Number DOI: http://doi.org/10.33209/2519-4348-2707-9627-2025-13-168

Volynskyi Blahovisnyk. № 13. 2025. P. 47-72.

Summary

The article addresses the unfolding of the Trinitarian dogma through an analysis of the evolution of the Logos concept in early Christian theology and an examination of the influence of the fourth-century Arian controversy on the formation of the Orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The relevance of the study is conditioned by the fact that the Arian dispute has proven to be one of the most thoroughly examined yet incompletely interpreted problems in patristics: new textological discoveries, critical editions of primary sources, and a reassessment of the role of Arianism in the formation of the Nicene consensus continue to introduce corrections into scholarly discussion. Additional significance is lent to the topic by the fact that the term «consubstantial» (ὁμοούσιος) remains to this day one of the central issues in interconfessional theological dialogue. The article traces the genesis of the Logos concept from its ancient philosophical origins (Heraclitus, Plato, Stoicism) through the Judeo-Hellenistic tradition (Philo of Alexandria) to early Christian apologetics (Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch) and the theology of Tertullian and Origen, in whom the Trinitarian dimension of early Christian theology began to take shape. Special attention is devoted to the figure of Arius, the Alexandrian presbyter: his biography, theological system, and the source base of his teaching (Thalia, letters to Eusebius of Nicomedia and St. Alexander of Alexandria) are examined, as is the influence of the Antiochene theological and exegetical school (St. Lucian the Martyr) on the formation of his views. The article considers the course of the controversy between the Arian movement and its ecclesiastical opponents, the role of St. Alexander of Alexandria in the defense of Orthodox teaching, the preconditions for the convening and the theological significance of the First Council of Nicaea (325), and in particular the establishment of the term «consubstantial» in the consciousness of the Church. The author demonstrates that the Arian controversy, by exposing the conceptual and terminological limitations of early Christian theology, served as a powerful catalyst for the elaboration of precise dogmatic formulations that became the foundation of the Church’s entire subsequent Trinitarian teaching. Prospects for further research are connected with a more detailed analysis of the reception of the Nicene definition in the subsequent patristic tradition.

Key words: Arius, Trinity, Logos, Arian controversy, ancient philosophy, subordinationism, consubstantial, Council of Nicaea, theology, Trinitarian dogma.

References:

1. Arianism: Roman heresy and barbarian creed (G. M. Berndt & R. Steinacher, Eds.). (2014). Burlington.
2. Artemi E. (2019). The ‘Logos’ in the teaching of Marcellus of Ancyra and Sabellius. Volynskyi Blahovisnyk, 7, 99–121.
3. Vakula O. (2009). Lohos i Dukh u khrystyianskykh avtoriv II stolittia: problema poserednytsva. Naukovi zapysky Ukrainskoho katolytskoho universytetu. Seriia: Bohoslovia, 1, 45–71 [in Ukrainian].
4. Vasyliv P. (2009). Pershyi Nikeiskyi sobor. Istorychni peredumovy ta yoho bohoslovsko-filosofskyi kontekst. Pravyla Ottsiv Pershoho Nikeisokoho Soboru: monograph. Lviv [in Ukrainian].
5. Delcogliano M. (2018). How did Arius learn from Asterius? On the relationship between the Thalia and the Syntagmation. Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 69(3), 478–497.
6. Gazik P. (2008). Early-Christian transformation of the Greek Logos in the philosophy of Justin Martyr. Filozofia, 63(2), 169–173.
7. Gerber S. (2001). Calixt von Rom und der monarchianische Streit. Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum, 5, 213–239 [in German].
8. Goodenough E. (1923). The theology of Justin Martyr. Jena.
9. Zavhorodnii Yu. (1998). Boh u «Frahmentakh» Heraklita. In V. S. Horskyi (Ed.), Mahisterium. Vyp. 1: Istorychno-filosofski studii (pp. 92–95). Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
10. Halapsis A. (2020). Man and Logos: Heraclitus’ secret. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, 17, 119–130.
11. Hanson R. (2005). The search for the Christian doctrine of God: The Arian controversy 318–381 AD. London.
12. Harnack A. (1897). History of dogma (Vol. 3, N. Buchanan, Trans.). Boston.
13. Kamesar A. (2004). The Logos Endiathetos and the Logos Prophorikos in allegorical interpretation: Philo and the D-Scholia to the Iliad. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, 44, 163–181.
14. Kelly J. (1988). Poczatki doktryny chrzescijanskiej (J. Mrukówna, Trans.; E. Stanula, Ed.). Warsaw [in Polish].
15. Litfin M. (2019). Tertullian on the Trinity. Perichoresis, 17(1), 81–98.
16. McRoy A. (2008). The theology of Arius. Foundations, 59, 17–28.
17. Neale J. (1847). A history of the Holy Eastern Church: The Patriarchate of Alexandria (Vol. 1). London.
18. Nicolaides N. (1994). The Christology of saint Epiphanius of Cyprus according to his work Angyrotos (Doctoral dissertation). Durham University.
19. Parsons S. (2014). Very early Trinitarian expressions. Tyndale Bulletin, 65(1), 141–152.
20. Philo of Alexandria. (1932). Who is the heir of divine things. In F. H. Colson & G. H. Whitaker (Trans.), Philo (Vol. 4, pp. 270–447). Cambridge.
21. Pospíšil C. (2007). Nové pohledy na problematiku přednicejských trinitárních herezí. Studia Theologica, 9(1), 20–41 [in Czech].
22. Soloviova A. (n.d.). Heraklit iz Efesa. Velyka ukrainska entsyklopediia. Retrieved from https://vue.gov.ua/Геракліт_із_Ефеса [in Ukrainian].
23. Schaff Ph. (1922). History of the Christian Church: Vol. II. Ante-Nicene Christianity A.D. 100–325. New York.
24. Studer B. (1993). Trinity and Incarnation: The faith of the early Church (M. Westerhoff, Trans.; A. Louth, Ed.). Collegeville.
25. Synaxarium: The book of the Saints of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church (E. A. Wallis Budge, Trans.). (n.d.). Garland.
26. The history of heresies, and their refutation (Vol. 2). (1847). Dublin.
27. Williams R. (2002). Arius: Heresy and tradition. Grand Rapids.