The Blasphemy of Sirmium (357 AD)
A Critical Moment in the Arian Controversy
There is blasphemy, there is utter blasphemy, and then there is the Blasphemy of Sirmium, otherwise known as the Second Creed of Sirmium.
This creed, formulated in 357 AD, epitomized the intense struggles and vigorous debates over the divine nature of the Son and his relationship to God the Father—an issue that continued to be contested from the Council of Nicaea in 325 through to the Council of Constantinople in 381.
The Background: Arianism 2.0
The fourth century witnessed constant theological disputes about the divine nature of the Son even after the Council of Nicaea in 325. While Arius was condemned at the council, and exiled, there were repeated efforts to rehabilitate him, which Constantine finally consented to. Only Arius’ death prevented a show down between Arius and his opponents in Alexandria. Despite losing the day at Nicaea, varieties of Arianism continued to spawn and proliferate, with variations of Arianism becoming dominant in various dioceses and even in the courts of the Emperors. The controversy deepened as various theological factions—pro-Nicenes, semi-Arians, and radical Arians—vied for dominance.
By the mid-350s, Emperor Constantius II, a supporter of Arian theology, sought to unify the church under his rule. He convened a series of synods across the empire to address the ongoing divisions about christology. The Council of Sirmium in 357 marked a critical turning point, as it produced a creed that explicitly rejected key Nicene terminology and moved the churches into a semi-Arian direction.
The Second Creed of Sirmium: Content and Implications
The Second Creed of Sirmium sought to establish a compromise between pro-Nicene and semi-Arian factions. The creed is not nakedly Arian since it rejects the idea that the Son is a created being. However, the creed is thoroughly subordinationist, Arian in that sense, as it emphasizes the Son’s inferiority to the Father and rejects language related to discussing the Son’s being and generation.
This creed’s christological flexibility reflected Constantius II’s political intentions. By suppressing divisive terminology like homoousia, he aimed to foster unity within the churches while consolidating his imperial authority to solve ecclesiastical disputes. However, the Sirmium Creed failed in that it alienated staunch pro-Nicenes and failed to fully appease more radical neo-Arians.
It is held for certain that there is one God, the Father Almighty, as also is preached in all the world.
The Blasphemy of Sirmium: Text
And His one only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, generated from Him before the ages; and that we may not speak of two Gods, since the Lord Himself has said, ‘I go to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God’ (John 20:17). On this account He is God of all, as also the Apostle taught: ‘Is He God of the Jews only, is He not also of the Gentiles? Yes of the Gentiles also; since there is one God who shall justify the circumcision from faith, and the uncircumcision through faith’ (Romans 3:29, 30). And everything else agrees, and has no ambiguity.
But since many persons are disturbed by questions concerning what is called in Latin substantia, but in Greek ousia (or, to put in more clearly, ‘co-essential’, or ‘of the same essence’), these terms should not be used at all, nor should they be expounded on in the Church. And here are the reasons: nothing is written about them in Holy Scripture; they are beyond mankind’s knowledge and understanding; and no one can declare the Son’s generation, as it is written, ‘Who shall declare His generation?’ (Isaiah 53:8) For it is clear that only the Father knows how He generated the Son, and again the Son how He has been generated by the Father. No one can question that the Father is greater, for no one can doubt that the Father is greater in honor and dignity and Godhead, and in the very name of Father. The Son Himself testifies, ‘The Father that sent me is greater than I’ (John 10:29, 14:28) And no one is ignorant that it is catholic doctrine that there are two persons–Father and Son; that the Father is greater, and the Son is subordinated to the Father together with all things which the Father has subordinated to Him; that the Father has no beginning, is invisible, and immortal, and impassible. But the Son has been generated from the Father, God from God, light from light, and His origin (as stated previously), no one knows except the Father. And that the Son Himself and our Lord and God, took flesh (that is, a body, that is, man) from the Virgin Mary, as the Angel announced beforehand; and as all the Scriptures teach, and especially the apostle himself, the doctor of the Gentiles, Christ took on manhood of the Virgin Mary, through which he has suffered.
And the whole faith is summed up, and secured in this, that a Trinity should ever be preserved, as we read in the Gospel, ‘Go and baptize all the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost’ (Matthew 28:19). And entire and perfect is the number of the Trinity; but the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, sent forth through the Son, came according to the promise, that He might teach and sanctify the Apostles and all believers.
Translation from Athanasius, De Synodis 28 (NPNF2 vol. 4, p. 466)
Note several things here:
The rejection of non-scriptural language like ousia and homoousion.
The rejection of the Son’s generation, especially, eternal generation with appeal to Isa 53:8.
The superiority of the Father and the subordination of the Son with appeal to John 10:29 and 14:28.
The distinction between the Father’s immutable being and the Son’s mutable being.
The Trinity is more of a Triarchy.
After the Blasphemy: Polarization and Resistance
Far from resolving the debates and discord within the church, the Second Creed of Sirmium caused many sides to double down on their position. Nicene theologians, such as Athanasius of Alexandria and Hilary of Poitiers, vehemently opposed the creed, denouncing it as “blasphemy.” They rejected the creed’s subordinationism and its failure to uphold the Nicene terminology of homoousios.
Sadly, things got worse for the pro-Nicenes with the Nike Creed of 359, which was a sharper version of the Sirmium Blasphemy, and for a short time became the official creed of all Christians in the Roman Empire. For a time, the whole world was Arian. But thankfully, even that did not last!
The Second Creed of Sirmium gives us insight into internecine rivalries within the churches and the search for a christological consensus about the nature of the Son. While the Sirmium Blasphemy sought compromise, its rejection of Nicene language and reasoning only deepened existing fractures within the eastern and western theatres of the empire. It represents both the epitome and the apogee of semi-Arian theology which thankfully did not hold sway for long.
Wow! That was very interesting. I wonder if JW’s ever use this bit of history to try and get leverage.
Very informative--thanks!
The new Nike Creed: Just Believe It!