Five major interpretations of Arianism are considered. According to the Hanson-Wiles interpretation, the Arians used psilanthropic argument to emphasize that God suffered in Christ. The author shows that this interpretation is one sided, partly because other parties involved in the christological debates of the fourth and fifth centuries also used the psilanthropic argument. The Arians emphasized the impassibility of the High God in order to exclude him from any participation in human suffering. The pro-Nicene theologians succeeded in sustaining the vital tension between the transcendence of...

Five major interpretations of Arianism are considered. According to the Hanson-Wiles interpretation, the Arians used psilanthropic argument to emphasize that God suffered in Christ. The author shows that this interpretation is one sided, partly because other parties involved in the christological debates of the fourth and fifth centuries also used the psilanthropic argument. The Arians emphasized the impassibility of the High God in order to exclude him from any participation in human suffering. The pro-Nicene theologians succeeded in sustaining the vital tension between the transcendence of God and his involvement in suffering in the incarnation.