Why was Arius so popular?

[buzuxi02]

It's not that I don't agree with what Jesus said. Of course he is God! just saying you can see what Jesus said in a different way, especially since Jesus often used symbolism. I think that's one reason why Arius got popular.

Its true both sides used certain scriptural verses to justify their positions. The reason the Arian heresy was able to spread was because it originated with those associated with the popular Antiochan bishop and later martyr Lucious (who himself was a disciple of Paul of Samasota,) Arianism originates sometime after 280ad., when the students of Lucious began propagating the heresy. Scholars also believe there was a theological school found by Lucious later which was the starting point of the heresy.
The first known advocate of Arianism was a man called Asterius the Sophist, a disciple of Lucious who relapsed during persecution but rehabilitated his image as a prolific author and charismatic orator.
This is why arians refered to themselves as 'syn-Loukianistoi' (co-Lucianists).
Keep in mind the extreme teaching of Arianism (the heterousians and later Eunomian sect) were completely condemned by the semi arian councils of 350's. What is called arianism post 335ad were more accurately semi-nicean factions who preferred to use the terminology "alike in substance" as homoousios had been tainted with sabellian overtones. After Nicea there was no monolithic block of Arian followers.

 

[Inkfingers]

Being in very nature God He did not consider equality with God something to be grasped. The words of scripture chip away at so called simplicity to reveal an eternally begotten Son, of the same substance as God

Eternally begotten is an oxymoron though.

Begotten means a beginning, whilst eternally says no beginning.

That is why Arianism spread.

 

[Inkfingers]

if you mean by "μονογενής", then you are wrong.

No, I'm not wrong. I'm quoting HOW THE WORD WAS PRESENTED (which is clearly as begotten), and that is how Arianism spread.

 

[DamianWarS]

While accepting that Arius was wrong about Jesus I wonder why he was so popular. It took a lot for Athanasius and others to overthrow his doctrine. Despite the clear declaration of Nicea in 325 it took centuries to extricate him from the mainstream. Even today we have fast growing cults like Jehovah Witnesses who share a version of his teaching. You could even argue that Islam was a form of Arianism. So why was it so hard for people to understand Jesus is fully God, has no beginning and is consubstantial with the Father?

The trinity is counter-intuitive. The disciples were unitarian (as all Jews are) when they started their journey with Christ and you can't really pinpoint where their trinity shift was. I suspect it was less articulated, even in their own heads, since it's not a very articulated taught concept in the bible and is more in between the lines. Perhaps they were more unsure themselves and wary of boxing God in saying God looks this way but he doesn't look the way we always thought he looked like.

As for Islam the Quran is vehemently anti-tritheistic and aggressively Unitarian but intentionally seems to avoid anti-trinitarian language. If you speak to a Muslim they will most likely think Christians believe in 3 gods, The Father, Mary and their offspring (from sexual relations) Jesus. They are taught this narrative because this is what the Quran says some Christians believed despite hundreds of years of correction and definitive proof that this was never any Othorthox teaching of this and Christians call this heresy too. Muhammad had a certain kind of exposure with off the grid Christians that accepted heretical practices like these. The Arab peninsula (the AP) was not part of the fold of the Church and I suspect it's a problem of Nestorianism creep (Nestorian was a Nicene Christian and fully taught and accepted the Trinity) an unchecked Nestorianism took root and it's own beliefs systems emerged because there was no leadership to call them out this easily could happen. These were heretical beliefs and Muhammad disliked it's pagan themes and spoke against it but did not target the trinity specifically perhaps because he didn't understand it or left it as part of the mysteries of God that we should not try and figure out. The product of which is that Muslims will continue to repeat a broken narrative and will continue to look at Christianity as worshiping 3 gods regardless of what they are told simply because the Quran identifies a glimpse into heretical practises they mary with all of Christendom.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Begotten implies a time of begetting which implies non-eternal.

First-born implies a birthing which implies non-eternal.

It is very easy to accept Arianism.

One of the strongest trinity or Tri Unity sections in the bible

Isaiah 48:15. I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.16. Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.17. Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.”

 

[DamianWarS]

Eternally begotten is an oxymoron though.

so is 3 in 1. the creed however wasn't written in English (because English wasn't even a thing) so it might be better to look at the words used rather than a focus of a word that doesn't quite fit.

 

[OzSpen]

While accepting that Arius was wrong about Jesus I wonder why he was so popular. It took a lot for Athanasius and others to overthrow his doctrine. Despite the clear declaration of Nicea in 325 it took centuries to extricate him from the mainstream. Even today we have fast growing cults like Jehovah Witnesses who share a version of his teaching. You could even argue that Islam was a form of Arianism. So why was it so hard for people to understand Jesus is fully God, has no beginning and is consubstantial with the Father?

My understanding of historical theology and the study of church history makes it evident there was so much confusion in the churches about the nature of the Trinity, that Arius came along with a 'simpler' solution. It was heresy but he attempted to simplify a difficult doctrine.

 

[Petros2015]

Eternally begotten is an oxymoron though.

Begotten means a beginning, whilst eternally says no beginning.

Huh. It might work if Time wasn't linear but more like a circular snake eating its tail sort of loop.

...In a time-wimey sort of way.

 

[mindlight]

I think there are two answers to the OP's question.

1. During this time period, theological disputes were tightly involved with church politics. Arius was part of a different community than Athanasius, and was apparently well regarded. Members of his community would support him.

2. It took several more centuries to define a way that Christ could be fully God and fully man. Arius was not rejecting the doctrine we know, but an early version of it. Arius' theology made sense of most of the important Biblical texts on Christology. The alternative may not have been obviously better during that time period.

I think Arius misread the intention of the key NT texts. The Logos was used by Jews as a way to talk about God's presence with his people. John surely didn't intend it to be a separate not-quite-divine entity. That comes from reading John too literally, and in a context very different from the one in which John wrote. But Arius is not the only one to fall into the trap.

This is often portrayed as a conflict between two schools, Alexandria and Antioch. But in practice there were dissenters in both schools. John 1:1 or Hebrews 1 seem quite unambiguous and these texts were available from the first century. Arius's theology defies the sense of scripture, even if like a modern JW he had prepared answers for all the key texts, and yet still it gained traction. Political support from worldly Emperors, ignorance and misuse of words may well be factors as people understood Jesus words in worldly contextual terms

 

[mindlight]

1) Scripture isn’t perfectly and explicitly clear on this matter.
2) It’s simply not easy to believe a man can be God. Not by a long shot.

In the beginning was the Word and the word was with God and the word WAS God!!!

It is hard to believe a man can become God but not that God can become man. As with God all things are possible and with man that is not so.

Maybe the presence of so many new and quite shallow Christians converted after the Edict of Milan was a factor here. There was an influx of the rich and famous to the church with Constantines blessing to it. It reminds me of a church I was in a while back which had an influx of successful CEOs and senior managers. They caused no end of trouble and divisions expecting to be in charge but lacking any real bible knowledge or understanding or the humility of servant hearts.

 

[mindlight]

The original teachings of Arius actually died out pretty quickly after Nicea. He and his followers even agreed to a compromise teaching prior to his death. A new minority group replaced them called the Anomoeans. They were condemned again at semi-Arian councils as simply being heretical party.
The groups that remained are collectively refered to as semi-arians. Most preferred to use an alternative word than homoousios. There were like 2-3 parties all looking to ammend the statement in the Creed that used the homoousios. One of these groups even held a council in Antioch in 341 which upheld the Nicene calculation for the paschalion, and it's canons have been recieved into the church and are recognized as Orthodox.
The reason (semi) arianism died out (besides the fact they could not forge an alliance and agree on an alternate term with majority group more accurately called semi-nicean than arian) was due to the influence of the Cappadocian Father's. They refined and clarified how the terminology of hypostasis, and ousia should be regarded and touched upon the idea of physis.

The confusion, divisions and changes within the Arian camp are important and indicate the worldliness of the objections to Trinitarian thought. A divided house cannot stand. You are right about the contribution of the Cappadocian fathers which would be influential towards the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 381. This was a process and it took a long time to work the thoughts through. From the 20-20 perspective of hindsight it seems obvious that the scriptures declare Jesus God. Maybe the influx of so many Greek intellectuals and high ranking Roman officials into the church at this time introduced a conflict between the essentially pagan worldviews they subscribed to and the purer early church. That Athanasius himself hankered after the desert fathers and the isolation from the worldliness of the new Roman church seems to point to this in fact. Of the three patriarchies Antioch seems to be the one most infested by liberal heretics at the time of the First Ecumenical Council. Since Alexandria was the richer city I would have expected it to be the other way round.

 

[fhansen]

In the beginning was the Word and the word was with God and the word WAS God!!!

Arians had Scripture too. Anyway,

‘Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone’” (Mark 10:17-18 & Luke 18:18-19; cf. Matt 19:16-17).

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me”? (Matt 27:46 & Mark 15:34)

“I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God” (John 20:17).

Paul writes about “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus (Christ)” (Rom 15:6, 2 Cor 1:3, 11.31; Eph 1:17).

Jesus uses the term “My God” 5 times in Revelations (Rev 3:2, 12; cf. 1:6).

“But of that day and/or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (Matt 24:36 & Mark 13:32).

"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. John 14:28

There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph 4:4-6).

It is hard to believe a man can become God but not that God can become man. As with God all things are possible and with man that is not so.

And that's kind of the point. Arianism didn't arise in a vacuum; it simply was more reasonable for one thing. But alright, next time a man tells you He's God, just believe him. Even His disciples failed at times, most notably in their utter despondency at His death even though He prophesied His resurrection-resurrections and God-men just don't align with human experience.

Maybe the presence of so many new and quite shallow Christians converted after the Edict of Milan was a factor here. There was an influx of the rich and famous to the church with Constantines blessing to it. It reminds me of a church I was in a while back which had an influx of successful CEOs and senior managers. They caused no end of trouble and divisions expecting to be in charge but lacking any real bible knowledge or understanding or the humility of servant hearts.

Arianism took root and was widespread well before Constantine. Constantine helped convene the Council of Nicaea, in fact, to resolve the matter. He did not interfere with the Church’s decision making, as it should be, and while He, himself, favored Arianism the bishops at the council hammered out the doctrine of the Trinity and the Nicene creed that goes with it. God maintains truth in His church regardless of human folly either way.

 

[Scott Husted]

While accepting that Arius was wrong about Jesus I wonder why he was so popular. It took a lot for Athanasius and others to overthrow his doctrine. Despite the clear declaration of Nicea in 325 it took centuries to extricate him from the mainstream. Even today we have fast growing cults like Jehovah Witnesses who share a version of his teaching. You could even argue that Islam was a form of Arianism. So why was it so hard for people to understand Jesus is fully God, has no beginning and is consubstantial with the Father?

People need a God they can touch ... and people still have hard time accepting the measure of the love that God expressed via his son for themselves.

He was fully God at birth but he did not know he was ...

 

[Halbhh]

To Everyone --

The whole idea of 'beginning' is mistaken in a straightforward way regardless of viewpoint.

Our regular concepts of infinite and beginning and other such are all mistaken when we try to apply them to God.

Our concepts of 'infinite time' and also that of 'beginning' are both under, subject to (controlled by) time -- a beginning only happens in the field of time.

But, God is not subject to Nature.

-- as that would make Him subject to (less than, contained in, beneath) nature, instead of the creator of nature.

Clearly as the very creator of nature, He is the creator of time and therefore not controlled by time in any way. He could not only start and stop time, make it pass slowly or fast, but simply replace it at will, we might guess. He is above time, timeless, eternal. Time doesn't control His existence.

So, it was always meaningless, contradictory, from the start, to speak of a beginning for God. It's a naturalism type of thinking. There is no beginning for Him, because He exists.

Eternally begotten is an oxymoron though.

Begotten means a beginning, whilst eternally says no beginning.

That is why Arianism spread.

@mindlight

 

[Halbhh]

Also then, people shouldn't assume they know what other people are even saying when other people use words like 'eternal' or 'beginning' or such. They could be thinking of quite a few unalike ideas, some concepts that are simply impossible (contradictory to God's existence), while for some others the words might attached to some true thing, yet not be clearly worded in a way that can be understood as intended, etc.

 

[honey badger]

People need a God they can touch ... and people still have hard time accepting the measure of the love that God expressed via his son for themselves.

He was fully God at birth but he did not know he was ...

He was fully God at birth but he did not know he was ...

i have not considered this before ... even the thought of not considering such a thing escapes me at this moment ... thank you

 

[buzuxi02]

fact. Of the three patriarchies Antioch seems to be the one most infested by liberal heretics at the time of the First Ecumenical Council. Since Alexandria was the richer city I would have expected it to be the other way round

Alexandria was always known to emphasize the divinity of Christ. By 300 AD the term Theotokos was already established in Alexandria as a christological term to confirm the incarnation of the Logos, thus a teaching like arianism was moot in Alexandria..
In Antioch where the humanity and divinity were given distinctions, arose problems as in explaining the unity of these two natures.
Also what has not been said is the strict Arian party was being held together by Eusebius of Nicomedia who was influential with the political authorities. After his death in 341ad it was a minority opinion and all the other Arian parties moved against them. This is seen in the Arian council of Seleucia. This council literally anathemized the extreme arians (Anomoeans) while rejecting both terms homoousios and homoousios. Note how in the decree of the council the idea of Anomoean (Son being unlike the Father) is labeled as a new thing:

. ...Since, however, the terms homoousion (co-essential) and homoiousion (alike in essence) have in time past troubled the minds of many, and still continue to disquiet them; and moreover that a new term has recently been coined by some who assert the anomoion of the Son to the Father: We reject the first two, as expressions which are not found in the Scriptures; but we utterly anathematize the last, and regard such as countenance its use, as alienated from the church. We distinctly acknowledge the homoion (likeness) of the Son to the Father, in accordance with what the apostle has declared concerning him, [424] "Who is the image of the invisible God...... We confess then, and believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, and of things visible and invisible. We believe also in his Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten of him without passion before all ages, God the Word, the only-begotten of God, the Light, the Life, the Truth, the Wisdom: through whom all things were made which are in the heavens and upon the earth, whether visible or invisible....

 

[buzuxi02]

We can see from the above decree of an Arian council what we all lump together today as arians were actually 3 seperate factions;
1. Homoians: the Son is like the Father.
2. Homoiousians- the Son is like in essence to the Father
3 Anomoeans- the Son is unlike the Father.

4. Homoousians(aka Nicene party) - Son is one in essence with the Father.

Athanasios in his epitle De Synodis even extended an olive branch to the moderate Arian party saying they both are saying the same thing:

41. Those who deny the Council altogether, are sufficiently exposed by these brief remarks; those, however, who accept everything else that was defined at Nicæa, and doubt only about the Coessential, must not be treated as enemies; nor do we here attack them as Ario-maniacs, nor as opponents of the Fathers, but we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers , who mean what we mean, and dispute only about the word. For, confessing that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and not from other subsistence, and that He is not a creature nor work, but His genuine and natural offspring, and that He is eternally with the Father as being His Word and Wisdom, they are not far from accepting even the phrase, 'Coessential.' ..... But since they say that He is 'of the essence' and 'Like-in-essence,' what do they signify by these but 'Coessential ?' For, while to say only 'Like-in-essence,' does not necessarily convey 'of the essence,' on the contrary, to say 'Coessential,' is to signify the meaning of both terms, 'Like-in-essence,' and 'of the essence.' And accordingly they themselves are in controversy with those who say that the Word is a creature..

 

[chad kincham]

Begotten implies a time of begetting which implies non-eternal.

First-born implies a birthing which implies non-eternal.

It is very easy to accept Arianism.

Jesus’ body that He incarnated in, did not exist until He was in Mary’s womb.

His body had a beginning. Jesus already existed as God the Word from John 1:1.

Jesus said, before Abraham was, I AM. He existed before He incarnated as a man.

Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith (Jesus said to the Father) Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

Modern English:
Heb 10:5 For this reason, when Christ was about to come into the world, he said to God: "You do not want sacrifices and offerings, but you have prepared a body for me.

 

[Inkfingers]

Jesus’ body that He incarnated in, did not exist until He was in Mary’s womb.

His body had a beginning. Jesus already existed as God the Word from John 1:1.

Jesus said, before Abraham was, I AM. He existed before He incarnated as a man.

Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith (Jesus said to the Father) Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

Modern English:
Heb 10:5 For this reason, when Christ was about to come into the world, he said to God: "You do not want sacrifices and offerings, but you have prepared a body for me.

Yet he was first born before all...

The language even of Son and Father has a temporal reference; in that a Father by definition precedes a Son.