Hubbry Logo
Semi-ArianismSemi-ArianismMain
Open search
Semi-Arianism
Community hub
Semi-Arianism
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Semi-Arianism
Semi-Arianism
Semi-Arianism
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Part of a series of articles on
Arianism
History and theology
Arian leaders
Other Arians
Modern semi-Arians
Opponents
icon Christianity portal

Semi-Arianism was a position regarding the relationship between God the Father and the Son of God, adopted by some 4th-century Christians. Though the doctrine modified the teachings of Arianism, it still rejected the doctrine that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-eternal, and of the same substance, or consubstantial, and was therefore considered to be heretical by many contemporary Christians.[1]

Arius held that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were three separate essences or substances (ousia) and that the Son and Spirit derived their divinity from the Father, were created, and were inferior to the Godhead of the Father. Semi-Arians asserted that the Son was "of a similar substance" (homoiousios) as the Father but not "of the same substance" (homoousios).[1]

History

[edit]

Arianism was the view of Arius and his followers, the Arians, that Jesus was subordinate to, and of a different being (ousia) to God the Father. Arians opposed the view that the three persons of the Trinity were of one being or substance. Arianism spread among the Church of Alexandria and the Eastern Mediterranean. After the First Council of Nicaea condemned Arianism as heresy, many Christians adopted compromise views in which they remained in communion with Arians without adopting Arianism itself. Various formulae, such as the homoiousian and the homoean, were proposed to compromise between Arian teachings (heteroousios) and the doctrine of one substance (homoousios) asserted in the Nicene Creed.

After the 325 Council of Nicea anathemized Arianism: the majority of the Eastern bishops, who agreed to the deposition of Athanasius of Alexandria at Tyre in 335 and received the Arians to communion at Jerusalem on their repentance, were not Arians. The Dedication Council of Antioch in 341 put forth a creed which was unexceptionable but for its omission of the Nicene formula "of One Substance." Even disciples of Arius such as bishop George of Laodicea (335–47) and Eustathius of Sebaste (c. 356–80) joined the moderate party, and after the death of Eusebius of Nicomedia, the leaders of the court faction, Ursacius of Singidunum, Valens of Mursa and Germinius of Sirmium, were not tied to any formula, for Emperor Constantius II himself hated Arianism, though he disliked Athanasius yet more. When Marcellus of Ancyra was deposed in 336, he was succeeded by Basil. Marcellus was reinstated by the Council of Serdica and bishop Julius of Rome in 343, but Basil was restored in 350 by Constantius, over whom he gained considerable influence. He was the leader of a council at Sirmium in 351, held against Photinus who had been a deacon at Ancyra, and the canons of this synod begin by condemning Arianism, though they do not quite come up to the Nicene standard. Basil had afterwards a disputation with the Anomoean Aëtius.[2]

After the defeat of Magnentius at Mursa in 351, Valens, bishop of that city, became the spiritual director of Constantius. In 355 Valens and Ursacius obtained the exile of the Western confessors Eusebius, Lucifer of Cagliari, Hilary of Poitiers, and Liberius followed. In 357 they issued the second Creed of Sirmium, or "formula of Hosius", in which homoousios and homoiousios were both absent. Eudoxius seized the See of Antioch, and supported Aëtius and his disciple Eunomius.[2]

The Third Council of Sirmium in 357 was the high point of Arianism. The Seventh Arian Confession (Second Sirmium Confession) held that both homoousios (of one substance) and homoiousios (of similar substance) were unbiblical and that the Father is greater than the Son. (This confession was later known as the Blasphemy of Sirmium.)

But since many persons are disturbed by questions concerning what is called in Latin substantia, but in Greek ousia, that is, to make it understood more exactly, as to 'coessential,' or what is called, 'like-in-essence,' there ought to be no mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in divine Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they are above men's knowledge and above men's understanding;[3]

It has been noted also that the Greek term "homoousian", which Athanasius of Alexandria favored, was actually a term that was reported to be put forth and favored also by Sabellius, and was a term that many followers of Athanasius took issue with and were uneasy about. The Semi-Arians also objected to the term. Their objection to the term "homoousian" was that it was considered to be "un-Scriptural, suspicious, and of a Sabellian tendency."[4] This was because Sabellius also considered the Father and the Son to be "one substance", meaning that, to Sabellius, the Father and Son were "one essential Person" interacting with creation as necessary.

Basil of Ancyra

[edit]

In the Lent of 358, Basil, along with many bishops, was holding the dedicatory feast of a new church he had built at Ancyra when he received a letter from George of Laodicea, relating how Eudoxius had approved of Aëtius, and begging Macedonius of Constantinople, Basil, and the rest of the assembled bishops to decree the expulsion of Eudoxius and his followers from Antioch, else that great see were lost. In consequence, the Synod of Ancyra published a long reply addressed to George and the other bishops of Phoenicia in which they recite the Creed of Antioch (341), adding explanations against the "unlikeness" of the Son to the Father taught by the Arians and Anomoeans, (from anomoios), and showing that the very name of father implies a son of like substance (homoiousios, or homoios kat ousian) Anathematisms are appended in which Anomoeanism is explicitly condemned and the teaching of "likeness of substance" enforced. The nineteenth of these canons forbids the use also of homoousios and tautoousios; this may be an afterthought due to the instance of Macedonius, as Basil does not seem to have insisted on it later. Legates were dispatched to the Council at Sirmium: Basil, Eustathius of Sebaste, an ascetic of no dogmatic principles, Eleusius of Cyzicus, a follower of Macedonius, and the priest Leontius, one of the emperor's chaplains. They arrived just in time, for the emperor had been lending his ear to a Eudoxian, but he now veered round, issuing a letter (Sozomen, IV, xiv) declaring the Son to be "like in substance" to the Father, and condemning the Arians of Antioch.[2]

Epiphanius of Salamis

[edit]

In the mid-4th century Epiphanius stated, "Semi-Arians... hold the view of the Son, that he was forever with the Father... but has been begotten without beginning and not in time... But all of these negate, or it has been said, blaspheme the Holy Spirit, and do not count him in the Godhead with the Father and the Son."[5]

According to Sozomen, at this point Pope Liberius was released from exile upon signing three formulae combined by Basil. Basil persuaded Constantius to summon a general council, Ancyra being proposed, then Nicomedia (both in Asia Minor), but as the latter city was destroyed by an earthquake, Basil was again at Sirmium in 359 where the Arianizers had meanwhile regained their footing; with Germinius of Sirmium, George of Alexandria, Ursacius and Valens, and bishop (later saint) Marcus of Arethusa, he held a conference which lasted until night. A confession of faith, ridiculed under the name of the "dated creed", was drawn up by Marcus on 22 May (Hilary, "Fragment. xv"). Arianism was of course rejected, but the homoios kata ten ousian was not admitted, and the expression kata panta homoios, "like in all things", was substituted. Basil was disappointed, and added to his signature the explanation that the words "in all things" meant not only in will, but in existence and being (kata ten hyparxin kai kata to einai). Not content with this, Basil, George of Laodicea and others published a joint explanation (Epiph., lxxiii, 12–22) that "in all things" must include "substance".[2]

At Seleucia, 359

[edit]

The court party arranged that two councils should be held, one at Rimini (Italy) and the other at Seleucia. At Seleucia, in 359, the Semi–Arians were in a majority, being supported by such men as St. Cyril of Jerusalem, his friend Silvanus of Tarsus and even Hilary of Poitiers, but they were unable to obtain their ends. Basil, Silvanus and Eleusius, therefore, went as envoys to Constantinople, where a council was held in 360, which followed Rimini in condemning homoiousios together with homoousios and allowed homoios alone, without addition. This new phrase was the invention of Acacius of Cæsarea, who now deserted the more extreme Arians and became leader of the new "Homoean" party. He procured the exile of Macedonius, Eleusius, Basil, Eustathius, Silvanus, Cyril and others.[2]

Constantius II died in 361. Under Julian the exiles returned. Basil was probably dead. Macedonius organized a party which confessed the Son to be kata panta homoios, while it declared the Holy Ghost to be the minister and servant of the Father and a creature. Eleusius joined him, and so did Eustathius for a time. This remnant of the Semi-Arian party held synods at Zele and elsewhere. The accession of Jovian, who was orthodox, induced the versatile Acacius, with Meletius of Antioch and twenty-five bishops, to accept the Nicene formula, adding an explanation that the Nicene Fathers meant by homoousios merely homoios kat ousian – thus Acacius had taken up the original formula of the Semi-Arians. In 365 the Macedonians assembled at Lampsacus under the presidency of Eleusius and condemned the Councils of Ariminum and Antioch (in 360), asserting again the likeness in substance. But the threats of the Arian emperor Valens caused Eleusius to sign an Arian creed at Nicomedia in 366. He returned to his diocese full of remorse, and begged for the election of another bishop, but his diocesans refused to let him resign.[2]

The West was at peace under Valentinian I, so the Semi-Arians sent envoys to that emperor and to the pope to get help. Pope Liberius refused to see them until they presented him with a confession of faith which included the Nicene formula. He seems to have been unaware that the party now rejected the divinity of the Holy Ghost; but this was perhaps not true of the envoys Eustathius and Silvanus. On the return of the legates, the documents they brought were received with great joy by a synod at Tyana, which embraced the Nicene faith. But another synod in Caria still refused the homoousion.[2]

Council of Constantinople and after

[edit]

In 381 the First Council of Constantinople was also called in order to attempt to deal with the binitarians who were mainly Semi-Arians then.[citation needed] However, as the Trinity was officially finalized at this time, the offended binitarians walked out.

For the rest of the history of the Semi-Arians (they were also called Macedonians); see Pneumatomachi.[6]

Also, in more modern times, Semi-Arian groups are said to include non-Trinitarian groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses[7][8] and Creation Seventh Day Adventists.[9]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Sources

[edit]
  • Basilius of Ancyra, Eleusius, Eustathius of Sebaste by VENABLES in Diction. Christ. Biog.
  • LICHTENSTEIN, Eusebius von Nikomedien (Halle, 1903)
  • LOOFS, Eustathius von Sebaste und die Chronologie der Basilius-Briefe (Halle, 1898).
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Semi-Arianism

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Semi-Arianism was a fourth-century Christian theological position asserting that the is of similar substance (homoiousios) to the , distinguishing itself from both the Nicene doctrine of identical substance (homoousios) and the stricter Arian view of dissimilarity (heterousios or anomoeios). This intermediate stance sought to affirm the 's divinity while avoiding the perceived modalistic implications of homoousios, emphasizing scriptural language of likeness over philosophical identity of essence. Prominent among Eastern bishops, Semi-Arianism was advanced by leaders such as Basil of Ancyra, who rejected the term homoousios as unscriptural and prone to Sabellian misinterpretation, favoring instead formulas like "the Son is like the Father according to the Scriptures." Key councils, including in 359, reflected its temporary dominance by adopting homoiousios and deposing Nicene partisans, yet internal divisions and pressure from imperial politics fragmented the movement. Though initially a conservative response to Arian in the East, Semi-Arianism faced condemnation as insufficiently orthodox, culminating in its suppression at the of in 381, which reaffirmed homoousios and integrated remaining adherents into Nicene communion under conditions of repentance. Its legacy persists in critiques of creedal terminology, highlighting tensions between biblical fidelity and conciliar formulations in early Trinitarian debates.

Theological Foundations

Core Doctrine and Terminology

Semi-Arianism, often termed Homoiousianism, centered on the assertion that the Son shares a similar substance (homoiousios, from Greek homoios meaning "similar" and ousia meaning "substance" or "essence") with the Father, thereby affirming the Son's divinity and eternal generation while denying full consubstantiality. This position rejected the Nicene Creed's homoousios ("of the same substance"), which implied numerical identity of essence between Father and Son, as potentially blurring distinctions within the Godhead or suggesting modalistic tendencies. Proponents maintained that the Son, though begotten from the Father's essence and thus uncreated, remained subordinate in authority and derived in origin, preserving a causal hierarchy without reducing the Son to a creature as in strict Arianism. The doctrinal nuance hinged on homoiousios versus homoousios, a distinction symbolized by the addition of a single (ι) in the Greek, proverbial for subtle yet substantive theological differences. Semi-Arians critiqued homoousios as unbiblical and philosophically imprecise, arguing it could imply the Son's co-eternality in a way that undermined the Father's unique as unbegotten source. They drew from scriptural emphases on the Son's likeness to the Father (e.g., John 14:9, "He who has seen me has seen the ") to support similarity without identity, positioning their view as a against Anomoean 's heterousios ("different substance"), which deemed the Son unlike the Father in essence and thus created ex nihilo. Key terminology included "Homoiousians" for adherents, contrasting "Homoousians" (Nicenes) and "Anomoeans" (strict Arians), with Semi-Arian creeds often omitting substance language altogether in favor of phrases like "like the Father" (homoios tô Patri) to evade Sabellian conflation or Arian . This framework allowed flexibility in synodal formulas, as seen in Eastern councils where homoiousios served as a rallying point for moderate anti-Arians before evolving under political pressures.

Distinctions from Strict Arianism and Nicene Orthodoxy

Semi-Arianism, or Homoiousianism, rejected the strict Arian (Anomoean) position that the Son was a created being with a temporal origin, asserting instead the eternal begottenness of the Son from the Father without implying creation ex nihilo. Strict Arians, adhering to Arius's formulation, maintained that "there was [a time] when he [the Son] was not," portraying the Son as a subordinate creature distinct in essence (heteroousios) from the unbegotten Father. In contrast, Semi-Arians emphasized the Son's co-eternality and divine attributes, such as immutability and omnipotence, derived through eternal generation, thereby affirming a qualified divinity while avoiding the radical subordinationism of strict Arianism. This stance positioned Semi-Arianism as a moderating theology that sought to preserve monotheism without denying the Son's worship as God. From Nicene orthodoxy, the primary divergence centered on the precise nature of the Father-Son relationship, encapsulated in the terms homoousios ("of the same substance") versus homoiousios ("of similar substance"). Nicene proponents, as defined at the Council of Nicaea in 325, insisted on homoousios to underscore the Son's full equality, co-eternality, and with the Father, countering any hint of inequality or derivation that could undermine the Son's divinity. Semi-Arians, however, eschewed homoousios due to its potential to suggest either Sabellian modalism—blurring the distinct persons of Father and Son—or a corporeal division of the divine essence, akin to partitioning material substance; they favored homoiousios to maintain both the Son's essential likeness to the Father and the integrity of their personal distinctions. This linguistic preference reflected a deeper caution against formulations perceived as philosophically imprecise or prone to misinterpretation, though it was criticized by Nicenes as introducing an of difference that effectively subordinated the Son.

Historical Origins

Reactions to the Council of Nicaea (325)

The Council of Nicaea in 325 condemned Arianism and affirmed that the Son is homoousios (of the same substance or essence) with the Father, a formulation endorsed by roughly 300 bishops under imperial pressure from Constantine I. However, the decree faced immediate resistance from a minority, with only five bishops—Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, Theonas of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais—openly refusing to subscribe due to objections against homoousios, leading to their deposition and exile. These dissenters argued the term was unscriptural, potentially implying a material division of the divine essence or confusion of persons, echoing earlier condemnations of modalist figures like Paul of Samosata. Even among subscribers, acceptance was often qualified; Eusebius of Caesarea, a prominent historian and bishop, signed the creed but in a letter to his diocese shortly after explained it as denoting the Son's derivation "from the essence" of the Father without implying two unbegotten beings, thereby interpreting homoousios to align with his subordinationist leanings rather than full consubstantiality. Theological unease with homoousios stemmed from its non-biblical origins and associations with Sabellian monarchianism, which blurred distinctions between Father and Son, prompting moderates to fear it compromised the monarchy of the Father or suggested corporeal division of God. Eusebius of Nicomedia emerged as a leading opponent, leveraging influence at court to advocate for Arius's rehabilitation; by 327, he and allies like Theognis secured partial restoration, while pressuring for councils to revisit Nicaea's terms. This Eusebian faction, blending strict Arians and conservatives wary of Nicene language, organized opposition through synods such as that at Antioch in 325–326, where they continued promoting subordinationist views that the Son was divine but not co-essential. These reactions laid the groundwork for Semi-Arianism, or homoiousianism, as a mediating position rejecting both Arian dissimilarity (heterousios) and Nicene identity of essence, instead proposing homoiousios (of similar substance) to affirm the Son's likeness to the Father without the perceived risks of homoousios. The initial post-Nicene agitation, marked by exiles, recalls, and doctrinal maneuvering—such as Constantine's 335 Council of Tyre deposing Athanasius—fostered this evolution among Eastern bishops who sought scriptural fidelity over philosophical terms, setting the stage for prolonged controversy until the 360s. By privileging similarity over sameness, proto-Semi-Arians like those in the Eusebian orbit aimed to preserve while accommodating broader episcopal consensus against strict .

Rise of Homoiousian Leaders like Basil of Ancyra

Following the deposition of Marcellus of Ancyra at a in in 336 for suspected Sabellian tendencies, , a local trained as a physician, was elected bishop of Ancyra by supporters seeking continuity in opposition to while avoiding perceived excesses in Nicene terminology. 's early tenure involved reinstatement after a temporary deposition at the Council of Sardica in 342, occurring around 348 under Emperor , whose policies increasingly favored moderate anti-Arian positions over strict . By the mid-350s, amid escalating divisions between Nicene partisans, strict Arians (anomoioi), and extremists like Photinus, Basil allied with George of Laodicea to lead the emerging homoiousian coalition, which rejected both the Nicene homoousios (same substance, viewed as risking modalism) and anomoian denial of substantial likeness between Father and Son. This group positioned itself as defenders of scriptural monarchy of the Father and eternal generation of the Son, gaining imperial backing from Constantius II after councils like Sirmium in 351 condemned Photinus but left ousia terms ambiguous. Basil's writings and synodal activities emphasized the Son's begotten likeness to the Father, distinguishing it from creation ex nihilo, thereby appealing to Eastern bishops wary of Western Nicene rigor. The decisive consolidation of homoiousian influence occurred at the Synod of Ancyra in winter 358, summoned and chaired by Basil with around 12 participants, including Macedonius of Constantinople, Eugenius of Nicaea, and Eustathius of Sebaste; George of Laodicea subscribed post-facto despite absence. Convened in response to George of Laodicea's warnings against Aetius's anomoian innovations in Antioch, the synod dispatched an envoy to Constantius II and issued anathemas condemning Aetius's teachings that the Son is unlike (anomoios) the Father in essence and a creature. The resulting Synodal Letter, authored under Basil's direction, classically articulated homoiousian doctrine: the Son is "like the Father according to the substance" (homoiousios), eternally begotten and sharing divine attributes without implying numerical identity or subordination to creaturehood, explicitly rejecting homoousios as philosophically imprecise and anomoios as heretical. This document elevated Basil as the faction's preeminent voice, temporarily aligning homoiousians with imperial orthodoxy against Acacian radicals and fostering a middle path that influenced subsequent Eastern synods.

Key Councils and Developments

Synods of Sirmium and Ariminum (357–359)

In the autumn of 357, a synod convened in Sirmium under imperial influence issued the Second Creed of Sirmium, also known as the "Blasphemy of Sirmium," which rejected both the Nicene term homoousios ("of the same substance") and the Semi-Arian homoiousios ("of like substance") as unscriptural and extraneous to doctrine. The creed affirmed one God the Father and His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ, begotten before all ages from the Father, who became incarnate, suffered, and rose, while emphasizing scriptural language alone and the Father's superiority, citing passages like John 14:28 ("the Father is greater than I"). Attended by a small group of bishops including the Homoian leaders Germinius of Sirmium, Valens of Mursa, and Ursacius of Singidunum, the synod subordinated the Son to the Father without specifying likeness in substance, aligning more closely with Anomoean views of dissimilarity despite initial moderate intent. This formula, pressured by Acacius of Antioch and Eudoxius of Antioch, was signed by figures like Hosius of Corduba but provoked backlash from Semi-Arians, who viewed it as veering toward strict Arian subordinationism. The creed's ambiguity fueled Semi-Arian resistance, leading to a follow-up in in 358 that condemned extreme Anomoean positions and briefly rehabilitated homoiousios under leaders like Basil of Ancyra, though imperial policy under continued to favor non-substantialist language. By 359, to enforce doctrinal unity, Constantius summoned parallel councils at Ariminum in the West and in the East, aiming for a compromise avoiding ousia terms altogether. At Ariminum, opening in early July 359 with approximately 400 Western bishops chaired by Restitutus of , a majority of about 320 Nicene-leaning bishops initially deposed the minority of around 80 Semi-Arians, including Ursacius, Germinius, and Auxentius of , for their anti-Nicene propositions. Prolonged sessions, lasting several months, saw the majority isolated without supplies or communication, subjected to imperial threats via consul Taurus and persuasive arguments against non-scriptural terminology, leading most to subscribe under duress to a Homoian formula declaring the "like the according to the Scriptures" (homoios kata tas graphas), omitting any reference to substance or . This mirrored the Dated Creed promulgated at on May 22, 359, which prohibited ousia or hypostasis in Trinitarian descriptions, affirmed the 's eternal generation and likeness to the per Scripture, and detailed His and role in , reflecting Constantius's push for scriptural simplicity over philosophical terms. The Ariminum outcome, decried by critics like as making "the whole world groan to find itself Arian," marginalized Semi-Arian insistence on homoiousios by enforcing a vaguer likeness doctrine, though some Semi-Arians participated in its adoption; subsequent retractions by figures like many Italian bishops highlighted the coercive nature, yet it temporarily advanced Homoian dominance at the expense of both Nicene and distinctly Semi-Arian positions.

Council of Seleucia (359)

The Council of Seleucia convened in September 359 at under the auspices of Emperor , paralleling the simultaneous Western at Ariminum to forge a unified amid escalating divisions in the . Approximately 160 Eastern attended, though accounts vary, with the gathering chaired not by a but by imperial officials Leonas, a court eunuch, and the military count Lauricius, reflecting the emperor's intent to enforce compliance. The exposed fractures within the anti-Nicene coalition, pitting Homoiousians—adherents of Semi-Arianism who maintained the Son's "similar substance" (homoiousios) to the against Arian denial of likeness—with , led by Acacius of Caesarea, who eschewed language entirely and favored scriptural "likeness" (homoios) without substantive qualification. The Homoiousians, numbering around 110 and including figures like Eustathius of Sebaste and Silvanus of Tarsus, held a slim majority and sought to reaffirm the of Antioch (341), which described the as "like the in all things" while anathematizing Arius's extremes of dissimilarity. Acacius, supported by about 50 bishops aligned with Eudoxius of Antioch, proposed an alternative formula derived from the 351 creed, omitting essence or similarity terms to avoid perceived innovations. Debates, commencing , rapidly shifted from doctrine to personal accusations, with each faction invoking prior synodal depositions to undermine opponents. The charged with for rejecting likeness, while condemned terminology as novel and heretical, insisting on scriptural purity over philosophical constructs. No consensus emerged; the assembly nominally endorsed the Antiochene statement but dissolved in acrimony after , backed by Leonas, secured the deposition of roughly 36 leaders—including Eustathius, Silvanus, and Eleusius of —on historical irregularity grounds, though the briefly exiled Acacius. This inconclusive result marked a setback for Semi-Arianism, as imperial pressure post-council compelled many Homoiousians to acquiesce to the Homoean Dated from Ariminum, which emphasized likeness sans substance, further eroding their doctrinal cohesion and accelerating alignment with Constantius's policies favoring ambiguity over explicit similarity. The persisted, with surviving Semi-Arian enclaves retreating to figures like Acacius of Antioch's namesake successor, foreshadowing their marginalization under subsequent emperors.

Post-Seleucia Shifts and Acacian Influence

Following the Council of Seleucia in September 359, where approximately 160 Eastern bishops, predominantly , deposed Acacius of Caesarea for his Anomoian leanings and rejected both the Nicene homoousios and extreme Arian formulations, imperial pressure under prompted a doctrinal pivot toward ambiguity. The council had affirmed a echoing the Antiochene formula of 341, emphasizing the Son's likeness to the Father without substantive terminology, but this was undermined by Constantius' preference for unification via evasion of contested terms like . Acacius, leveraging his position as of Caesarea and prior alliances with Eusebian moderates, emerged as the architect of the Homoian shift, proposing a creed at declaring the Son "like the Father" (homoios) sans qualifiers such as "in " or reference to substance, which condemned both homoousios and homoiousios. This formula, designed to subsume Semi-Arian hesitations under a vaguer banner, gained traction as Constantius convened a follow-up at in 360, where Acacius presided and secured endorsement of the Homoian creed amid the deposition of key Semi-Arian figures including of Ancyra, Eustathius of Sebaste, and Silvanus of Tarsus. Over 70 Eastern bishops subscribed, marking a coerced realignment wherein many Semi-Arians accommodated the omission of homoiousios to retain episcopal standing, though it diluted their substantive similarity doctrine. The Acacian party's ascendancy fragmented Semi-Arian cohesion, as Homoianism—prioritizing scriptural likeness over philosophical essence—absorbed wavering adherents while alienating purists who viewed it as a concession to Eusebian rather than theological precision. By late 360, this influence extended westward via the Ariminum council's earlier Homoian subscriptions, enforced under threat of exile, effectively sidelining resistance until Constantius' death in November 361 disrupted Arian dominance. Acacius' maneuvers, blending intrigue with doctrinal minimalism, thus catalyzed a transitional phase where Semi-Arianism's middle-ground aspirations yielded to imperial-favored .

Prominent Figures

Proponents and Moderators

Basil of Ancyra (died c. 360) served as the principal leader of the faction, ascending to the bishopric of Ancyra in 336 after the deposition of Marcellus of Ancyra for Sabellian tendencies. As a former physician, he rallied opposition to both strict Arian and the Nicene homoousios, emphasizing the Son's eternal generation from the Father with a "similar substance" (homoiousios). In 351, Basil convened and presided over a at that anathematized Photinus of Sirmium for denying the Son's preexistence while affirming divine attributes like immutability and likeness to the Father in the Son, thereby distinguishing Semi-Arian views from Photinian modalism and extreme . His efforts positioned the Homoiousians as a moderating force in Eastern s, though he faced deposition by Anomoian rivals in 360. George of Laodicea (died c. 361), originally a presbyter in sympathetic to , shifted toward theology by the 340s, emerging as a defender of moderate positions against Eusebian compromises and Anomoian extremes. He actively participated in councils such as Antioch (341) and authored works including a biography of the Semi-Arian of Emesa and defenses of homoiousios, portraying the as begotten eternally yet distinct in essence from the . George's correspondence and synodal roles highlighted his mediatory efforts, seeking alliances among Eastern bishops to counter radical while resisting full Nicene , though his precise alignment evolved amid factional pressures. Eustathius of Sebaste (c. 300–c. 377), son of the Arian bishop Eulalius, renounced strict early and aligned with , signing a Cyzicene formula in the 350s that affirmed homoiousios for the Son while subordinating the . A monastic pioneer in Asia Minor, he attended key gatherings including the Ancyra synod (358), (358), and (359), advocating against Anomoian "unlike substance" (heteroousios) doctrines. Eustathius's moderating influence extended to bridging views with emerging Nicene sentiments in the East, though his Pneumatomachian reservations on the Spirit's divinity led to excommunications by councils like (360) and Gangra (c. 340–360), reflecting internal tensions within the Semi-Arian coalition.

Orthodox Opponents and Critics

Athanasius of Alexandria, the principal defender of the Nicene Creed, rigorously opposed Semi-Arianism for its use of homoiousios ("of similar substance"), which he viewed as an insufficient safeguard against subordinationism. In De Synodis (c. 359 AD), Athanasius examined formulas from synods like Ancyra (358 AD) and Sirmium, arguing that homoiousios permitted interpretations denying the Son's exact equality with the Father, thereby echoing Arian errors under a moderated guise. He emphasized that the verbal distinction—homoousios ("same substance") versus homoiousios, differing by a single iota—reflected a profound doctrinal divergence, as similarity implied potential inequality incompatible with the Son's eternal generation from the Father's essence. Hilary of Poitiers, writing during his exile in the East (c. 356–359 AD), critiqued Semi-Arian positions in De Synodis Super Fide while pursuing reconciliation with moderate Easterners. He contended that authentic likeness between Father and Son, as professed by some Semi-Arians, inherently required identity of substance, rejecting homoiousios as standalone if it evaded Nicene terminology rooted in Scripture's portrayal of divine unity. Hilary faulted the Ancyra synod's anathemas against homoousios for misrepresenting it as implying material division or Sabellian modalism, insisting instead that "likeness means perfect equality" and urging return to Nicaea's confession of the Son as "God of God." Western Nicene bishops, convening at Sardica in 343 AD, reinforced opposition by deposing Eastern leaders sympathetic to Arian variants, including those later aligned with Semi-Arianism, and affirming Athanasius' against compromise formulas. This stance underscored a broader insistence that partial affirmations, such as homoiousios, risked diluting the Council's explicit rejection of the Son's creation or inferiority, as evidenced in appeals to Emperor Constans for enforcement of Nicaean standards.

Controversies and Theological Debates

Charges of Heresy and Doctrinal Inconsistency

Athanasius of Alexandria charged Semi-Arians with doctrinal ambiguity by substituting homoiousios ("like in substance") for the Nicene homoousios ("of the same substance"), arguing that this formulation implied a qualitative difference in essence between Father and Son, thereby undermining the Son's full divinity and opening the door to Arian interpretations of subordination. He contended that such terminology allowed Semi-Arians to evade explicit orthodoxy while sheltering views akin to those of Arius, as their rejection of consubstantiality suggested the Son derived from a foreign or dissimilar substance, inconsistent with scriptural depictions of divine unity (e.g., John 10:30). This equivocation was portrayed as a form of sophistry, permitting heretical latitude under the guise of moderation. Semi-Arian creeds, such as those emerging from synods like Ancyra in 358, exemplified internal contradictions: affirming the as begotten from the 's substance and not a creature, yet denying eternal co-equality by positing a "generation before time" that distinguished essences. Critics like Athanasius highlighted how these positions oscillated between Arian denial of divinity and partial concessions to likeness, resulting in logical inconsistencies—e.g., the as perfect (eikōn aparallaktos) yet not interchangeable (perichōrēsis) with the . Such formulations were accused of fostering by diluting Trinitarian precision, as evidenced in their anathematization of homoousios at Ancyra, which aligned them against the 325 Nicene settlement despite claims of fidelity to . Hilary of Poitiers, while initially collaborating with Semi-Arian leaders like Basil of Ancyra against extreme Anomoeans during his exile (356–359), later critiqued their persistent ambiguities, particularly in rejecting clear Nicene language and compromising on the Holy Spirit's divinity. In works like De Synodis, Hilary tolerated their "pious" intent but urged abandonment of evasive terms, charging that their synodal shifts—e.g., from Sirmian formulas to Seleucian defenses—reflected doctrinal inconsistency rather than principled theology, ultimately risking alignment with Arian "inward evil" within the Church. These accusations culminated in broader orthodox condemnations, viewing Semi-Arianism as a heretical midpoint that prolonged division by prioritizing terminological compromise over substantive unity.

Semi-Arian Arguments Against Homoousios

Semi-Arians contended that the Nicene term homoousios ("of the same substance") lacked direct attestation in , rendering it an extrabiblical innovation unsuitable for doctrinal formulation. They emphasized that terms defining divine essence should derive from apostolic writings to avoid speculative , as the speaks of the Son's generation and likeness to the Father (e.g., John 1:1, 14:9) without employing ousia language. This objection aligned with broader homoian and synodal statements, such as the Second Creed of in 357, which rejected homoousios precisely for its absence from sacred texts and its introduction of unnecessary obscurity. A core critique was that homoousios carried Sabellian implications, blurring the personal distinctions between Father and Son by suggesting numerical identity of substance rather than relational likeness. Semi-Arian leaders like Basil of Ancyra argued this risked modalism, where the divine persons collapse into a single hypostasis, contradicting scriptural affirmations of the Father's superiority (John 14:28; 10:29–30) and the Son's eternal generation as a distinct offspring. In contrast, homoiousios ("of like substance") preserved the monarchy of the Father—His unbegotten uniqueness—while affirming essential similarity, thereby avoiding both Arian dissimilarity (anomoios) and Nicene over-equality. Additionally, homoousios was faulted for evoking materialistic or corporeal associations, implying the divine essence could be partitioned like divisible matter, which undermined God's and . Critics, including figures at the Councils of and (357–359), viewed it as philosophically tainted, potentially deriving from pagan or Gnostico-Valentinian usage rather than patristic tradition, and thus prone to misconstruction in confessing the Son's begottenness from the Father's will. Basil of Ancyra's synodical letter of 358 explicitly warned that such terminology could foster erroneous views of the Son as a "part" or "emanation" of the Father, incompatible with the immaterial generation described in Proverbs 8:22–25 and :7. These arguments positioned homoiousios as a scriptural midpoint, emphasizing functional and essential likeness without compromising personal otherness or the Father's generative primacy.

Decline and Resolution

Emperor Theodosius and the Council of Constantinople (381)

Emperor Theodosius I, upon ascending to the Eastern throne in January 379 following the death of the Arian-leaning Valens, adopted a firm commitment to Nicene orthodoxy after his baptism by the Nicene bishop Ascholius of Thessalonica in November 380. On 27 February 380, Theodosius, jointly with Western emperors Gratian and Valentinian II, promulgated the Edict of Thessalonica (Cunctos populos), which designated the Nicene formulation—emphasizing the Son's homoousios (same substance) with the Father—as the empire's official doctrine, while condemning deviations including Arian subordinationism and its Semi-Arian variants that posited mere homoiousios (similar substance). This edict threatened divine and imperial penalties for adherence to non-Nicene creeds, effectively marginalizing Semi-Arian clergy and congregations by restricting their public worship and episcopal authority in key cities like Constantinople. To consolidate this policy and resolve lingering Eastern schisms, Theodosius convoked the in May 381, inviting approximately 150 bishops, predominantly from the East, to convene in the Church of Hagia Irene. The emperor's opening address underscored the council's mandate to affirm Nicene Trinitarianism against Arian holdouts, including who had previously dominated under emperors like and . Under Theodosius' patronage, the assembly—initially presided over by before transitioning to and later Nectarius—reaffirmed the Creed of (325) with expansions on the Holy Spirit's divinity, explicitly rejecting Pneumatomachian and Apollinarian errors alongside . The council's first canon provided the decisive doctrinal blow to Semi-Arianism by anathematizing "every heresy," naming specifically the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi, alongside Eunomians, Arians, and Eudoxians, thereby equating their homoiousios formula with the condemned Anomoian extremes. This canon, appended to the synod's letter to Theodosius, served as imperial law, empowering the emperor to enforce uniformity through exiles, property confiscations, and bans on non-Nicene assemblies. Subsequent edicts in 383 and beyond extended these measures, prohibiting Semi-Arian bishops from urban sees and mandating subscription to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which eroded their institutional base across the Eastern provinces. Theodosius' integration of council decrees into state policy—ratified by his personal endorsement—ensured Semi-Arianism's rapid decline, as holdout leaders like the deposed Demophilus faced expulsion from , and surviving factions fragmented without imperial support. By 381's close, the council's outcomes, backed by Theodosius' military and legal apparatus, shifted the landscape decisively toward homoousios , rendering Semi-Arian compromises untenable in the Roman Empire's religious framework.

Suppression and Marginalization

Following the First Council of Constantinople on July 30, 381, Emperor Theodosius I issued an edict ratifying its decrees, which reaffirmed the Nicene Creed's homoousios doctrine and explicitly anathematized positions associated with Semi-Arianism, including the homoiousian formula and denials of the Holy Spirit's full divinity as professed by Pneumatomachi groups often aligned with former Semi-Arians. The council's first canon condemned heresies that divided the divine substance or nature, directly targeting the Semi-Arian emphasis on similarity rather than identity of substance between Father and Son, thereby depriving Semi-Arian theology of ecclesiastical legitimacy. This doctrinal rejection, enforced by imperial authority, marked the decisive turning point, as Theodosius, a committed Nicene Christian baptized by Bishop Ascholius of Thessalonica, prioritized orthodoxy over prior toleration of moderated Arian variants. The , promulgated February 27, 380, by Theodosius alongside and , had already laid the groundwork by declaring the Nicene faith the empire's sole orthodox creed and labeling non-Nicene beliefs, including Arian and semi-Arian forms, as heretical follies warranting divine and imperial punishment. Subsequent laws intensified suppression: on January 10, 381, heretics such as Arians and Macedonians (, who overlapped with Semi-Arian circles on Trinitarian ) were barred from assemblies, with churches returned to Nicene bishops and properties confiscated. By July 19, 381, edicts prohibited such groups from constructing or retaining churches, while the July 25, 383, law denied them rights to own buildings or gather, mandating banishment for violators. These measures, extended on December 3, 383, and January 21, 384, expelled non-Nicene clergy from key cities like , systematically dismantling Semi-Arian infrastructure in the East, where the movement had held significant sway among conservative bishops. Marginalization accelerated as Semi-Arian leaders, already fragmented after Acacius of Antioch's shift to Homoian formulae post-359, faced exile or deposition without imperial backing. Figures like Basil of Ancyra, an early proponent, had been sidelined by 360, and post-381, remaining adherents either conformed to Nicene standards under pressure or retreated to peripheral regions, losing influence amid state-enforced orthodoxy. By the 390s, Semi-Arianism persisted only sporadically among barbarian tribes or isolated enclaves, but within the empire, coercive policies—combining legal prohibitions, property seizures, and episcopal purges—ensured its effective eradication as a viable theological faction, paving the way for unchallenged Nicene dominance.

Legacy and Scholarly Assessment

Causal Impact on Trinitarian Development

Semi-Arianism, by positing that the Son was of similar substance (homoiousios) to the Father rather than identical, compelled Nicene proponents to articulate the implications of homoousios more rigorously, underscoring that any perceived dissimilarity risked implying eternal subordination and undermining co-equality within the Godhead. This mediating stance, dominant among Eastern bishops after the Council of Nicaea in 325, prolonged theological disputes and exposed ambiguities in earlier formulations, prompting figures like Athanasius of Alexandria to defend the ontological unity of Father and Son against compromises that retained Arian relational asymmetries. The debates highlighted the inadequacy of similarity language, as it failed to safeguard the Son's full divinity against Anomoean extremes, thereby advancing Trinitarian discourse toward precise affirmations of consubstantiality. The integration of former Semi-Arians into Nicene , facilitated by Cappadocian theologians such as and , marked a causal pivot in doctrinal consolidation. Basil's diplomatic avoidance of controversial terms initially bridged divides, allowing moderate homoiousians to align with Nicene principles without immediate rejection, while Gregory's orations refuted lingering subordinationist tendencies by emphasizing eternal generation and mutual indwelling (). This absorption, evident in the shifting allegiances of Eastern synods between 360 and 380, enriched Trinitarian theology by incorporating anti-Arian emphases on the Son's likeness while rejecting semi-subordinationism, culminating in the Council of Constantinople's 381 ratification of with expanded . Ultimately, Semi-Arianism's persistence delayed but catalyzed the rejection of all variant Christologies, enforcing a unified Trinitarian framework that equated the persons in essence while distinguishing their hypostases—a refinement absent in pre-Nicene thought. The controversy's resolution under Emperor Theodosius I in 381 not only marginalized semi-Arian councils like Seleucia (359) but also entrenched safeguards against future dilutions, ensuring Trinitarianism's emphasis on undivided divine unity as foundational to soteriology.

Modern Evaluations of Doctrinal Compromises

Contemporary theologians assess Semi-Arian doctrinal compromises, particularly the endorsement of homoiousios ("of similar substance") over homoousios ("of the same substance"), as theologically inadequate for preserving the 's full divinity. This formulation, advanced by figures like Basil of Ancyra around 358 CE at the Council of , sought to affirm likeness between Father and while rejecting identity of essence, but it permitted interpretations verging on that undermined co-equality. Orthodox critiques argue that such similarity implies a qualitative distinction in divine nature, failing to resolve whether the possesses the Father's unoriginate and omnipotence essential to . In evaluations of soteriological implications, the compromise is deemed deficient because a merely similar essence for the compromises the efficacy of ; only consubstantial can reconcile humanity to the infinite holiness of the . Evangelical scholars emphasize that no viable middle ground exists on Christ's —either full equality or effective subordination—rendering homoiousios a precarious evasion rather than a stable mediation. Patristic historian Lewis Ayres notes in modern that these positions, reclassified as "Homoian" theology to avoid labels, represented diverse anti-Nicene trajectories but lacked the precision to counter radical or integrate scriptural data on divine unity, prolonging instability until pro-Nicene consolidation. Recent critiques the compromises' causal role in division, viewing them as politically expedient but doctrinally ambiguous, ultimately marginalizing adherents by 381 CE as they proved unable to unify Eastern churches against anomoean extremes. While some analyses acknowledge the iota's subtlety as a rhetorical flashpoint, the consensus holds that homoiousios sacrificed ontological clarity for terminological nuance, forestalling rather than advancing Trinitarian orthodoxy.

References

  1. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13693b.htm
  2. https://orthodoxwiki.org/Semi-Arianism
  3. https://biblehub.com/q/what_is_semi-arianism.htm
  4. https://www.gotquestions.org/Semi-Arianism.html
  5. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/20449/what-is-the-theology-of-the-semi-arians
  6. https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3/hcc3.iii.xii.ix.html
  7. https://www.britannica.com/topic/semi-Arianism
  8. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Arianism
  9. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-christian-heresy/arianism-and-other-christological-disputes/7D5249FE89DD334D213F7D44392E8E7D
  10. https://academic.oup.com/book/10915/chapter/159168570
  11. https://scalar.usc.edu/works/jesus-christ-god-man-and-savior-week-six-god-the-son-at-nicaea-and-constantinople/the-homoousios-controversy-and-semi-arianism
  12. https://www.logos.com/grow/hall-three-trinitarian-words/
  13. https://www.fourthcentury.com/nicaea-from-the-sources-8-condemnations-for-those-who-did-not-subscribe/
  14. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.xii.v.html
  15. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2804.htm
  16. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/94496/why-was-homoousios-used-in-the-nicene-creed
  17. https://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-22/
  18. https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/basil-of-ancyra
  19. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-ecclesiastical-history/article/george-of-laodicea-a-historical-reassessment/E4118EC74715A9A4A023849D9AC5E1DD
  20. https://www.fourthcentury.com/council-of-ancyra-358/
  21. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-edition-of-early-christian-writings/basil-of-ancyra-the-synodal-letter-of-the-council-of-ancyra/1A68C223C5D20BF61B69AAFB0E64C81B
  22. https://www.fourthcentury.com/second-creed-of-sirmium-or-the-blasphemy-of-sirmium/
  23. https://www.fourthcentury.com/the-council-of-sirmium-ad-357/
  24. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13057b.htm
  25. https://www.fourthcentury.com/the-council-of-arminim-rimini-ad-359/
  26. https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_fourth_of_sirmium_dated_359.htm
  27. https://www.fourthcentury.com/the-council-of-seleucia-ad-359/
  28. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxii.ii.i.html
  29. https://www.newmanreader.org/works/arians/chapter4-4.html
  30. https://orthodoxwiki.org/Basil_of_Ancyra
  31. https://www.ecatholic2000.com/butler/vol3/march89.shtml
  32. https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/G/george-of-laodicea.html
  33. https://www.academia.edu/1857089/George_of_Laodicea_A_Historical_Reassessment
  34. https://orthodoxwiki.org/Eustathius_of_Sebaste
  35. http://cblibrary.org/schaff_h/ea/eustathius_of_sebaste.htm
  36. https://ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Eustathius%2C%2520bp.%2520of%2520Sebaste
  37. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3301.htm
  38. https://www.newmanreader.org/works/athanasius/volume2/file10.html
  39. https://www.newmanreader.org/works/arians/chapter4-2.html
  40. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.ii.iii.i.html
  41. https://www.the-highway.com/arian_Hanko1.html
  42. https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/homoiousian/
  43. https://hrcak.srce.hr/clanak/100450
  44. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3808.htm
  45. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/edict-thessalonica
  46. https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum02.htm
  47. https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/constantinople_canons.htm
  48. https://www.fourthcentury.com/imperial-laws-364/
  49. https://thirdmill.org/articles/ron_hanko/ron_hanko.ArianControversy.html
  50. https://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=sot_papers
  51. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07010b.htm
  52. https://christoverall.com/theme/the-nicene-creed-1700-years-of-homoousios/
  53. https://billmuehlenberg.com/2019/01/06/christology-when-an-iota-of-difference-really-matters/
  54. https://academic.oup.com/book/3350/chapter/144428812
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.