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.