Arian Controversy Analysis

For one to be able to understand the Arian controversy, and discuss the clashing of theological, social, and what political factors contributed, one must first understand what the Arian controversy was. Due to early church writers such as Justin, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, the church had developed certain theological perspectives on what the nature of God resembled (Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity 182). In addition to the nature of God, whether the Logos or the Word, was created or was the same as God. The Logos or the Word, and scriptural interpretations were at the core of the Arian Controversy (Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity 182).
Due to popular opinion from early church writers, the “Logos” was co-eternal with the father. This meaning that the “Logos” the “Word” was not something created after by God, but was in same likeness of God to interact with the world and humans (Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity 183.) Not as another God, just another form of God. It was this perspective the bishop of Alexandria stood by. However the Arius believed that the “Logos’, and God were not co-eternal (Gonzalez, The Story
They put into placed procedures and rules such as, “Decree that bishops, presbyters, and deacons could not move from one city to another” (Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity 187). This being a minor issue compared to the discussion about the “Arian Controversy”. It was this discussion that many parties were represented for. Some of those parties were: convinced Arians led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, those opposing Arius led by Athanasius of Alexandria, Latin speaking Western bishops only having a secondary interest in the debate claiming the idea three persons one substance, and finally a small group that rejected the Arian position of the “Logos” but also a very skewed understanding of the suffering of Jesus and God (Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity