Opinion of Arian Christianity?

[KaiserDave]

Was watching the EC video on Early Christian Schisms for the 5,000th time and wanted to get Talk Election's Atlas's views on the subject, what are the thoughts here on Arian Christianity?

As defined by Wikipedia (I know what it is I just thought I'd provide a simple description):

"Arianism is a nontrinitarian Christological doctrine which asserts the belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who was begotten by God the Father at a point in time, a creature distinct from the Father and is therefore subordinate to him, but the Son is also God."

[PSOL]

I would have to know more about its doctrines to rate it in the standards of the time.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I would have to know more about its doctrines to rate it in the standards of the time.

     The quoted part at the bottom of the topic post is what is distinctive about Arianism. Otherwise, it can be paired up with basically any set of doctrines.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Horrible Heresy because it's, well, a heresy, but I'm not apoplectic with rage about it or anything, because I don't live in Late Antiquity.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Good thing they lost the debate.

[°Leprechaun]

"We do, then, with all earnestness, though without reproaching
our brethren, protest against the irrational and unscriptural
doctrine of the Trinity. "To us," as to the Apostle and the
primitive Christians, "there is one God, even the Father." With
Jesus, we worship the Father, as the only living and true God. We
are astonished, that any man can read the New Testament, and avoid
the conviction, that the Father alone is God."

source:

https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/channing.txt

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't know if there's a direct connection, but Arianism always reminds me of neoplatonism's procession of

The One–> Intellect –> Soul,

with the Word filling the role of the Intellect in neoplatonic metaphysics.

I agree that parallels can be drawn, but Rowan Williams (among others) argues that Arius was actually more skeptical than his opponents about introducing Hellenistic philosophical concepts into Christian theology.

[YPestis25]

Horrible Heresy because it's, well, a heresy, but I'm not apoplectic with rage about it or anything, because I don't live in Late Antiquity.

Athanasius would like to know your location.

On the actual topic I'm indifferent. Though it is interesting that Constantinople's position was so stringent against Arianism that it persuaded a decent chunk of the population in the Levant and Egypt that Muslim rule was preferable to continued governance by the adherents of the Council of Nicaea.

[The Mikado]

Horrible Heresy because it's, well, a heresy, but I'm not apoplectic with rage about it or anything, because I don't live in Late Antiquity.

Athanasius would like to know your location.

On the actual topic I'm indifferent. Though it is interesting that Constantinople's position was so stringent against Arianism that it persuaded a decent chunk of the population in the Levant and Egypt that Muslim rule was preferable to continued governance by the adherents of the Council of Nicaea.

Not to nitpick (well, yes, to nitpick), but that was more over the later dispute over the Council of Chalcedon. Most of Egypt was into Monophysite Christianity (believing that Jesus was fully divine rather than having both divine and mortal natures).

Chalcedon is the one with the tripartite split of:

A. Monophysites: Jesus was fully divine
B. Nestorians: Jesus was a fully mortal man who was possessed by the divine Son of God
C. Orthodoxy: Jesus had both divine and mortal natures in one being.

[YPestis25]

Horrible Heresy because it's, well, a heresy, but I'm not apoplectic with rage about it or anything, because I don't live in Late Antiquity.

Athanasius would like to know your location.

On the actual topic I'm indifferent. Though it is interesting that Constantinople's position was so stringent against Arianism that it persuaded a decent chunk of the population in the Levant and Egypt that Muslim rule was preferable to continued governance by the adherents of the Council of Nicaea.

Not to nitpick (well, yes, to nitpick), but that was more over the later dispute over the Council of Chalcedon. Most of Egypt was into Monophysite Christianity (believing that Jesus was fully divine rather than having both divine and mortal natures).

Chalcedon is the one with the tripartite split of:

A. Monophysites: Jesus was fully divine
B. Nestorians: Jesus was a fully mortal man who was possessed by the divine Son of God
C. Orthodoxy: Jesus had both divine and mortal natures in one being.

Oh gosh, thanks for the correction. You're exactly right. My Byzantine history has gotten shoddy. By the 5th century Arianism had really fallen away outside of Iberia, right?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Cute name. She single?

[KaiserDave]

Horrible Heresy because it's, well, a heresy, but I'm not apoplectic with rage about it or anything, because I don't live in Late Antiquity.

Athanasius would like to know your location.

On the actual topic I'm indifferent. Though it is interesting that Constantinople's position was so stringent against Arianism that it persuaded a decent chunk of the population in the Levant and Egypt that Muslim rule was preferable to continued governance by the adherents of the Council of Nicaea.

Not to nitpick (well, yes, to nitpick), but that was more over the later dispute over the Council of Chalcedon. Most of Egypt was into Monophysite Christianity (believing that Jesus was fully divine rather than having both divine and mortal natures).

Chalcedon is the one with the tripartite split of:

A. Monophysites: Jesus was fully divine
B. Nestorians: Jesus was a fully mortal man who was possessed by the divine Son of God
C. Orthodoxy: Jesus had both divine and mortal natures in one being.

Monophysites are clearly heretical according to the Book of Galatians, and it's hard to see the argument for why it isn't though I'm not that familiar with the theological argument for it.

[The Mikado]

Anyway, back to OP's subject.

As I remember (I read a lot about this topic, but it was quite a while ago, so they balance out):

Arianism boils down to this:

God created the Universe and everything in it.

God begat Christ, the Son of God.

Therefore, God the Father created God the Son.

Therefore, God the Father outranks God the Son, who is second only to the Father.

It's a rejection of the Trinity and recognizes God the Son as the second-most important member of the Godhead, rather than coequal with the Father as in orthodox (lower-case o) Trinitarian Christianity.

Christian orthodox arguments against it are basically all "Didn't you read John 1:1," the Bible verse so famous many non-Christians have heard of it, the one that stated that the Word was with God in the beginning, and that the Word was God. The Trinitarian argument boils down to "Jesus is the Word, the Word was with God in the Beginning, therefore they are both eternal and have existed since the beginning, therefore they're equal."

Back in the day when The Da Vinci Code was more popular, a stupid line in it saying that the vote at Nicaea over this was close became popular. Actually, Arius' position was pretty overwhelmingly rejected at the time, although the next few decades saw the Empire go back and forth and St. Athanasius come into favor then get exiled then come back into favor and then get exiled again etc.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Chalcedon is the one with the tripartite split of:

A. Monophysites: Jesus was fully divine
B. Nestorians: Jesus was a fully mortal man who was possessed by the divine Son of God
C. Orthodoxy: Jesus had both divine and mortal natures in one being.

So, from the reading of these early controversies I've done, the narrative is something like the following. Keeping in mind that I've obviously got some stuff wrong since the disputes were almost entirely over how one interpreted certain highly technical Greek philosophical terms.  

Sabellianism - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three 'modes' of one divine godhead - is declared heretical in the 3rd century.
Around the beginning of the 4th century, Arius hears someone preaching that the Son is co-eternal with the Father. Arius thinks this is a lot like Sabellianism! and starts arguing that no, the Son is not of the same substance of the Father but a separate, created one.
Arius is attacked by Athanasius and his doctrines are initially condemned at the Council of Nicaea, with the creed that the Father and Son are of the same substance. After a lot of very bitter theological and political wrangling* and many suggested compromises the Nicene formula wins out at the Council of Constantinople in 381.
In 421, the new Archbishop of Constantinople Nestorius starts arguing against the Marian title of "Mother of God" (Theotokos). Nestorius thinks this is a lot like Arianism! since to say that the divine (as opposed to the human) person of Christ had a mother is to say that his divinity was created and therefore subordinate to the Father.
Cyril of Alexandria opposed Nestorius, arguing that his formulation denied the Incarnation, and that Christ really had a union of divine and human natures. He won the argument at the Council of Ephesus 431 and the Nestorians were excommunicated.
Eutyches, in his understanding of Ephesus and intending to combat the Nestorian dyophisite position, started teaching that Christ's human and divine natures were combined in one new, predominantly divine nature - sometimes called Monophysitism. This recieved assent at the Second Council of Ephesus 448...but was then overturned by the Council of Chalcedon in 451. There it was decided that Christ was one person of two natures human and divine, both unmixed and inseparable.  
This formula was rejected by the Miaphysite Oriental Orthodox churches, since they saw it as smuggling Nestorianism in by the back door in that keeping Christ's two natures unmixed was dangerously close to the dyophisite position of Nestorius. They claimed (still claim) to follow the teaching of Cyril of Alexandria and the first Council of Ephesus in insisting on one nature both fully human and fully divine.
There were many attempts, many further ecumenical councils and violent political interventions by the Emperor in an attempt to reconcile the two positions, but nothing could be agreed until the Muslim conquests put an end to the efforts.

Man. I think my explanation broke down by the end, because the Greek terminology key for these controversies was often being invented on the fly mid-argument and I didn't want to delve into the Greek (where I'd definitely get things wrong). Apparently a lot of people dispute that there is even any theological disagreement between the Chalcedonian and Miaphysite positions, and it was just a misunderstanding about what Cyril meant by 'physis', since the distinction between Christ's person (prosopon) and nature (physis) was only introduced into the Greek church in response to Nestorius. But I tried to convey what I think in my interpretation was a dialectical movement from one debate to the other in trying to work out a consistent and comprehensive orthodox understanding of the nature of Jesus and the trinity, where the declaration of a position as heretical begat further controversies to be resolved. And it also should be pointed out that there were many power-political undercurrents to these controversies: especially the struggle between the Alexandrine, Antiochine and Constantinopolitan bishops over who would be top dog in the East, with the Emperor often getting involved.

*My favourite anecdote of this period is Athanasius being accused by his opponents of murdering a rival bishop and using his severed hand in secret satanic magic rituals.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Man. I think my explanation broke down by the end, because the Greek terminology key for these controversies was often being invented on the fly mid-argument and I didn't want to delve into the Greek (where I'd definitely get things wrong). Apparently a lot of people dispute that there is even any theological disagreement between the Chalcedonian and Miaphysite positions, and it was just a misunderstanding about what Cyril meant by 'physis', since the distinction between Christ's person (prosopon) and nature (physis) was only introduced into the Greek church in response to Nestorius.

Another argument along these lines that I've heard is that everybody was more or less in agreement on Christ's physis...but not on Christ's persona and natura when translated into Latin.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Man. I think my explanation broke down by the end, because the Greek terminology key for these controversies was often being invented on the fly mid-argument and I didn't want to delve into the Greek (where I'd definitely get things wrong). Apparently a lot of people dispute that there is even any theological disagreement between the Chalcedonian and Miaphysite positions, and it was just a misunderstanding about what Cyril meant by 'physis', since the distinction between Christ's person (prosopon) and nature (physis) was only introduced into the Greek church in response to Nestorius.

Another argument along these lines that I've heard is that everybody was more or less in agreement on Christ's physis...but not on Christ's persona and natura when translated into Latin.

I've read it claimed that the Latin west generally had a pretty stable distinction between Christ's person and nature going back to Tertullian. A lot of the problem in the Eastern church was having to nail the terminological differences down not only in Greek but in Coptic, Syriac and Armenian as well.

[Tintrlvr]

Chalcedon is the one with the tripartite split of:

A. Monophysites: Jesus was fully divine
B. Nestorians: Jesus was a fully mortal man who was possessed by the divine Son of God
C. Orthodoxy: Jesus had both divine and mortal natures in one being.

So, from the reading of these early controversies I've done, the narrative is something like the following. Keeping in mind that I've obviously got some stuff wrong since the disputes were almost entirely over how one interpreted certain highly technical Greek philosophical terms.  

Sabellianism - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three 'modes' of one divine godhead - is declared heretical in the 3rd century.
Around the beginning of the 4th century, Arius hears someone preaching that the Son is co-eternal with the Father. Arius thinks this is a lot like Sabellianism! and starts arguing that no, the Son is not of the same substance of the Father but a separate, created one.
Arius is attacked by Athanasius and his doctrines are initially condemned at the Council of Nicaea, with the creed that the Father and Son are of the same substance. After a lot of very bitter theological and political wrangling* and many suggested compromises the Nicene formula wins out at the Council of Constantinople in 381.
In 421, the new Archbishop of Constantinople Nestorius starts arguing against the Marian title of "Mother of God" (Theotokos). Nestorius thinks this is a lot like Arianism! since to say that the divine (as opposed to the human) person of Christ had a mother is to say that his divinity was created and therefore subordinate to the Father.
Cyril of Alexandria opposed Nestorius, arguing that his formulation denied the Incarnation, and that Christ really had a union of divine and human natures. He won the argument at the Council of Ephesus 431 and the Nestorians were excommunicated.
Eutyches, in his understanding of Ephesus and intending to combat the Nestorian dyophisite position, started teaching that Christ's human and divine natures were combined in one new, predominantly divine nature - sometimes called Monophysitism. This recieved assent at the Second Council of Ephesus 448...but was then overturned by the Council of Chalcedon in 451. There it was decided that Christ was one person of two natures human and divine, both unmixed and inseparable.  
This formula was rejected by the Miaphysite Oriental Orthodox churches, since they saw it as smuggling Nestorianism in by the back door in that keeping Christ's two natures unmixed was dangerously close to the dyophisite position of Nestorius. They claimed (still claim) to follow the teaching of Cyril of Alexandria and the first Council of Ephesus in insisting on one nature both fully human and fully divine.
There were many attempts, many further ecumenical councils and violent political interventions by the Emperor in an attempt to reconcile the two positions, but nothing could be agreed until the Muslim conquests put an end to the efforts.

Man. I think my explanation broke down by the end, because the Greek terminology key for these controversies was often being invented on the fly mid-argument and I didn't want to delve into the Greek (where I'd definitely get things wrong). Apparently a lot of people dispute that there is even any theological disagreement between the Chalcedonian and Miaphysite positions, and it was just a misunderstanding about what Cyril meant by 'physis', since the distinction between Christ's person (prosopon) and nature (physis) was only introduced into the Greek church in response to Nestorius. But I tried to convey what I think in my interpretation was a dialectical movement from one debate to the other in trying to work out a consistent and comprehensive orthodox understanding of the nature of Jesus and the trinity, where the declaration of a position as heretical begat further controversies to be resolved. And it also should be pointed out that there were many power-political undercurrents to these controversies: especially the struggle between the Alexandrine, Antiochine and Constantinopolitan bishops over who would be top dog in the East, with the Emperor often getting involved.

*My favourite anecdote of this period is Athanasius being accused by his opponents of murdering a rival bishop and using his severed hand in secret satanic magic rituals.

This sounds right to me, but, honestly, as someone who spent a considerable amount of time studying this time period and its theological debates, it's hard even with all of that to understand why people got so worked up about it, and it's unfortunate that the underlying political disputes that really motivated most of the theological infighting are not nearly so well-documented.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I can definitely see its appeal. To be honest, it does kinda strike me as more logically consistent than Trinitarian Christianity. However, I see why it makes the fundamental message of Christianity less compelling, so I do think it's for the best that Trinitarianism won out. That doesn't justify the persecutions, of course.

[Lechasseur]

I can definitely see its appeal. To be honest, it does kinda strike me as more logically consistent than Trinitarian Christianity. However, I see why it makes the fundamental message of Christianity less compelling, so I do think it's for the best that Trinitarianism won out. That doesn't justify the persecutions, of course.

Out of curiosity, why in your view do you think Arianism would be less compelling than Trinitarianism?

[Lechasseur]

Man. I think my explanation broke down by the end, because the Greek terminology key for these controversies was often being invented on the fly mid-argument and I didn't want to delve into the Greek (where I'd definitely get things wrong). Apparently a lot of people dispute that there is even any theological disagreement between the Chalcedonian and Miaphysite positions, and it was just a misunderstanding about what Cyril meant by 'physis', since the distinction between Christ's person (prosopon) and nature (physis) was only introduced into the Greek church in response to Nestorius.

Another argument along these lines that I've heard is that everybody was more or less in agreement on Christ's physis...but not on Christ's persona and natura when translated into Latin.

I've read it claimed that the Latin west generally had a pretty stable distinction between Christ's person and nature going back to Tertullian. A lot of the problem in the Eastern church was having to nail the terminological differences down not only in Greek but in Coptic, Syriac and Armenian as well.

I think another thing is the East had a lot more debate on the nature of God and Jesus because they were already familiar with monotheism.

The West was entirely polytheistic before Christianity appeared so the nature of God and Christ didn't matter to them the same way it did in the East.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I can definitely see its appeal. To be honest, it does kinda strike me as more logically consistent than Trinitarian Christianity. However, I see why it makes the fundamental message of Christianity less compelling, so I do think it's for the best that Trinitarianism won out. That doesn't justify the persecutions, of course.

Out of curiosity, why in your view do you think Arianism would be less compelling than Trinitarianism?

Well, Jesus' sacrifice feels a lot more meaningful if he is truly is God than if he is some quasi-divine but still created being. The core point of Christianity is that God had to become man and bear the burden of human sin in order to redeem humanity, so if it's not really God but just something God created (just like everything else) that seems to defeat the point.

[Kingpoleon]

Re: Chalcedon: The two largest factions differed over whether Christ was of one nature, fully divine in a fully human person, or two natures, fully divine and human, of one person. It’s a point of distinction without distinction. Nestorius, the third argument, allegedly said that Christ was of two persons, divine and human, each with their own nature, and that were joined by will.

Chalcedon: Two natures, joined in one person
Nestorius: Two natures, two persons, joined in one will
Cyril of Alexandria: One nature(of two aspects joined in one nature), in one person; possibly one fully divine nature in one fully human person, though this is the less likely of the two definitions

Interestingly enough, nobody claimed Christ was two persons of one nature, and only Nestorius really discussed three aspects: nature, person, and will. Nestorius rejected the title “Mother of God,”* for Mary, too. After all, in his Christology, she gave birth only to the human person of Christ.

As for Arian Subordination? I reject it fully. It strays too close to the denial of the unity of the Trinity, to me.

*Mother of God; Theotokos: One who brought forth God; Nestorius gave her the title Anthropotokos: One who brought forth man. This is a distinction as to Christ on the Scriptural references to “The Son of Man,” and to “The Son of God.”

[Kingpoleon]

Homoian, or Traditional Arianism: The Father created the Son and the Spirit; they are subordinate to him, and are of distinct, lesser, if like essences. Possibly claimed a union of the will.
Homoiousian, or Laodicean Thought: The Trinity is of similar essence or substance,
Homoousian*, or Traditional Nicene Trinitarianism: The Trinity is the same in being and in essence with the Father; of three persons; as such, both have the same property of being unbounded by space time, and none were ever created; God the Father and Son have one nature

Similarly:
Heterousian, or Extreme Arianism: The Father is of different, not similar substance to the Son and Spirit; of different, not similar nature.
Modelism, or Extreme Nicene Thought: The Trinity is of one nature, one person, and one will. They are different aspects, modes, or revelations of God. They are not consubstantial or coessential because they are not separated.
Adoptionism, or Extreme Nicene Thought: The Trinity is united in nature, person, and possibly will; Christ was adopted at his baptism, and became God.

Adoptionism was based on a radical belief in Marcan priority - Mark, after all, recognizes Christ as God with his baptism. Matthew and Luke, in his birth. In John, Christ is explicitly recognized as eternal.

*While historically, this was usually translated as consubstantial - that is, the same parts that make up the parts of something; it is more accurately translated as coessential - that is, the same intrinsic, indispensable quality that defines what something is.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Man. I think my explanation broke down by the end, because the Greek terminology key for these controversies was often being invented on the fly mid-argument and I didn't want to delve into the Greek (where I'd definitely get things wrong). Apparently a lot of people dispute that there is even any theological disagreement between the Chalcedonian and Miaphysite positions, and it was just a misunderstanding about what Cyril meant by 'physis', since the distinction between Christ's person (prosopon) and nature (physis) was only introduced into the Greek church in response to Nestorius.

Another argument along these lines that I've heard is that everybody was more or less in agreement on Christ's physis...but not on Christ's persona and natura when translated into Latin.

I've read it claimed that the Latin west generally had a pretty stable distinction between Christ's person and nature going back to Tertullian. A lot of the problem in the Eastern church was having to nail the terminological differences down not only in Greek but in Coptic, Syriac and Armenian as well.

Partly, it seems to be a function of the Western church just being less interested in the nature of Christ, because they were less steeped in Hellenistic philosophy.

It's notable that after the 4th century Arianism was as much of a designator of Germanic ethnic identity as anything else (prior to Clovis, anyway) and that after Arianism major heresies in the West rapidly fade away, chiefly because they had much bigger problems to worry about and not much infrastructure to sustain philosophers as the East would recognise them.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Saint Nicholas did nothing wrong.