Author: Doyle Srader

The Trial of Arius

There is argument on the validity of the trial of Arius’ outcome. From the history of Arius’ process of creating his dual-converging theology, to the flawed heretical arguments that lead to the trial forcing investigation of the Arian church communities, and the actions and arguments after Arius was indeed convicted as a Heretic, these cemented the correct verdict of guilty – resulting in separation of Arianism from Orthodoxy.

The birth of Arius’ understanding of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit comes from dyohypostatic theology and miahypostatic theology. Both theories do not stand alone, and cannot stand alone, but together they made the heretical threshold for Arius to thoughtfully build upon. Arianism is the belief that there is a Father and a Son; the Son, like any child/parent relationship, is subordinate to his father. This is known as the Subordinationism Theory.

The debates involving Arius were extensive, they even spread faster than Arius could travel. Arius’ theology caused so much discourse in the church, and therefore in the empire, that Constantine, the emperor, felt the need to involve himself.  Constantine called a great council, the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Constantine wished to have a unified Christianity in his empire. His concern was not so much for theological debates; it was on the unity of the church to result in unity for his empire concerning all religions. After the conclusion that Arianism was heresy, Constantine took sides with the council and determined Arianism a denial of faith to the empire, with

The most compelling argument for an unjust verdict at Nicaea is the recognition of the recalls, however, the same issues found at Nicaea still stand. Through the many arguments, old and new, Arius and his followers are continually found to be heretics.

In Conclusion, Arius’ developed a dual-converging heretical theology from dyohypostatic theology and miahypostatic theology, both heretical thoughts; this new theology lead to serious question of Arian and Orthodox church communities. Arius was justifiably left out of the determined Creed of Nicaea at the Council of Nicaea on the grounds of misplacement of Jesus Christ in the divine hierarchy in both chronological and power placement. What Christ accomplished for all does not commute with the theology Arius held. Therefore, the Church is better off without the confusing heresy Arius taught and the trial that determined him unorthodox was correct then, as it is correct now.

HIST 331, History of Christianity I

Melisa Ortiz Berry

Bushnell History Symposium: 11:20 – 11:40 AM

Join our Zoom meeting here. The presenter and faculty advisor both have the password.

Return to timetable

Unitarian Universalism VS Coexistence

Unitarian Universalism is related to the term “coexist”, but it is not the same as Unitarian Universalism. It is important to understand the difference between these two to not muddle the intent and authenticity of both. Unitarian Universalism is a religion while the term “coexistence” is a social cry out for religious and social tolerance. From when Unitarian Universalism and the “coexist” symbols were originated, one far in the past and the other extremely recent, to the furthered development of theological history Unitarian Universalism possesses in its own origination and the arguments of social peace in comparison to religious security and peace surrounding each side: Unitarian Universalism and coexistence are not the same belief.

Unitarian “1. one who believes that the deity exists only in one person and 2. a member of a denomination that stresses individual freedom of belief, the free use of reason in religion, a united world community, and liberal social action.”  Universalism is thought to be traced back to Origen, the well-known theologian, around A.D. 140-150. Unitarian Universalism was forged from Unitarianism and Universalism in the mid-20th century, specifically in 1961, seeing that their religions, since they were similar enough, would be stronger in their efforts together.

The “COEXIST” sticker began at a competition in Jerusalem, created by Piotr Mlodozeniec.  The design was originally with just the David Star, the crescent moon “c” and the cross. The David Star is a symbol for Judaism, the Crescent moon is for Islam and the Cross is for Christianity.

Unitarian Universalists seem to collectively agree that coexistence ideology is part of UU principles but is not an adequate description of their beliefs. There is no denying that these two are similar, but they are clearly not the same. Distinguishing the two comes down to an argument of Religion versus Social argumentation.

Unitarian Universalism is a religion while the term “coexistence” is a social cry out for religious and social tolerance. From when Unitarian Universalism and “coexist” were originated, to the furthered theology UU possesses than coexistence, and the arguments surrounding each side: UU and coexistence are not the same belief. The two beliefs are both commendable in their own way and have similarities in their desires, but due to their differences in root desires, historical upbringings, and modern applications of social or religious arguments they are related by a desire for unity, but by nothing more significant.

HIST 332, History of Christianity II

Melisa Ortiz Berry

Bushnell History Symposium: 10:30 – 11:00 AM

Join our Zoom meeting here. The presenter and faculty advisor both have the password.

Return to timetable