Lately I've been trying to figure out whether or not Constantine is a Nicene Christian. He was baptised by Eusebius who was of course an Arian. And since he was very close to Eusebius, he was influenced by Arian views (exiling Saint Athanasius). Some sources I have looked at say that he favored Arianism instead of the Orthodox christian view. Others say that he also exiled Eusebius because he continued to teach Arianism. Was Constantine an Orthodox/Nicene Christian believing Christ was in fact God?

The Nicene and Dedication Councils were attended by more or less the same people and were only 16 years apart (325 vs 341) but resulted in opposing creeds. The Nicene Creed is pro-Sabellian but the Dedication Creed is anti-Sabellian. What made the difference? More or less the same people ---------------------------- The Dedication Council was a Council of the Eastern Church and the Nicene Council was almost exclusively Eastern: > At Nicaea, the delegates were “drawn almost entirely from the eastern > half of the empire” (LA, 19). > > “Very few Western bishops took the trouble to attend the Council (of > Nicaea). The Eastern Church was always the pioneer and leader in > theological movements in the early Church. It is well known that > Hilary, for instance, never really understood the Arian Controversy > till he reached the East as a result of being exiled. The Westerners > at the Council represented a tiny minority.” (RH, 170) > > The Nicene Council “was overwhelmingly Eastern, and only represented > the Western Church in a meagre way.” (RH, 156) The Nicene Creed is pro-Sabellian. ---------------------------------- > “If we are to take the creed N at its face value, the theology of > Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea. > That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one > hypostasis. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men.” > (RH, 235) [Eustathius and Marcellus were the two main Sabellians > who attended in Nicene Council.] > > “The Creed of Nicaea of 325 … ultimately confounded the confusion > because its use of the words ousia and hypostasis was so ambiguous as > to suggest that the Fathers of Nicaea had fallen into Sabellianism, a > view recognized as a heresy even at that period.” (Hanson’s Lecture ) > > “In the controversies which erupted over Eustathius of Antioch and > Marcellus after Nicaea, both thought their theologies faithful to > Nicaea—and they had good grounds for so assuming. Both were > influential at the council, and Nicaea’s lapidary formulations were > never intended to rule out their theological idiosyncrasies.” (LA, 99) > > After Nicaea, the Creed was associated “with the theology of Marcellus > of Ancyra. … The language of that creed seemed to offer no > prophylactic (prevention) against Marcellan doctrine, and increasingly > came to be seen as implying such doctrine.” (LA, 96, 97) > > “To many the creed seemed strongly to favour the unitarian tendency > among these existing trajectories.” (LA, 431) [Ayres uses the term > “unitarian” to refer to Sabellianism. For example: “A great deal of > controversy was caused in the years after the council by some > supporters of Nicaea whose theology had strongly unitarian tendencies. > Chief among these was Marcellus of Ancyra.” (LA, 431)) > > “Simonetti estimates the Nicene Council as a temporary alliance for > the defeat of Arianism between the tradition of Alexandria led by > Alexander and ‘Asiatic’ circles (i.e. Eustathius, Marcellus) whose > thought was at the opposite pole to that of Arius. … Alexander … > accepted virtual Sabellianism in order to ensure the defeat of > Arianism. … The ‘Asiatics’ … were able to include in N a hint of > opposition to the three hypostases theory.” (RH, 171) > > It is not “an openly Sabellian creed.” “It is going too far to say > that N is a clearly Sabellian document. … It is exceeding the evidence > to represent the Council as a total victory for the anti-Origenist > opponents of the doctrine of three hypostases. It was more like a > drawn battle.” (RH, 172) Ayres says that his conclusions are close to > Hanson’s in this regard (LA, 92). > > The Dedication Creed of 431 “represents the nearest approach we can > make to discovering the views of the ordinary educated Eastern bishop > who was no admirer of the extreme views of Arius but who had been > shocked and disturbed by **the apparent Sabellianism of Nicaea**.” (RH, > 290) The Dedication Creed is anti-Seballian. --------------------------------------- While Sabellianism asserts only one single hypostasis, meaning one single rational capacity or mind, the Dedication Creed explicitly asserts that the trinity is “three in hypostasis but one in agreement (συμφωνία)” (LA, 118). “One in agreement” indicates the existence of three distinct ‘Minds’. > The Dedication Creed’s “chief bête noire [the thing that it > particularly dislikes] is Sabellianism, the denial of a distinction > between the three within the Godhead.” (RH, 287) > > The Dedication creed is “strongly anti-Sabellian.” (RH, 287) > > “The creed has a clear anti-Sabellian and anti-Marcellan thrust.” (LA, > 119) LA = Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004 RH = Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988

I am interested to know if any spiritual wonders or miracles were performed by arius or his followers. I'm not looking for answers like "wisdom", the church has many saints that performed wonders or had miracles around them. Healing, understanding language, being teleported, invisibility, feeding a small amount of food to a large group, resurrecting people, etc. Do the churches of Arianism have any miracles, wonders, etc.?

What was the core issue in the Arian Controversy? ================================================= Whether the Son was God? ------------------------ It is often stated that it was about whether Jesus is God. But Lewis Ayres says that is not true. The so-called Arians also referred to Jesus as God and placed Him on the God side of the God-creation barrier. For example: > The creed of 357, which some regard as the high point of Arianism, > describes the Son as “God from God.” (Hanson, p. 345) > > “It is misleading to assume that these controversies were about ‘the > divinity of Christ’” (Ayres, p. 14) > > “A second approach that we need to reject treats the fourth-century > debates as focusing on the question of whether to place the Son on > either side of a clear God/creation boundary.” (Ayres, p. 4) Whether the Son was a lesser Being? ----------------------------------- One may counter and say, yes, the 'Arians' described Him as God but they also described Him as subordinate to the Father. That statement would be misleading because, as RPC Hanson stated, the pro-Nicenes also thought of the Son as subordinate. Ayres says that even Athanasius regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. For example, he regarded the Son as part of the Father and would never say that the Father is homoousios with the Son. The first theologian to insist on full equality was Basil of Caesarea. For example: > Before Nicaea, all church fathers described the Son as subordinate, > e.g.,: The “conventional Trinitarian doctrine with which Christianity > entered the fourth century ... was to make the Son into a demi-god … a > second, created god lower than the High God” (Hanson Lecture). > > “With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and > West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year > 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement (end) of the > controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy.” (Hanson, p. > xix) > > Athanasius also described the Son as subordinate. He always described > the Son “as proper to the Father, as the Father's own wisdom,” meaning > that the Son is part of the Father, never the other way round. (Ayres, > p. 206)  > > Basil of Caesarea was the first to proclaim full equality: “In all the > previous discussions (before Basil of Caesarea) of the term > (homoousios) … a certain ontological subordination is at least > implied.” (Ayres, p. 206) “In Basil, the Father's sharing of his being > involves the generation of one identical in substance and power.” > (Ayres, p. 207) So, whether the Son was subordinate to the Father was also not the real main issue in the Arian Controversy. Was the Controversy about Arius? -------------------------------- The title 'Arian' Controversy implies that Arius caused it and that it was about Arius' teachings. However, Hanson and Lewis confirm that Arius was not the 'cause' but that it was the continuation of the controversy that raged during the previous century: > "He was the spark that started the explosion, but in himself he was of > no great significance.” (Hanson, p. xvii-xviii) > > “This controversy is a complex affair in which tensions between > pre-existing theological traditions intensified as a result of dispute > over Arius.” (Ayres, p. 11-12) Furthermore, the Controversy was not about Arius' teachings. He left no school of followers. After Nicaea, he was no longer mentioned. Nobody thought his writings were worth preserving. As Hanson, Ayres, and Williams confirm, it is called the 'Arian' Controversy only because Athanasius falsely accused his opponents, the anti-Nicenes, of being followers of Arius, which they were not. For example: > “The people of his (Arius’) day, whether they agreed with him or not, > did not regard him as a particularly significant writer. … Neither his > supporters nor his opponents thought them (his writings) worth > preserving. … He virtually disappears from the controversy at an early > stage in its course.” (Hanson, p. xvii) > > “It is virtually impossible to identify a school of thought dependent > on Arius' specific theology." (Ayres, p. 2) > > “The expression 'the Arian Controversy' is a serious misnomer.” > (Hanson, p. xvii) > > “’Arianism’ as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and > sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy … based on the polemic of > Nicene writers, above all Athanasius.” (Williams, p. 82) > > “The textbook picture of an Arian system … inspired by the teachings > of the Alexandrian presbyter, is the invention of Athanasius’ > polemic.” (Williams, p. 234) So, what was the real core of the Arian Controversy? Was there a golden thread that ran through the controversy in the third and fourth centuries? Authors Quoted -------------- Following the last full-scale book on the Arian Controversy, published in English by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, R.P.C. Hanson in 1988 published perhaps the most influential book in modern history on the Arian Controversy. (Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988) This was followed in 2004 by a book by Lewis Ayres.(Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004) Ayres confirmed the importance of Hanson's book. > “Richard Hanson’s The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1988) > and Manlio Simonetti’s La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo (1975) remain > essential points of reference.” (Ayres, p. 12) Ayres’ book is based on those surveys and “in some measure advances on their texts.” (Ayres, p. 5) I also quote from another important book by Rowan Williams, focusing specifically on Arius.(Williams, Rowan (24 January 2002) . Arius: Heresy and Tradition (Revised ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8028-4969-4.)

In response to my question why Theodosius was successful in bringing the Arian Controversy to a close , @Anne gave me references to some articles. I have read one by Steven Wedgeworth . It is a very interesting article (for people with such morbid interests). It discusses the large number of creeds that were formulated in the decades after the Nicene Creed was accepted in 325, culminating in the Homoean creed that was accepted, under the ‘guidance” of Emperor Constantius, at the Council of Constantinople in AD 360. > (The Homoeans or Homoians were the people that maintained that the > Bible does not reveal anything about the substance (ousia) of God and, > therefore, to speculate about His substance is arrogance. This is in > contrast to the Nicene Creed that claimed that the Son is of the same > substance as the Father.) The creed of the Council of Constantinople in AD 360 became the official creed of the Christian Church. All use of ousia was forbidden and it seemed as if Arianism has triumphed. I am also currently reading RPC Hanson on the Arian Controversy. Some regard him as our greatest authority on that controversy (e.g., Hart ). Hanson and Wedgeworth present the same interesting historical facts, such as: - The decisive influence which the emperors had on the decisions of the church councils, - That Athanasius was guilty of violence , - That the Arian Controversy, to an extent, was a dispute between the East and the West, and - That, in 358, the anti-Nicene party split between the Homoiousians (similar substance) and the Homoeans (those who refused to talk about substance). But there is one contextual matter where Hanson and Wedgeworth seem to disagree: While Hanson claimed that no 'orthodoxy' existed when the controversy began and that orthodoxy was only created through that controversy, Wedgeworth speaks of Orthodoxy as something that already existed when the Arian Controversy began. To illustrate the difference in more detail: Steven Wedgeworth ----------------- Wedgeworth refers to “the **orthodoxy** of Athanasius,” “the **orthodox** bishops” in the year 360, and the “early church historians” who defended “the **orthodoxy**” at the Western council at Arminium in 360. He describes the Homoean synod of Constantinople in 360 as “the defeat of **Orthodoxy**.” Wedgeworth also refers to “supposed **orthodox** arguments (that) could perhaps be made against using “substance” language in regards to the godhead.” In this regard, he mentions Origen who have already rejected the term years before, and Paul of Samatosota who had been condemned for his use of homoousios, which the Church condemned as a Sabellian theology. > (Sabellianism is the teaching that the Father, Son, and Holy > Spirit are three faces of one single Person. For a discussion, see my > question on the difference between Modalism and the traditional > understanding of the Trinity doctrine .) In opposition to the orthodox writers and bishops, Wedgeworth referred to the “heretics.“ He said, for example, that “the heretics typically took pre-existing Christian or Jewish tradition, combined it with certain philosophical rhetoric.” RPC Hanson ---------- Hanson, in contrast to Wedgeworth, wrote (link ): > “At the beginning of the controversy nobody knew the right answer. > **There was no 'orthodoxy'** on the subject of 'how divine is Jesus Christ?', certainly not in the form which was later to be enshrined in > the Creed of Constantinople.” Hanson adds that the controversy raged for no less than sixty years. It is highly unlikely that a controversy will last that long if the orthodox form was perfectly well known when it began. Subordinationism ---------------- There is a third option, namely that, when the controversy began, there was a general agreement in the church that the Son is subordinate to the Father. Hanson explains the build-up to the Arian Controversy as follows: During the first three centuries, Greek philosophy was still a strong force in the Roman Empire. In that philosophy, God is immutable and is only able to communicate with our world of change and decay through an intermediary. For that reason, Middle Platonist philosophy postulated a nous or Second Hypostasis as an intermediary between the high God and the physical world. (link ) During those centuries, Christians were still being persecuted by the Roman Empire. The Apologists (the pre-Nicene fathers) defended Christianity before the Gentile peoples of the Roman Empire. For this purpose, they found it effective to identify “the pre-existent Christ … with the nous or Second Hypostasis.” (link ) Since the nous of Greek philosophy was “a second, created god lower than the High God,” (link ) the pre-Nicene fathers described Christ as “a subordinate though essential divine agent.” (link ) Therefore, as Hanson explains, going into the controversy, the orthodoxy was that Christ is subordinate to the Father: > The “**conventional Trinitarian doctrine** with which Christianity > entered the fourth century … was to make the Son into a demi-god.” > (link ) The pre-Nicene fathers did regard Christ as divine, but as Hanson noted: > “The word theos or deus, for the first four centuries of the existence > of Christianity had a wide variety of meanings. There were many > different types and grades of deity in popular thought and religion > and even in philosophical thought.” (link ) > > In the thinking of the pre-Nicene fathers, “of course Christ was > divine,” but since they assumed that many levels of divinity exist, > the question that started the Arian Controversy was: “How divine, and > what exactly did 'divine' mean in that context?” (link ) > > (Theos is the Greek word that is translated as "god" or "God," > depending on the context. Deus is its Latin equivalent.) In conclusion, although Hanson says that, at the beginning of the controversy, there was no 'orthodoxy' on the subject of 'how divine Jesus is, he does use phrases such as "traditional framework for a Christian doctrine of God" and "conventional Trinitarian doctrine with which Christianity entered the fourth century." In other words, there was no agreement on how divine Christ is, but there was agreement that He is not as divine as the Father. The Question ------------ So, my question is: What was the 'orthodox' view of God and Christ when the Arian Controversy began?: 1. The Trinity doctrine as per Wedgeworth; 2. None, as per Hanson, or 3. Subordinationism? Or am I making a category error? Why would Hanson state that the pre-Nicene fathers believed that Christ is subordinate to the Father but still say there was no 'orthodoxy' on the subject of 'how divine is Jesus Christ?' And why would Wedgeworth talk about 'orthodoxy' as if it is the present-day Trinity doctrine, already existing in 360 AD? Did he use the term 'orthodoxy' proleptically (the representation of a thing as existing before it actually does)?

The Ligonier Ministries' [2022 "State of Theology"](https://research.lifeway.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Ligonier-State-of-Theology-2022-Full-Report.pdf) contains some interesting things. One such thing is that over half of those surveyed agreed (some strongly) with the following statement: > Jesus is the first and greatest being created by God. What's even more interesting to me is that the percentage agreeing with this statement across all denominations surveyed goes up as their frequency of church attendance goes up. Links to *The State of Theology* Data Explorer on the above question (#6): - [All respondents](https://thestateoftheology.com/data-explorer/2022/6?AGE=30&MF=14®ION=30&DENSITY=62&EDUCATION=62&INCOME=254&MARITAL=126ÐNICITY=62&RELTRAD=62&EVB=6&ATTENDANCE=254) : 40% strongly agree, 15% somewhat agree, 13% not sure - [Beliefs: Evangelicals](https://thestateoftheology.com/data-explorer/2022/6?AGE=30&MF=14®ION=30&DENSITY=62&EDUCATION=62&INCOME=254&MARITAL=126ÐNICITY=62&RELTRAD=62&EVB=2&ATTENDANCE=254) : 70% strongly agree, 3% somewhat agree, 5% not sure Excerpt from an article that focuses the data on evangelicals: [The State of Theology: What Evangelicals Believe in 2022](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/state-theology-2022/) : > Almost three out of four (73 percent) agree with the claim that Jesus is the “first and greatest being created by God.” Hypothesizing a bit on this: let's assume these numbers accurately represent the state of theology in the U.S. (I know they might not). Are over half of the Christians in the U.S. *anathema* for believing this? Will they not attain to salvation? I'm looking for a Biblical answer to this question (all denominations and translations welcome).

This is related, but intended to be a more specific version of [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/14573/20) . The answer provides a pretty concise, Sunday-school refutation to Arianism, but it assumes a Trinitarian view. From within an Arian theological framework, how does Christ fit into the work of human salvation? Please provide Biblical and historical references as appropriate.

Colossians 2:9 -------------- > > HCSB For the entire fullness of **God’s > nature** dwells bodily in Christ, > > NASB: For in Him all the fullness of **Deity** > dwells in bodily form, **How did Arius interpret Colossians 2:9?** How did Arius view the Greek word Θεότητος ?

**Introduction** Arius believed that Jesus was a creature, a created god. What did he write about John 1:1? Or if there is no such extant manuscript, how would he interpreted ''the Word was God'' in John 1:1 based on his Christology? > Arius was was a Libyan presbyter and ascetic, and priest in Baucalis > in Alexandria, Egypt. His teachings about the nature of the Godhead in > Christianity, which emphasized God's uniqueness and the Christ's > subordination under the Father,and his opposition to what would become > the dominant Christology, Homoousian Christology, made him a primary > topic of the First Council of Nicaea, which was convened by Emperor > Constantine the Great in 325.'' (Source ). > > In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and > the Word was God. John 1:1 (ESV) ---------- **Question** What was the stance of Arius on the third clause of John 1:1?

In contrast to the previous pro-Homoian emperor Valens, “it was soon clear that Theodosius would pursue a pro-Nicene line.” (LA, 251) In February 380 - only one year after he was declared Augustus and already a year before the ‘ecumenical’ council of Constantinople - Theodosius issued an edict saying: > “We (all citizens) shall believe in the single deity of the Father, the Son and the > Holy Spirit, under the concept of equal majesty and of the Holy > Trinity.” (LA, 251) As soon as “Theodosius had entered Constantinople in November 380," he exiled the Homoian bishop Demophilus and “accepted Gregory Nazianzen as de facto bishop.” (LA, 253) Gregory Nazianzen was one of the three Cappadocians. “It was … the first session of the council (of Constantinople in 381) that formally recognized him (Gregory as bishop of Constantinople).” (LA, 253) “Suddenly, Meletius (the presiding officer) died and Gregory Nazianzen became president of the council.” (LA, 254) However, “in the council itself Gregory seems to have quickly made himself unpopular.” (LA, 254) “At some point he seems also to have lost the support of Theodosius. Gregory offered his resignation … and it was accepted. In Gregory's place Nectarius, an unbaptized civil official in Constantinople, was chosen.” (LA, 255) Later, Gregory Nazianzen claimed “that at the council the pure Nicene faith was adulterated in the name of compromise.” In what respect did Nazianzen think “the pure Nicene faith was adulterated” in the creed formulated at that council? All references are to the book - Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004, by Lewis Ayres, Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United Kingdom.

What I know from history books is that Semi-Arians held to the neutral theological position of *homoiousians* against both strict *homoousians* and *anomoeans*. However, I found a very scant knowledge about their theology and these are what I want to know: 1. Do Semi-Arians teach that the Son is eternal or not? 2. Do Semi-Arians teach that the Son is a creature? 3. What do they believe about the Holy Spirit?

Where did Arius learn his theology? Did he rely on specific theologians that wrote before him? Origen? Clement of Alexandria? Lucian of Antioch? Were his ideas based on the Bible or on Greek philosophy? Was he part of a specific school of thought or did he develop an entirely new system?

I realize that it may not be completely possible to answer this question given that so much of what Arius wrote has been lost and/or misrepresented by his opponents. However, I have read his few letters that remain and his post-exile letter to Constantine doesn't seem much different than his others. I don't have access to the [R.P.C. Hanson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hanson_(bishop)) 's 1998 book [The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381](https://www.amazon.com/dp/080103146X) (reissued, 2006) so I'm hoping someone here who does can provide further insight. Here's the quote that leads me to the question: >Though he never repudiated the council or its decrees, the emperor ultimately permitted Arius (who had taken refuge in Palestine) and many of his adherents to return to their homes, once Arius had reformulated his Christology to mute the ideas found most objectionable by his critics. (Source: *Wikipedia* article on [Arius](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius))

Arius probably quoted the following: > *Revelation 3:14*: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God. > > *Psalm 8:5–6*: thou madest Him > > *Proverbs 8:22–25*: the LORD possessed *[H7069 strongs, get, acquire, create]* me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old... when there were no depths I was brought forth. What other scriptures did Arius use to support his teaching that Jesus was created?

Arius himself wrote that “the Son of God … is, ***like the Father, 'unchangeable***’” (Rowan Williams, page 96) but Athanasius wrote that Arius taught that the Son is “***like all others … subject to change*** … because he is changeable by nature” (Contra Arianos(v), RW, 100). Are we able to reconcile these statements, or did one of them lie? For one possible answer, see Rowan Williams pages 113-116 , beginning with the phrase "This leaves the third point noted above as a major theme of Arian exegesis to be investigated ..."

Arius wrote that the Son was “begotten ***timelessly*** by the Father … before aeons … begotten ***timelessly*** before everything” (Letter to Alexander – See RPC Hanson, The Search, page 8). But Alexander of Alexandria stated that Arius also wrote that “there was a time when he did not exist” (RPC Hanson, The Search, page 16). Did Arius contradict himself? How could there be time before the Son existed if he was “begotten timelessly before everything?”

Both Athanasius noted that Arius taught two Wisdoms. Athanasius wrote that in Arius’ theology, > “There are … two Wisdoms, one God's own who has existed eternally with > God, the other the Son who was brought into existence. … There is > another Word in God besides the Son” (RH, 13). Alexander similarly wrote that Arius stated, > “Nor is he the Father's true Logos nor the Logos by nature, nor his > true Wisdom” (RH, 16). > > “He came into existence himself through the proper Logos of God and > the Wisdom which was in God, in which God also made everything and him > (the Son) with it” (RH, 16). In Lorentz's summary of Arius’ theology, he said: > “There are two Logoi and two Wisdoms (Sophiae), and several powers of > God. … Arius distinguished between an original Reason (Logos) or > Wisdom immanent from eternity in the Godhead and the Son who was not > immanent in the Godhead but created, and who could only be given these > titles loosely or inexactly.” (20) Why is it significant that Arius taught “two Logoi and two Wisdoms”? Was this a deviation of some kind? (All references are to RPC Hanson's book, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God - The Arian Controversy 318-381