Arianism, Heresy & The Council of Nicea

The Council of Nicea is probably one of the most misrepresented events in early Christianity, with a lot of misinformation being spread around on social media. The same goes for Arius, the Arians and what they actually believed. In this video, we tackle these topics and try to give a more proper overview of the complexities of early Christian theology.

Stream my new song Isthmus here:

Support Let's Talk Religion on Patreon:
Or through a one-time donation:

Music by:
Filip Holm

Sources/Recomended Reading:

Brakke, David (2012). "Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity". Harvard University Press.

King, Karen (2003). "What is Gnosticism?". Harvard University Press.

Williams, Rowan (2002). "Arius: Heresy & Tradition". Eerdmans.

#arianism #christianity #councilofnicea

[briananderson]

That was VERY enlightening -- particularly the idea that The Council of Nicea was just one step in a continuing debate -- very useful insight -- thank you!

[rationaltrekker]

As one who has studied such things at an Orthodox theological seminary (St. Vladimir's, 1993, 1995, M.Div, & M.Th.) I am VERY impressed. You certainly would have passed exams set by my professors - top marks, even. You touched on the key historical figures and the nuances of the controversy over what it means to be divine, or homoousious, or created and you frame in the context of the "divine life." Well done!

[AM_SDG]

Thanks Filip for every video you produce. Each one of your videos speaks volumes about your knowledge and amount of the research you do. Love your choice of quotes and the way you read them is so calming. Thank you

[MiroAMalek]

I went down a rabbit hole and binge-watched a number of your videos. Thanks for the educational content!

[walterevans]

Thank you for shedding light and clarity on this topic. It's much needed.

[lorenzovive]

Thank you SO much for addressing those misconceptions. I happen tp teach Medieval History at one college and two universities. Some textbooks have even included these same mistakes. Love the channel!

[sawdust]

One of my favorite YouTube channels. Thanks for all the great work!

[SirBoggins]

I find it ironic how Roman Emperor Constantine I was not only the one who helped in denouncing the Arian "heresy", but was also the one who got baptised by one of its adherents, i.e. he was baptised by an Arian Cleric, that being Eusebius, a distant relative and imperial advisor of Constantine I! 😂

[actthree]

Very much appreciate this effort to counter misinformation.

Let's have tea!🙂

[Cor]

Can you imagine how this arcane controversy would have taken place if our present-day social media had been available in the fourth century? Instagram, TikTok, Discord, X, etc, etc? The heated arguments, the foul language, the hatreds, the threats?

I suppose we should be thankful that they didn't have YouTube!😳🔥☠️

[jeffrydiamond]

Excellent video. I read a book on Arianism, and later the two big councils: Nicea, and later at Piacenza. Similar arguments--particularly with the Greeks--continued. Another book, The Desert Fathers, is also an excellent look into the movement within the few years following Jesus' death and resurrection.

[ohmane]

It’s incredible how an ancient creed such as the Nicene Creed has survived intact for over a millennium and forms a basis of the majority of Christians and their understanding of the faith. God bless and have a good Christmas to whoever is here reading.

[karmssr-flxj]

Berbers of North Africa played a huge roles in creation of chrisitanity like Arius, St Augustin, St Mark, Pope Gelasius I the berber who created St Valentine

[jamlife]

You should make a video about spirituality in Alcoholics Anonymous. It’s by no means religious organization but it is based entirely on building a relationship with a higher power and has millions of members around the world. The ins and outs of AA’s spirituality are fascinating. It’s one of the largest and most widespread spirituality based institutions in the world and no one talks about it. It distills religion and spirituality into a program designed to use a relationship with God to relieve alcoholics of their obsession to drink.

[fighterofthenightman]

I love this topic, thank you so much for such an amazing video!!

[wthMerhaba]

What timing. I just listened to Mike Duncan's "History of Rome" podcast on Constantine and he covered this period, but explicitely said he did not want to get into the esoteric details of the Council of Nicea. Here I am, ready to dive in.

[DaveTheTurd]

Extremely grateful for your channel in general, and this video essay in particular. You've assisted me greatly in my quest these past few years to peel back the layers of onion skin on early church history... my prime challenge has been to hang on to some semblance of my faith in light of the stream of clarifying information I've been receiving from you and others. Talk about a mixed blessing, lol.... the more I learn, the more grateful I am, the more my faith dissolves and transforms.... it's a pruning indeed....

[smez]

The kind of subordination in particular that separates Arianism from Orthodoxy is that the Arians view the Son as created while the Orthodox view him as begotten and not made. That is, Arians believe that the Son is different in nature than God the Father, thus a creature made, while the Orthodox believe that he is the true Son of God the Father, thus begotten from the Father and sharing his nature (as truly begotten sons share the same nature as the parent who begot them).

That the Son is "subordinate" in other ways is also very much part of Orthodox theology, in which it is also confessed that the Son is from the Father (i.e. the "true God from true God" in the Nicene creed), that the Son derives his being and all that he is and has from the Father (as the Father is unbegotten while the Son is begotten from him), that the Son has no power or energy peculiar to himself but rather only has what he derives from the Father, etc.

For example, St. John of Damascus writes in An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith that:
"if we say that the Father is the origin of the Son and greater than the Son, we do not suggest any precedence in time or superiority in nature of the Father over the Son (for through His agency He made the ages), or superiority in any other respect save causation. And we mean by this, that the Son is begotten of the Father and not the Father of the Son, and that the Father naturally is the cause of the Son."

And:
"it should be understood that we do not speak of the Father as derived from any one, but we speak of Him as the Father of the Son. And we do not speak of the Son as Cause or Father, but we speak of Him both as from the Father, and as the Son of the Father."

And again:
"The Son is from the Father, and derives from Him all His properties: hence He cannot do ought of Himself. For He has not energy peculiar to Himself and distinct from the Father."

In other words, the Orthodox belief is that the Son is eternally begotten from the Father and derives all that he is as has from him, and that the power and energy and authority thus is one in the unity of the Trinity, from the Father through the Son. What the Son has literally just is what the Father has, as he receives all from the Father, and his nature is the nature of the Father, as this is the nature he derives from him by being begotten from him. This is why these hypostases are considered co-equal and of one nature - as all that the Father has he communicates to his Son, and as the nature derived from the Father by the Son is the very nature of the Father. But there is still clearly "subordination" in the sense of causation, as the Father is the source of the Son and of all his properties.

In the Arian view the Son is not truly begotten by the Father but rather made ex nihilo, or "outside" the proper Godhead; and as he is not truly begotten, he does not derive the Father's nature from him through his generation. The Son rather is a separate divine being, with his own particular nature, power, energy, authority, etc. distinct from that of the Father, and in all aspects lesser than that of the Father. Basically you don't have one Godhead in distinct but inseparable hypostases, like in the Orthodox view of the unity of the Trinity, but rather two different godheads, one superior and uncreated in the Father and one lesser and created in the Son.

This is really the main difference between Arianism and Orthodoxy (when referring to true Arianism, not later Homoiousianism or Homoianism), and why Arianism was such a scandal to many of the Orthodox (or proto-orthodox), as the Arian view really separates the Godhead of the Trinity into separate godheads and thus the hypostases of the Trinity into separate gods with separate powers rather than the one Godhead of the Father being the one Godhead of the unity of the Trinity. As St. Athanasius writes in his Third Discourse Against the Arians: "thus we confess God to be one through the Triad, and we say that it is much more religious than the godhead of the heretics with its many kinds, and many parts, to entertain a belief of the One Godhead in a Triad."

Both Orthodoxy and Arianism include some form of subordination, this is not really the issue of the disagreement - the disagreement is about the particular form of subordination confessed by the Arians (subordination in nature, thus the Son being a creature, having a separate godhead, with separate power, energy, etc. from the Father) which results in the two hypostases being separate gods (one uncreated and by nature superior, one created and by nature inferior) rather than the one united Godhead.

[danh]

As an Alexandrian Orthodox Christian, its super enlightening to see this topic covered from a scholarly point of view. We are often taught the “true” reason for Nicaea (“there was a time when the Son was not”) but we are never taught the point that the Son came after the Father *ontologically* rather than temporally.

[amycantwell]

I appreciate the lite music in background but not interfering with your message. Good job.