Is there an active sect by this name? Are there any particular Christian denominations which might be described as 'Arian'?

  • Question could use a bit more clarification. The term "consubstantial" occurs in the Nicene Creed, which is recited or sung by most Catholics and Orthodox Christians every Sunday. It is decidedly not an Arian concept but from the title of the question it sounds like you may be associating it with Arianism.
    – Ben Dunlap
    Commented May 2, 2013 at 21:07

1 Answer 1


To answer this, one must first define what Arianism is. Any denomination which holds that Jesus Christ is a subordinate entity to God. He is not one with the Father. Christ is not truly divine but a created being can be considered as 'Arian'. In Arius's words, "there was [a time] when he (the Son) was not."

Holy Arian Catholic and Apostolic Church in claims to proclaim Arius's teachings, even "canonizing" him in 2006. However, they differ with several major points. AFAIK this is the only known church to explicitly call themselves as Arian.

The Jehovah's Witnesses is often accused of being Arian. JWs even regard Arius as a forerunner of Charles Taze Russell, the founder of their movement. But they do not call themselves Arian.src The main difference is that they claim that the "Archangel Michael transformed into human Jesus, then after dying transformed back to Archangel Michael again" teaching. That is not in with the historic Arian doctrine.

Some sects like Unitarianism, Mormonism (Latter Day Saint movement), Iglesia ni Cristo etc., hold a form of Arianism, but they all differ with each other and with traditional Arianism in many doctrinal issues.

No remnant of any of the Arian sects established in early days is known to exist today.

  • I think this answer, and especially the definition of "Arianism" requires references. Arian himself held that Christ is divine.
    – Flimzy
    Commented Jul 18, 2014 at 22:10
  • @Flimzy Arius held that Christ was “divine” in that he accepted the Incarnation. Hence, the Word or the Son, according to Arius, did become flesh. However, Arius’s description of the Word has all the characteristics of a creature (e.g., there was a time when the Word did not exist). Arius left few writings, but it seems likely that Arius thought of the Word as subordinate “emanation” of the Father; the difference between an “emanation” and a “creature” is that God decides whether or not to create a creature; an “emanation,” on the other hand, would proceed necessarily from God. Commented May 6, 2016 at 6:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .