Christian History: What is Arianism?

Unveiling God’s Unchanging Truth: A Journey Through Arianism

Isn’t it amazing how looking back at history can show us God’s loving hand guiding His people through every season? There was a time, long, long ago, when the early followers of Jesus were wrestling with some really big questions about our incredible Savior, Jesus Christ. One of the most important of these discussions was about something called Arianism. That word might sound a little complicated don’t you worry! We’re going to walk through it together, step by step. And you’ll see how God’s truth, like a brilliant sunrise, always, always shines the brightest, bringing clearness and making our faith stronger, even today!

What is Arianism, and who was Arius?

To truly grasp what Arianism is all about, let’s first get to know the person whose ideas sparked this major chapter in history. His name was Arius, and he was a real person, a well-known and respected pastor—kind of like a minister or priest—in the lively city of Alexandria in Egypt. He lived way back in the early part of the fourth century, from around 250 or 256 AD to 336 AD.¹ Arius was known for being a smart and convincing teacher, and because of this, his ideas began to catch on and spread among the people.³ He had learned from another teacher, Lucian of Antioch, whose views also shaped his thinking.â´ You can just imagine a highly regarded spiritual leader in a major city, someone whose words carried a lot of weight; that was Arius. And even though he lived so many centuries ago, his particular way of understanding Jesus caused a big stir, creating ripples of discussion throughout the entire Christian world.

So, what exactly is Arianism? Well, in simple terms, Arianism was a teaching that said Jesus Christ, the Son of God, wasn’t God in the very same, powerful way that God the Father is God. Instead, those who followed Arius’s teachings, who we call Arians, believed that Jesus was created by God.¹ A key idea, and a famous saying that came from Arius, was, “There was a time when the Son was not.” This meant they believed Jesus actually had a beginning, that He hadn’t always existed with the Father from eternity.² This teaching went right against the long-held understanding of God as a Trinity—the wonderful belief that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons who are all equally and fully God, a perfect, loving unity.¹ It seems Arius loved God and was truly trying to make sense of Jesus’s relationship to God the Father. He thought that to really protect the idea of God being absolutely One, unique, and all-powerful, Jesus must have been God’s first and most amazing creation a creation just the same. It’s a bit like looking at a stunning masterpiece of art; the painting is incredible, a true wonder it’s not the same as the artist who dreamed it up and brought it into being.

You might be wondering why Arius taught these things. His main thought was to protect what he saw as a very strict belief in only One God, which we call monotheism.² He felt that if Jesus was also God in the exact same, eternal way as God the Father, it might confuse people into thinking there were two Gods. It was like a spiritual puzzle he was trying to solve based on his understanding. This attempt to make the nature of God seem simpler and more straightforward to our human minds was one reason his ideas initially found people who would especially in a culture that was influenced by Greek ways of thinking, which often emphasized God’s complete separateness and unchanging nature.³ To some, a created Son acting as a go-between seemed like a logical way to connect a perfect, distant God with the world He created.

Arius wasn’t just a thinker; he was, as we said, a “popular priest”.³ He even wrote songs with catchy tunes to help spread his theological ideas among everyday people! This just shows how the way we communicate and how leaders connect with people can play a big role in how teachings—whether they line up with established faith or take a different path—can take root.³ It was this very teaching that led directly to a major disagreement with his own bishop, Alexander of Alexandria. You see, Bishop Alexander firmly believed in the full, complete divinity of Jesus Christ and that He existed with the Father from all eternity.⁵ This difference of understanding between a pastor and his bishop soon grew far beyond Alexandria, becoming a challenge for the entire Church.

What did Arians believe about Jesus Christ that was so different?

The Arian way of seeing Jesus Christ had several key points that made it quite different from what most Christians believed back then, and what we, by God’s grace, continue to believe today. These differences touched the very heart of who Jesus is, our wonderful Savior.

The most central Arian belief, the one that really stood out, was that Jesus was a created being. They taught that He was the very first and the most magnificent of all things God made, brought into existence by God the Father out of nothing.² So, in their view, Jesus was like God’s most amazing creation, maybe like the very brightest star God formed, more glorious than all the others still, a star that was made. This meant that Jesus was not co-eternal with the Father; there was a point in time, before anything else was created, when He began to exist. This is captured in that famous Arian phrase we mentioned, “There was a time when the Son was not”.²

Because Arians believed Jesus was created, they also taught the subordination of the Son. That’s a way of saying they saw Jesus as lesser in His very nature and essence than God the Father.² You could think of it like a king and his most trusted and honored prince. The prince is incredibly powerful and respected, a true leader the king remains the ultimate authority, the one in charge. Arians viewed God the Father as the supreme King, and Jesus, while extraordinarily special and divine in so many wonderful ways, as serving the Father and not being His equal in divine substance, in His very being.²

There was a very important word in this whole discussion, a Greek word: homoousios. This word means “of the same substance” or “of the same essence.” The belief that the Church held dear, which was later stated so clearly at the Council of Nicaea, was that Jesus is homoousios with God the Father—meaning they are made of the exact same divine “stuff,” both fully and equally God, a perfect unity. Arians rejected this powerful idea of homoousios.² Depending on the specific Arian viewpoint, they might say Jesus was of a different substance (another Greek word, heteroousios) or perhaps a similar substance (homoiousios), but the key thing is, they believed it was not the same divine substance as the Father.²

Arians did believe that Jesus, as the Logos or Word of God, played a super important role in creation. They taught that God the Father created the world through Jesus. But they held onto the idea that Jesus Himself was created before He acted as this wonderful channel for creation.² So, while Jesus was seen as incredibly important in the making of everything else, He Himself still had a starting point in their view.

All of these beliefs had a huge impact on how they understood the Trinity. While Arians didn’t always completely reject using the word “Trinity,” their teachings really changed the picture. By denying that the Son was co-equal and co-eternal with the Father (and often, by extension, suggesting a lesser status for the Holy Spirit too), the Arian view presented a different kind of relationship within the Godhead.² The beautiful, perfect balance of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all equally God and existing together from eternity, was altered in the Arian system.

The core problem with these Arian beliefs, from the perspective of amazing church leaders like Athanasius, wasn’t just about getting a definition right on paper. It had powerful implications for how we understand our salvation! If Jesus wasn’t fully God, how could He truly save us? The teaching that has blessed generations is that only One who is fully God and fully man could be the perfect bridge between God and humanity and accomplish the mighty work of redemption.² Athanasius famously taught that God had to become human so that humans could become divine—meaning, share in God’s eternal life, what a gift!7 If Jesus were merely a creature, no matter how special, His ability to save would be limited. This deep concern for our salvation was truly at the heart of this whole debate.

It’s also good to know that “Arianism” wasn’t just one single, unchanging set of beliefs. Over time, different shades of Arian thought came about. Some were “Semi-Arians” who believed the Son was of “similar substance” (homoiousios) to the Father, trying to find a middle way. Others were more radical, like the Anomoeans, who insisted the Son was of a “different substance” (heteroousios) or even “unlike” (anomoios) the Father in His very essence.² This variety of views within the broader Arian movement made the whole situation even more complex and it lasted for a long time.

To make these differences really clear, here’s a simple comparison for you:

Table 1: Arianism vs. Orthodox Belief on Jesus Christ

Aspect of Belief	Arian View	Orthodox (Nicene) View
Nature of the Son	A created being, the highest of all creatures	Eternally Begotten from the Father, Uncreated, always existing
Relationship to Father	Lower in nature and essence	Equal with the Father in nature and essence, a perfect partnership
Substance/Essence	Of a different or similar substance (but not the same)	Of the very same substance (homoousios) as the Father, perfectly one
Eternality	Had a beginning (“There was a time when He was not”)	Eternal, existing with the Father from everlasting (no beginning to His being)
Role in Creation	Helped create (God created through Him), but He Himself was created first	Divine Agent in creation (all things made through Him as God)
Implication for Trinity	Weakens the idea of equal and eternal Persons in the Godhead	Affirms the co-equality and co-eternity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

This table helps us see just how different the Arian understanding of Jesus was from the faith the Church had cherished. It touched everything from who God is, to how our salvation is even possible.

How did the early Church, especially at the Council of Nicaea, respond to Arianism?

When these new ideas about Jesus, promoted by Arius, began to spread, it was like a spiritual storm shaking the very foundations of the Church. Church leaders and everyday Christians alike became deeply concerned because these teachings touched the very heart of who Jesus is and what He came to do for us.³ This wasn’t just a small disagreement over minor details; it was a major issue that threatened to divide believers and weaken the core message of the Gospel, the good news of Jesus!3

The Roman Emperor at that time was a man named Constantine. He had played a historic role in making Christianity a legal religion in the Empire, and he was very keen on peace and unity, not just in society also within the Church.³ He saw this growing disagreement over Arianism as a serious problem that needed to be solved, because he worried that a divided Church could lead to a divided Empire.

So, Emperor Constantine did something truly remarkable: he called for a great “family meeting” of the Church. This was the Council of Nicaea, held in the year 325 AD in a city called Nicaea, which is in modern-day Turkey.¹² This was the very first “ecumenical council,” which means a council that aimed to bring together representatives from the whole Christian world. Hundreds of bishops—church leaders from all over—traveled to Nicaea. People often say around 318 bishops were there, though some records suggest between 250 to over 300 attendees.¹¹ A respected bishop named Hosius of Corduba likely led the council’s meetings, perhaps as Constantine’s representative.¹⁷ The main and urgent goal of this historic gathering was to discuss the teachings of Arianism and to prayerfully seek God’s wisdom to declare what the true, apostolic Christian teaching was about the nature of Jesus Christ.¹⁷

At this council, there was a lot of heartfelt discussion and debate. Arius himself was there to explain and defend his ideas. Standing firmly against him were champions of the traditional faith, most notably a courageous young deacon named Athanasius. Even though he wasn’t a bishop yet, Athanasius was a powerful voice, passionately arguing for the full and complete divinity of Jesus Christ.¹² After much careful thought and prayer, the Council of Nicaea overwhelmingly rejected Arianism, declaring it a heresy—a teaching that goes fundamentally against the core beliefs of the Christian faith.²

Out of this momentous meeting came something truly wonderful and lasting: the Nicene Creed. This creed was a beautiful and carefully crafted statement of faith. It declared with incredible clarity what Christians believed about Jesus. It proclaimed Him to be “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance (homoousios) with the Father”.² These powerful words directly went against the core ideas of Arianism. The creed specifically said Jesus was “begotten, not made,” to counter the Arian idea that He was a created being. And that special term homoousios (“of one substance”) was a clear statement that Jesus shares the very same divine nature as God the Father. The Creed also included specific condemnations, called anathemas, against key Arian ideas, such as the notion that “there was when He was not” or that the Son was created or could change.¹⁷ It was a powerful and definite stand for the truth about Jesus Christ. Only a very small number of bishops, including Arius himself, refused to agree to this creed, and they were then sent into exile by the Emperor.¹⁶

You might think that such a clear decision from a major council would have settled everything right then and there. But a powerful disagreement like this doesn’t just disappear overnight. Even though the Council of Nicaea made a strong and clear stand, the Arian controversy continued for many, many decades.⁷ Arianism still found supporters, and some later Roman emperors even favored Arian or semi-Arian views. The fight to uphold and explain the Nicene truth was a long and challenging one. But God’s truth is patient and persistent, and the clarity of Nicaea provided a vital anchor, a strong foundation for the Church.

The calling of the Council of Nicaea wasn’t just a theological event; it was deeply connected with the politics of the Roman Empire. Emperor Constantine’s strong desire for unity across his empire was a big reason he called the council.³ This involvement of the emperor in church affairs would continue to shape the Arian controversy for many years. At times, emperors supported Arian or semi-Arian groups, leading to faithful bishops like Athanasius being exiled, only to be brought back when the political winds shifted.¹â° This shows that the theological debate was also, at times, a struggle influenced by the Roman state, and the truth often had to stand strong against imperial preferences.

The language of the Nicene Creed, especially phrases like “begotten, not made” and the term homoousios, was chosen with great care and precision. These weren’t just general statements of faith; they were specifically put together to directly refute the central claims of Arianism.² The leaders at Nicaea wanted to craft a creed that left no doubt about the Son’s full divinity. Ironically, while Nicaea aimed for unity, its strong condemnation of Arianism and the introduction of a term like homoousios—which, though it expressed a biblical truth, wasn’t a word found directly in Scripture—led to a period where many more creeds were produced. Arians and various semi-Arian groups tried to create alternative statements of faith, leading to what some historians call a “battle of the creeds”.⁵ This highlights the immense challenge the early Church faced in putting powerful divine truths into human language.

What did the great Church Fathers like Athanasius, Hilary, and the Cappadocians teach about Arianism?

God always raises up mighty men and women to stand for His truth, especially in times of great challenge. During the Arian controversy, several incredible spiritual leaders, known as the Church Fathers, stepped forward. These were wise and holy theologians, bishops, and writers in the early centuries who dedicated their lives to explaining, defending, and nurturing the Christian faith. They were like the spiritual superheroes of their day, filled with powerful wisdom, unwavering courage, and a deep love for God and His Church.

St. Athanasius of Alexandria (often called the “Father of Orthodoxy” or “Athanasius Contra Mundum” – Athanasius Against the World):

Athanasius was a true giant in the fight against Arianism! He was there as a young deacon at the Council of Nicaea and became a lifelong, tireless defender of the Son’s full divinity.⁷ He later became the Bishop of Alexandria.

His main arguments against Arianism were powerful and deeply rooted in Scripture 20:

He pointed out that Arians weren’t truly following Christ because they took their name and core teachings from a human founder, Arius, instead of from Christ Himself.
He argued that Arianism was a new idea that wasn’t found in Scripture, especially the notion that the Son was created and that “there was a time when He was not.”
Most importantly, Athanasius emphasized that if the Son is not fully God, He cannot be our Savior. He famously taught that “God became man so that man might become God” 7—meaning that through Christ, who is God, we can share in God’s divine life and be saved! What a glorious truth!
He also showed how Arians often misused or misinterpreted Scripture to try and support their views. For his unwavering stand on the Nicene faith, St. Athanasius went through incredible hardship, including being exiled from his city and church five different times by emperors who favored Arianism.⁹ Yet, he never, ever gave up defending the truth about Jesus. That’s perseverance!

The Cappadocian Fathers: St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus:

These three brilliant theologians came from a region called Cappadocia in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). They were so important in further clarifying the doctrine of the Trinity and refuting later, more subtle forms of Arianism.⁹ They helped the Church develop even more precise language to talk about God as Three-in-One, a beautiful mystery!

St. Basil the Great: A courageous bishop and a powerful writer, Basil argued powerfully for the full divinity of both the Son and the Holy Spirit.⁹ He taught that Although the infinite essence of God is beyond our full human understanding, we can know God through His actions in the world and through the distinct divine Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.²⁷ St. Basil famously stood up with incredible courage to the Arian Emperor Valens, who tried to pressure him into compromising the Nicene faith.²⁵ What bravery! He emphasized that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in nature, power, and will, yet wonderfully distinct as Persons.
St. Gregory of Nyssa (Basil’s younger brother): A deep philosophical thinker, Gregory of Nyssa also made huge contributions to defending the orthodox understanding of the Trinity and Christ.⁸ He argued that if the Son and the Holy Spirit were just creatures, then our Christian worship would be misdirected, and true salvation would be impossible.⁸ He helped explain that the word “God” refers to the one divine nature or substance (ousia) that is shared equally by three distinct Persons or individual realities (hypostases): the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.³¹ This was a crucial clarification that helped many understand how God can be both One and Three, a perfect divine family!
St. Gregory of Nazianzus (known as “The Theologian”): A close friend of Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus was famous for his powerful speaking and his “Theological Orations,” which brilliantly defended the doctrine of the Trinity against Arian challenges.⁷ He famously taught, “That which was not assumed by Christ is not healed” 8—meaning that for Jesus to save every part of our human nature, He had to take on full humanity, while remaining fully God. What a powerful thought! He also argued that the act of Christian baptism, being performed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, itself points to their equal divinity and honor.³³

These Church Fathers, through their writings, their work in councils, and their courageous lives, didn’t just repeat the words of the Nicene Creed; they dived deeper into the wonderful mystery of God. They refined the language used to speak about the Trinity, carefully distinguishing between God’s one shared ousia (essence or substance) and the three distinct hypostases (Persons or individual realities).⁹ This development was so vital for addressing more subtle Arian arguments and also for guarding against other errors, like Sabellianism (which taught that Father, Son, and Spirit were just different ways one Person showed Himself).

Was there such a thing as “Arian Catholicism”? Did Arians have their own churches?

You might hear a term like “Arian Catholicism” and wonder if Arians had their own distinct version of the Catholic maybe with a similar structure. That’s a great question, and it helps us understand how Arianism worked as a movement. The term “Arian Catholicism” isn’t a formal, historical name in the same way we use “Roman Catholicism” today. There wasn’t one single, unified “Arian Catholic Church” with a central leader like the Pope in Rome. But Arianism grew into a very major and organized movement. It had its own distinct church structures, its own bishops, communities of followers, and ways of worship, especially as it spread and gained influence in different places.â´

, Arians did establish their own churches and communities, separate from the churches that held fast to the Nicene, or orthodox, faith.⁶ They ordained their own bishops and clergy, held their own church councils to discuss and promote their beliefs, and at various times and in different places, they even had the powerful support of Roman emperors, like Constantius II and Valens, or later on, the backing of Germanic kings who had converted to Arianism.â´ This means that Arianism wasn’t just a set of theological ideas; it grew into a kind of parallel church system with its own leadership and buildings.

A particularly interesting and important chapter in the story of Arianism is how it spread among various Germanic tribes. Groups like the Goths (both Visigoths and Ostrogoths), the Vandals, the Lombards, and the Suevi embraced Arian Christianity.â´ This was a huge development! Missionaries who held Arian beliefs, most notably a bishop named Ulfilas, were key figures in converting these peoples. Ulfilas, often called the “Apostle to the Goths,” even did the amazing work of translating the Bible into the Gothic language, and to do that, he had to create a new alphabet!4 What dedication! For a long time, many of these Germanic kingdoms, which rose up as the Western Roman Empire was changing, were Arian Christian. They had their own state-supported Arian churches, and their services were often held in their own Germanic languages rather than Latin.³â´ Famous examples include the Ostrogothic kingdom of Theodoric in Italy, which had Arian churches in cities like Ravenna.⁶

The adoption of Arianism by these Germanic tribes wasn’t always just about theological belief. It also served as a way for them to keep a distinct cultural and political identity, separate from the Roman people they often ruled, who were mostly Nicene Christians.³⁶ Having their own form of Christianity, often with the church organization controlled by their own kings, helped to strengthen their unique identity and royal authority.³â´

Naturally, in regions where Arian rulers governed populations that included many Nicene Christians (for example, the Roman citizens living in these new Germanic kingdoms), there was often tension, misunderstanding, and sometimes even persecution.⁷ The existence of these parallel Arian church structures alongside Nicene Christian communities meant that for several centuries, there were effectively two major, competing expressions of Christianity operating in various parts of what was once the Roman Empire and in the kingdoms that followed. This shows how complex the religious landscape was. Although the Council of Nicaea had defined “orthodoxy” (the right belief), the reality on the ground for many years was that Arianism was, in many places, the dominant and officially supported form of Christianity. This meant that those who held to the Nicene faith were sometimes the ones considered dissenters in those particular areas.â´ It was a challenging time God’s truth has a way of enduring!

What were the “Eleven Arian Confessions” and why did Arians write so many creeds?

After the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD condemned Arius and his teachings, and established that wonderful Nicene Creed with its strong declaration that Jesus is homoousios (“of the same substance”) with the Father, the Arian controversy was far from over. In fact, the decades that followed saw the creation of many different creeds or statements of faith, especially from those who were Arian, or leaned towards some Arian ideas, or were simply uncomfortable with the specific wording of the Nicene Creed.⁵

There were several reasons why Arians and their allies wrote so many different creeds.

They wanted to offer alternatives to the Nicene Creed, which they found hard to accept, especially its use of that key term homoousios.⁵
They were trying to find language that could bring together various groups that opposed Nicaea. Not everyone who disagreed with Nicaea was a strict Arian; there was a whole spectrum of views, and these creeds were sometimes attempts to find some common ground.⁵
These creeds were also part of an effort to gain political and imperial favor. Roman emperors often wanted a single, unified creed for the entire empire to promote peace and stability, so different groups would propose their own statements hoping the emperor would support them.⁷
Sometimes, new creeds were written to address specific theological points or to counter what they saw as errors in other creeds. For instance, some Eastern bishops felt the Nicene Creed, with its emphasis on the oneness of substance, could be misunderstood as Sabellianism (the idea that Father, Son, and Spirit are just different ways one Person shows Himself, not distinct Persons).⁵

The phrase “Eleven Arian Confessions” isn’t a title that Arians themselves used for a definitive collection of their beliefs. Instead, this numbering likely comes from the writings of St. Athanasius, that great defender of Nicene orthodoxy. In his efforts to show what he saw as the errors and inconsistencies of Arianism, Athanasius carefully documented various Arian creeds.¹⁵ By listing them, he wanted to show how their theological positions seemed to shift and change, contrasting this with the steadfastness of the Nicene faith.

According to Athanasius’s account, these “confessions” or creeds included a range of statements made over several decades 15:

Arius’s own initial influential statements, including ideas from his work called the Thalia.
The Profession of Faith of Arius and his supporters, written in a letter to Bishop Alexander around 320 AD, before the Council of Nicaea.⁵
Various statements made by Eusebius of Nicomedia and other early supporters of Arius before Nicaea.
A series of creeds that came from or around the Council of Antioch in 341 AD, also known as the “Dedication Council.” Athanasius identified about four different statements connected to this council:
The “First Creed” of the Dedication.
The “Second Creed” of the Dedication, often called “Lucian’s Creed” (though whether Lucian of Antioch directly wrote it is debated). This is generally seen as the most major and moderate of the Antiochian creeds.⁵
A third creed attributed to Theophronius of Tyana.
A fourth creed that was sent to Emperor Constans in Gaul.
The Macrostich Creed (meaning “Long-Liner” because it was so long), which was sent by Eastern bishops to Italy around 344 or 345 AD.⁵
A creed from a council held in Sirmium in 351 AD (often called the First Sirmian Creed), which was mainly aimed against the teachings of Photinus but also had Arian leanings.⁵
Another, more infamous, creed from Sirmium in 357 AD (the Second Sirmian Creed), which St. Hilary of Poitiers called the “Blasphemy of Sirmium.” This creed strongly rejected using ousia (substance) language altogether.⁵
(Athanasius mentions an “eighth” creed, likely another version from Sirmium or one he detailed earlier).
A creed from a council held in Seleucia in 359 AD.
A creed formulated in Constantinople, based on one from a council at Nike (Thrace) in 359/360 AD (often called the Creed of Nike). This creed, favored for a time by Emperor Constantius II, also avoided ousia language and became temporarily dominant.⁵
A later, more extreme Arian creed from Antioch, reflecting the views of the Anomoeans, who taught that the Son was “unlike” the Father.

Other Arian-influenced creeds mentioned in historical sources include the Rule of Faith of Ulfilas (written for the Goths, emphasizing the Son’s subordination) 4, and creeds associated with figures like Acacius of Caesarea, Auxentius of Milan, Eudoxius of Constantinople, and Germinius of Sirmium.⁵

This large number of creeds shows that these documents were more than just theological statements; they were tools in a complex political and church power struggle.⁵ The intense debates over Greek terms like homoousios (same substance), homoiousios (similar substance), ousia (substance/essence), and hypostasis (person/individual reality) reveal just how difficult it was to express powerful theological truths in human language. There was a constant search, on all sides, for terms that could gain widespread acceptance, sometimes even by avoiding words that had become too controversial.⁵ St. Athanasius’s careful cataloging of these varied Arian creeds was itself a strategic move, designed to highlight their perceived instability compared to the unchanging truth he championed in the Nicene faith.

To simplify this complex “battle of creeds,” here’s an overview of some of the most historically major ones for you:

Table 2: Overview of Key Arian-Related Creeds/Confessions

Creed Name	Date (approx.)	Key Theological Points/Purpose
Profession of Faith of Arius	c. 320 AD	Said the Son was created by the Father’s will before time; a perfect creature but not eternal or unbegotten like the Father.
The Dedication Creed (Antioch)	341 AD	Meant as a moderate Eastern alternative; affirmed Father, Son (as God from God), and Holy Spirit as three distinct hypostases (realities/persons) but “one in agreement”; avoided homoousios; condemned extreme Arianism and Sabellianism.
The Second Sirmian Creed (“Blasphemy”)	357 AD	Strongly Arian-leaning (Homoian); forbade any use of ousia (substance) language (including homoousios and homoiousios) as not in the Bible and confusing; clearly stated the Father is greater than the Son and the Son is subordinate.
The Creed of Nike (Constantinople)	359/360 AD	Also Homoian; rejected ousia language; stated the Son is “like the Father” (homoios) according to the Scriptures; temporarily became the official imperial creed.

This table gives us a little glimpse into the evolving theological landscape of the 4th century, a time of intense discussion as the Church worked to clearly state its understanding of God and our wonderful Lord Jesus Christ.

What Bible verses did Arians use to support their views, and how did orthodox Christians explain these passages?

It’s so important for us to understand that those who held Arian views also deeply respected the Bible and truly believed their teachings were based on God’s Word.¹⁴ They weren’t intentionally trying to go against Scripture; rather, they interpreted certain passages in ways that led them to their conclusions about Jesus. It’s a good reminder for all of us to seek God’s wisdom in understanding His Word!

Arians pointed to several key Bible verses that they felt supported their understanding:

Proverbs 8:22: In this passage, Wisdom (which many understood as Christ, the Logos) says, “The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way, before His works of old” (NKJV) or “The Lord created me at the beginning of his work” (NRSV). Arians often identified this Wisdom with Christ and argued that the word “created” or “possessed” (depending on the translation) showed that the Son had a beginning and was a created being.â´
Orthodox Christian Response: The Church Fathers, full of wisdom, explained that if “Wisdom” here refers to Christ, the term could mean “appointed” or “established” for His special role in creation and our redemption, rather than being brought into existence. They also pointed out that this could refer to the beginning of Christ’s work or His coming in human form (His incarnation), not His eternal divine origin. They consistently emphasized Christ’s eternal generation from the Father, not creation. He always was!
John 14:28: Jesus says, “My Father is greater than I.” Arians took this statement very literally to mean that Jesus was inherently lesser in His nature and being than God the Father.¹²
Orthodox Christian Response: Leaders like St. Hilary explained that Jesus was speaking from the perspective of His willing humility in His human nature, or that He was referring to the relational order within the Trinity (the Father is the eternal source from whom the Son is eternally begotten), not a difference in their divine essence or power.²¹ Both Father and Son share the one, same divine nature, perfectly united!
Colossians 1:15: Here, Jesus is called “the firstborn over all creation.” Arians interpreted “firstborn” to mean that Jesus was the first being God created.¹²
Orthodox Christian Response: They explained that in the Jewish context of the Bible, “firstborn” often meant preeminence, special honor, rank, and supreme importance, rather than being the first one made in a time sequence. So, this verse highlights Christ’s supreme rank and authority over all creation, not that He is part of creation in the same way. He is Lord of all!
Revelation 3:14: Jesus is referred to as “the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.” Arians used “beginning of the creation of God” to argue that Christ was the first created being.³⁷
Orthodox Christian Response: They interpreted the Greek word for “beginning” (arche) in this context to mean “originator,” “source,” or “ruler” of God’s creation. This means Christ is the one through whom all creation came into being, the active agent in creation, not the first thing created. He is the Creator, not the created!
Mark 13:32 / Matthew 24:36: In these passages, Jesus states that He does not know the day or the hour of His future return only the Father knows. Arians argued this showed Jesus’s limited knowledge, and therefore, His lesser divinity compared to the Father.¹⁴
Orthodox Christian Response: The Church Fathers explained that Jesus, in His full humanity, willingly veiled or chose not to exercise the full extent of His divine knowledge, or that He spoke from the perspective of His human consciousness which grew in wisdom. This did not take away from His eternal divine omniscience as God the Son. He is all-knowing! Arians also pointed to other passages in the Bible that highlighted Jesus’s humanity, His suffering, His prayers to the Father, or His obedience, and argued these showed He was distinct from and subordinate to the Father.¹⁴

In response, orthodox Christian leaders and believers emphasized the importance of looking at the entire Bible, not just picking out a few verses.¹⁴ They showed how a vast number of other passages clearly and powerfully declare Jesus’s true and eternal divinity. What a comfort that is!

Some of the cornerstone verses for the orthodox understanding included:

John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This was foundational for affirming Christ’s eternal pre-existence, His distinct personhood, and His full deity. He is God!14
John 1:14: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” This links the divine Word of John 1:1 directly to our Lord Jesus Christ.
John 10:30: Jesus declares, “I and the Father are one.” This was understood as a powerful claim to essential unity with God the Father.
John 8:58: Jesus says, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” Here, Jesus uses the sacred name of God, “I AM,” showing His eternal self-existence.
Philippians 2:5-11: This beautiful passage describes Christ Jesus, “who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped emptied Himself, by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness…” What humility, what love!
Colossians 2:9: “For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” This affirms that the complete divine nature resides in Christ. All of God in Him!
Many other passages were also vital, including those where Jesus receives worship (which is due to God alone), forgives sins (a divine power), and is given divine titles like “Lord” and “God.”

This whole debate powerfully shows us that simply quoting Bible verses isn’t always enough. How one interprets those verses, and whether that interpretation fits with the overall message of Scripture and the consistent faith of the Church handed down from the apostles, is absolutely key. The early Church learned that understanding Scripture rightly requires careful study, prayerful reflection, and listening to the wisdom God has provided through the community of faith and its trusted teachers through the ages. It wasn’t just about individual verses about the grand, coherent testimony of the entire Bible concerning the person and work of Jesus Christ. The philosophical ideas of the time also sometimes influenced how certain scriptures were understood, by Arians and their opponents alike, showing that interpretation doesn’t happen in a vacuum.³ But God’s Word, in its fullness, always leads us to the truth!

Why was Arianism considered such a dangerous heresy, and what was its impact on the Church and the Roman Empire?

Arianism wasn’t just a small theological disagreement; it was seen as a profoundly dangerous heresy by the early Church because it struck at the very core of what we believe and how we live out our faith. Its effects were far-reaching.

Why Was Arianism So Dangerous? The Heart of the Matter:

It Fundamentally Changed Who Jesus Is: The most critical issue, was that Arianism presented a different Jesus. Instead of the eternal Son of God, co-equal with the Father, Arians taught that Jesus was a created being. No matter how special or perfect, He was still a creature, not the Creator.² This was a huge departure from the apostolic understanding of Christ’s divine identity. It was as if the Church was being told that its Lord and Savior, the One who died for us, was not God in the fullest sense. That changes everything!
It Had Severe Implications for Salvation: This was a massive concern for the Church Fathers, and it should be for us too! If Jesus was not fully God, how could He truly save humanity from sin and death? How could a created being bridge the infinite gap between a holy, eternal God and us, fallen and mortal humans? The consistent teaching of faithful leaders like Athanasius was that only God Himself, taking on human nature, could accomplish such a mighty salvation.² If Jesus were less than fully divine, our entire hope of redemption, of being made right with God, was at risk.
It Affected Christian Worship: From the very earliest days, Christians had worshipped Jesus Christ, offering Him prayers and adoration that are due to God alone. If Jesus were a creature, as Arians claimed, then worshipping Him would be a powerful error, possibly even a form of idolatry—directing worship toward a created being instead of the uncreated God alone.⁸ This challenged the very heart of Christian devotional life, how we connect with God.
It Distorted the Nature of God as Trinity: Arianism presented a different picture of God. The orthodox Christian faith understood God as a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three distinct Persons sharing one divine essence, co-equal and co-eternal, in perfect love and unity. Arianism, by making the Son a created and subordinate being (and often implying a similar status for the Holy Spirit), dismantled this beautiful and mysterious truth about God’s own inner life and being.² It changed who God is!

Impact on the Church:

Deep Division and Disunity: The Arian controversy caused immense turmoil and bitter divisions within the Christian Church that lasted for many decades, nearly a century in its most intense phases.³ Bishops argued fiercely with other bishops, congregations were split, and there was widespread unrest. It was a painful period of internal conflict for the family of God. But even in division, God can work!
Forced Clarification of Doctrine: But challenges can often lead to growth and greater clarity. The intense debate spurred by Arianism compelled the Church to think very deeply, study the Scriptures with renewed focus, and state with much greater precision what it truly believed about the person of Jesus Christ and the nature of the Triune God. This intellectual and spiritual labor led directly to the formulation of the Nicene Creed and further powerful theological developments by the Church Fathers.¹² It was as if the pressure of the heresy helped to refine and polish the expression of God’s truth, making it shine even brighter!
Rise of Great Defenders of the Faith: This era saw God raise up extraordinary theologians and leaders like Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, and the Cappadocian Fathers, who courageously and brilliantly defended and explained the orthodox faith for generations to come.⁹ God always has His champions!

Impact on the Roman Empire:

Threat to Political Stability: The Roman Emperors, especially Constantine who had legalized Christianity, were very concerned that such deep divisions within the Church could spill over and cause instability and disunity throughout the vast Roman Empire.³ Religious peace was often seen as vital for imperial peace.
Imperial Involvement in Church Affairs: Because of this concern for stability, emperors became heavily involved in trying to resolve (or sometimes, unfortunately, worsen) these theological disputes. They called church councils (like Nicaea), sometimes exiled bishops who didn’t align with their preferred theological stance, and even promoted certain creeds over others.⁷ This set an important precedent for the ongoing relationship between the state and the where political power often intersected with religious matters. God can use even emperors for His purposes!
Widespread Social Unrest: These theological debates were not just for scholars or church councils. Ordinary people—merchants, artisans, shoppers in the marketplace—were often passionately involved in these discussions! St. Gregory of Nyssa famously described how in Constantinople, if you asked the price of bread, you might get a whole sermon on whether the Son was begotten or unbegotten.³ There were even instances of public demonstrations and disturbances as people supported one side or the other.⁷ This shows how deeply matters of faith touched society and how much these truths mattered to everyday believers.

The Arian controversy shows us how interconnected theology, worship, and salvation truly are. A change in understanding who Jesus is inevitably impacts how salvation is understood and how God is worshipped. Although the heresy was a painful and divisive period, it also acted as a crucial catalyst, pushing the Church toward a clearer and more precise statement of its foundational beliefs about God and Christ, truths that continue to sustain us and give us hope today. The major “secular” consequences also highlight how, in that era, theological unity was considered essential for the well-being of the state itself. But through it all, God’s truth prevailed!

If Arianism was once so widespread, why did it eventually fade away?

Arianism was a powerful and influential movement for quite some time. It was particularly strong in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire and, for centuries, it was the main form of Christianity among many Germanic tribes.² But like a large wave that eventually loses its force and pulls back from the shore, Arianism slowly gave way to the enduring strength of Nicene orthodoxy, the truth that stands the test of time! Its decline wasn’t an overnight event a gradual process that unfolded over several centuries.

Several key factors, all part of God’s wonderful plan, contributed to the eventual fading of Arianism:

Theological Strength and Clarity of Nicene Orthodoxy: The defenders of the Nicene faith, including brilliant minds like St. Athanasius, St. Hilary of Poitiers, and the Cappadocian Fathers, presented a powerful and consistent theological vision. They persuasively argued for the full divinity of Christ based on Scripture and sound reasoning, sometimes even using elements of Greek philosophy to help explain their points.⁷ The Nicene Creed itself, with its clear and unmistakable language, provided a solid and unifying standard of what true Christian belief was.¹² The truth about Jesus, as fully God and fully man, resonated deeply with the spiritual needs of people and the powerful witness of Scripture. God’s truth is always compelling!
Lack of Unity Among Arians: Unlike the relatively unified front presented by the Nicene party (especially after the initial debates were settled), the Arians themselves were never a single, cohesive group. They were often divided into different factions with varying beliefs—like the Homoiousians (who said the Son was of similar substance to the Father), the Homoians (who said the Son was like the Father, avoiding “substance” language), and the more radical Anomoeans (who said the Son was unlike the Father).² They produced many different and sometimes conflicting creeds. This internal disunity and shifting theological landscape ultimately weakened their movement. It’s hard for a teaching to stand strong and last when it keeps changing or has many different versions. Truth is consistent!
Imperial Support Eventually Shifted to Orthodoxy: While some earlier Roman emperors, like Constantius II and Valens, supported or tolerated Arianism, this changed significantly with later emperors. A huge turning point was when Emperor Theodosius I, in the late 4th century, made Nicene Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire (through the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 AD). The Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, also called by Theodosius, reaffirmed the Nicene Creed and dealt a decisive blow against Arianism within the Empire.⁵ This imperial backing gave Nicene orthodoxy a major advantage and pushed Arianism to the margins politically and socially within the Roman world. God can turn the hearts of kings!
Conversion of Arian Germanic Kingdoms to Nicene Christianity: For centuries, Arianism had found a stronghold among various Germanic peoples. But over time, these Arian kingdoms gradually converted to Nicene Christianity. One of the most famous examples is the conversion of the Visigoths in Spain under their King Reccared at the Third Council of Toledo in 589 AD.¹² Earlier, the conversion of the Franks under King Clovis I to Nicene Christianity (around 496 AD) was also a major turning point that weakened Arian influence in Western Europe.¹² As these powerful kingdoms embraced the Nicene faith, Arianism lost its key areas of support. God’s kingdom advances!
Arianism’s Inherent Theological Weaknesses: Some historians and theologians suggest that Arianism, with its idea of a created and lesser Son, ultimately failed to satisfy the deepest spiritual and theological needs that the orthodox understanding of Christ addressed.³â¹ The full divinity of Christ was seen as essential for a strong understanding of salvation, worship, and the very nature of God. A faith system that presents a diminished Savior may, in the long run, prove less compelling and less able to answer life’s powerful questions. People hunger for the fullness of God!
Loss of Influence in Key Centers and Among Dynamic Leaders: There’s also a view that Arianism began to lose its appeal in the major cultural and intellectual centers of the Christian world. It may have failed to consistently attract and keep the kind of dynamic, “go-getter” church leaders who could ensure its vitality and spread it to future generations, unlike the Nicene side which had figures of immense stature and lasting influence.³â¹ God raises up leaders for His truth!

So, the decline of Arianism wasn’t due to just one thing rather a complex combination of theological debate, political shifts, cultural assimilation (as Germanic tribes became more integrated with Roman-Nicene populations), and the internal weaknesses and divisions within the Arian movement itself. The eventual triumph of Nicene orthodoxy was not a quick or easy victory after the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. It was a long, often challenging process that spanned generations, involving immense intellectual work, dedicated pastoral care, complex political negotiations, and the unwavering witness of countless believers who held fast to the apostolic faith in Jesus Christ as fully God and fully Savior. This long journey shows the persistence needed to establish and maintain theological truth across diverse cultures and challenging historical times. For a religious system to truly last, it needs not only to be intellectually sound but also spiritually fulfilling and practically workable for its followers. Arianism, with its less-than-fully-divine Christ, may have ultimately struggled to compete in the “spiritual marketplace” against the richer understanding of salvation and the deeper devotional life offered by Nicene Christianity.³â¹ God’s truth always has the final say!

Does Arianism still exist today, or are there beliefs similar to it in the modern world?

You might naturally wonder if Arianism, having been such a big movement in the early still exists in an organized way today. The historical Arian churches and the specific Arian movement that caused so much debate in those early centuries—with its particular councils, creeds, and imperial politics—eventually did fade away and die out.² You won’t find churches in your neighborhoods today that call themselves “Arian” in that same historical sense.

But like an echo that ripples through time, some of the core ideas that marked Arianism have popped up again in different forms throughout Christian history and can be found in some groups and teachings in our modern world.â´ The central Arian ideas—especially denying Jesus Christ’s full, co-equal divinity with God the Father, and rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity—are the key signs of these Arian-like beliefs. Groups that hold such views are often broadly called “nontrinitarian.” It seems that the theological questions that Arianism brought up in the 4th century, especially about the mystery of the Godhead and the desire for what might seem a simpler or more “rational” explanation, continue to be points of discussion and difference.

When we think about modern groups that hold beliefs with similarities to historical Arianism, it’s always important to approach the topic with care and a loving, pastoral heart.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are one contemporary group whose understanding of Christ shares some notable parallels with Arianism. They teach that Jesus Christ is God’s first and greatest creation, that he was Michael the Archangel before he came to earth, and that he is subordinate to Jehovah God, the Father. They explicitly reject the doctrine of the Trinity.â´
Historically, classical Unitarianism also emphasized the absolute oneness of God and often viewed Jesus as an exceptional human being, a great moral teacher, or a prophet not as divine in the Trinitarian sense of being co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father.¹² (It’s good to note that modern Unitarian Universalism is a very diverse movement, and questions about Christ may not be central for many of its followers today).
Beyond these more well-known groups, there can be other smaller religious movements or individuals within various Christian traditions who may hold views that resemble Arianism, even if they don’t use that specific label or consciously identify with historical Arianism.â´

Some theologians also talk about a more subtle, perhaps unintentional, form of Arianism—what one writer has called “the ghost of Arianism”.⁶ This can happen even within mainstream Christian circles if Jesus comes to be seen mainly as a great moral example, a powerful human teacher, or a social reformer, rather than being fully embraced and understood as the divine Son of God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. Such a lessening of Christ’s full divinity can happen if people are “poorly catechized” (not well taught in the core doctrines of the faith) or if their beliefs about who Jesus truly is remain “fuzzy” or underdeveloped.⁶ This is a gentle reminder for all of us, of how important clear teaching is, and how vital it is to have a firm grasp of who the Bible and the historic Church declare Jesus to be. Without a solid foundation in Trinitarian theology, believers might unintentionally drift toward views that, while perhaps not explicitly Arian, can compromise a full and robust understanding of Christ’s person and His mighty work.

Conclusion: Holding Fast to the Wonderful Truth of Jesus

what a journey it has been to explore these ancient questions surrounding Arianism! This look back into church history shows us just how precious the truth about our Lord Jesus Christ truly is. The Arian controversy was a serious and long-lasting challenge, one that shook the early Church to its very core. Yet, through it all, the guided by the Holy Spirit and the faithful witness of courageous leaders, affirmed the wonderful, life-giving truth that Jesus Christ is fully God, the eternal Son, of one substance with the Father. Hallelujah!

He is not just a great teacher, a prophet, or a created being, no matter how special. He is God the Son, existing with the Father and the Holy Spirit in perfect unity and love from eternity to eternity. This is the faith that has sustained believers for two thousand years. It is the faith that gives us hope in the face of sin, peace in the midst of storms, and the promise of everlasting life. What a Savior!

May all of us who seek to understand these things be encouraged to cherish the powerful mystery of the Trinity and the glorious truth of who Jesus is. Let’s hold fast to this wonderful faith, passed down through generations, and rejoice in our amazing, triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For in knowing Him, and in knowing His Son, Jesus Christ, we find the path to true life, abundant joy, and victory every single day! God bless you!