The Trinity Doctrine Archives » Page 28 of 34

2023-05-152024-10-29

Athanasius invented Arianism.

Purpose

The ‘Arian’ Controversy is named after Arius, implying he played a huge role. In reality, he was insignificant. This article explains why it is called ‘Arian’.

The ‘Arian’ Controversy began in 318; only five years after Christianity was legalized. It began a dispute between Arius, who was in charge of one of the churches in Alexandria, and his bishop Alexander. It continued until Emperor Theodosius in 380 – 62 years later – made Trinitarian Christianity the State Religion of the Roman Empire and outlawed all other versions of Christianity.

The term ‘Arian” is derived from the name Arius. This implies that he was the founder and teacher of ‘Arianism’, and that his teachings prevailed for most of the fourth century. However, “in the first few decades of the present (20th) century … seminally important work was … done in the sorting-out of the chronology of the controversy, and in the isolation of a hard core of reliable primary documents.” (Williams, p. 11-12) Consequently, “the four decades since 1960 have produced much revisionary scholarship on the Trinitarian and Christological disputes of the fourth century.” (Ayres, p. 11) Based on this research, this article shows that Arius was of no great significance and that it is called the ‘Arian’ Controversy because Athanasius invented the term ‘Arian’ to insult his opponents by describing them as followers of Arius’ already rejected theology.

Summary

The First Seven Years

Arius was of some significance during the first 7 years of the Controversy until the Nicene Council in 325 decidedly rejected his theology. However, his importance was limited. He was not the founder or leader of ‘Arianism’:

“Arius was part of a wider theological trajectory; Many of his ideas were opposed by others in this trajectory: he neither originated the trajectory nor uniquely exemplified it.” (Ayres, p. 2)

“Many of the issues raised by the controversy were under lively discussion before Arius and Alexander publicly clashed” (RH, 52). Arius “was the spark that started the explosion. But in himself he was of no great significance.” (RH, xvii)

“Many of Arius’ earliest supporters appear to have rallied to him because they, like him, opposed Alexander’s theology” (Ayres, p. 14).

The Next 55 Years

During the next 55 years of the ‘Arian Controversy’, Arius and his theology were no longer of any significance. The Controversy of those 55 years was not caused by Arius. It was caused by the inclusion in the Nicene Creed of “new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day.” (RH, 846) The Controversy revolved specifically around the term homoousios, meaning “same substance.” This was a new and different dispute. As discussed in another article:

The Homo-ousians, with Athanasius on the forefront, defending the term against the anti-Nicene majority, argued that the Son’s substance is identical to the Father’s.

The homo-i-ousians claimed that His substance is similar to the Father’s, but not identical.

The hetero-ousians (the Neo-Arians) said that the Son’s substance is different from the Father’s.

The homo-ians refused to talk about God’s substance because the Bible does not say anything about it.

The point is that “Arius’ own theology is of little importance in understanding the major debates of the rest of the century” (after Nicaea) (Ayres, p. 56-57):

“Arius’ role in ‘Arianism’ was not that of the founder of a sect. It was not his individual teaching that dominated the mid-century eastern Church.” (Williams, p. 165)

“Those who suspected or openly repudiated the decisions of Nicaea had little in common but this hostility … certainly not a loyalty to the teaching of Arius as an individual theologian.” (Williams, p. 233)

Athanasius invented Arianism.

So, if the word “Arian” is derived from Arius’ name, and if Arius “in himself … was of no great significance” (RH, xvii), why is it called the ‘Arian Controversy’? The reason is that, while the anti-Nicenes sometimes accused Athanasius and the Nicene Creed of Sabellianism, Athanasius invented the term ‘Arian’ “to tar” his opponents with the name of another theology that was already then formally rejected by the church:

“’Arianism’ as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy … based on the polemic of Nicene writers, above all Athanasius.” (Williams, p. 82)

But, since Athanasius’ opponents were NOT followers of Arius:

“Theologians who criticized the Creed of Nicaea had very diverse attitudes to Arius himself.” (Williams, p. 247)

‘Arianism’ is a serious misnomer.

Since the term ‘Arianism’ implies “a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and sustained by his disciples” (Williams, p. 82), Hanson concludes that “the expression ‘the Arian Controversy’ is a serious misnomer” (RH, xvii-xviii):

“This controversy is mistakenly called Arian.” (Ayres, p. 13)

“If Athanasius’ account does shape our understanding, we risk misconceiving the nature of the fourth-century crisis.” (Williams, p. 234)

– END OF SUMMARY –

Authors / Sources

This article series is based largely on the books of three world-class scholars who are regarded as specialists in the fourth-century Arian Controversy, namely:

Hanson, bishop R.P.C.
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God –
The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987

Williams, Archbishop Rowan
Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987

Ayres, Lewis
Nicaea and its legacy, 2004
Ayres is a Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology

ARIUS’ WRITINGS

Very little of Arius’ writings remained, mostly in the writings of his bitterest enemy; Athanasius. Constantine ordered that all copies of Arius’ writings be destroyed. However, if Arius’ teachings dominated the church for another 55 years, his supporters would have kept copies of his writings despite Constantine’s severe warnings. The real reason is that Arius’ fellow ‘Arians’ did not regard his writings worth preserving.

Little of Arius’ writings survived.

“As far as his own writings go, we have no more than three letters, (and) a few fragments of another” (RH, 5-6). The three are:

1. 1. The confession of faith Arius presented to Alexander of Alexandria,
  2. His letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, and
  3. The confession he submitted to the emperor. (RH, 5-6; Williams, p. 95)

“The Thalia is Arius’ only known theological work” (RH, 10) but “we do not possess a single complete and continuous text.” (Williams, p. 62) We only have extracts from it in the writings of Arius’ enemies, “mostly from the pen of Athanasius of Alexandria, his bitterest and most prejudiced enemy.” (RH, 6)

Why did so little survive?

If Arius was such an important person that the whole Fourth Century Controversy was named after him, why did so few of his writings survive?

Constantine destroyed Arius’ writings.

The usual explanation is that, a few years after the Nicene Council in 325, when Emperor Constantine thought that Arius threatened to split the church, he ordered that all copies of the Thalia be burned so that “nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him.” He even commanded that those who do not immediately destroy Arius’ writings must be put to death (Constantine’s Edict)¹

Arius was not regarded as a great theologian.

But that is not the real reason. The church remained ‘Arian’ for about 55 years after the Nicene Council. If Arius had that much support that his teachings would continue to dominate the church for another 55 years, then his supporters would have kept copies of his writings despite Constantine’s severe warnings.

The real reason is that Arius was not a great theologian and that not even his fellow ‘Arians’ regarded his writings as worth preserving. For example:

“It may be doubted … whether Arius ever wrote any but the most ephemeral works.” (RH, 6)

“The people of his day, whether they agreed with him or not, did not regard him (Arius) as a particularly significant writer.” (RH, xvii)

“He did not write anything worth preserving.” (RH, xvii-xviii)

The Arian Controversy had two phases.

To explain Arius’ relevance in the Arian Controversy, we must realize that the events of the Nicene Council in the year 325 divided the Arian Controversy into two parts:

The first phase focused on Arius.

The first phase began around AD 318 in Alexandria with a dispute between Presbyter Arius and his bishop Alexander. After this dispute had spread to some African regions, Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 to bring an end to the controversy. This phase came to an end when the Council of Nicaea discussed and very soon rejected Arius’ theology:

“It became evident very early on (during the council meeting) that the condemnation of Arius was practically inevitable.” (Williams, p. 68)

The second phase focused on Homoousios.

Thereafter, however, the council meeting continued and became a dispute between the two other parties at Nicaea over how the creed must be formulated. As Eusebius of Caesarea explained, the minority party of Alexander of Alexandria, because they were protected by the emperor, was able to insert “new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day” (RH, 846) (substance – ousia, same substance – homoousion, and hypostasis) into the Creed against the will of the majority:

“The decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority.” ²

The reformed website Bible.ca states: “We will grant … that a majority opposed the Nicene creed. … The majority who opposed the creed were not aligned with Arius!”

These terms “borrowed from the pagan philosophy” were only infrequently heard in debates before Nicaea. They were never before used in any Christian profession of faith. Since they were key words in Greek philosophy, they created a new and different problem and became the main focus of the Controversy during the second and main phase of the Arian Controversy that continued after Nicaea for more than 50 years.

“The radical words of Nicaea became in turn a new set of formulae to be defended” (Williams, p. 236).

Williams, as a Trinitarian, accepts these words but he admits that these words were not used before Nicaea and they are an untraditional innovation:

“It was … impossible … to pretend that the lost innocence of pre-Nicene trinitarian language could be restored. … to reject all innovation was simply not a real option; and thus the rejection of homoousios purely and simply as unscriptural or untraditional could no longer be sustained.” (Williams, p. 234-5)

This second phase lasted for a further 55 years after Nicaea. The point is that, in this second phase, the controversy was now no longer about Arius’ theology. Arius was now irrelevant.

Homoousios divided the church into several sides.

Arius was irrelevant in the second and main phase of the Arian Controversy. During that phase there was no such thing as a single Arian movement. While the first phase of the Controversy focused on the dispute between Arius and Alexander, the 55 years of the second phase became a dispute between several different views of the ontological relationship between the Father and the Son:`

The homo-ousians were the pro-Nicenes. They accepted the statement in the Nicene Creed that the Son is homoousios (of the same substance) as the Father. But there were two camps:

People like bishop Damasis of Rome thought that homoousios means that Father and Son are one single Reality (Person).

People like Basil of Caesarea understood that Father and Son are two distinct Realities. (See – Meletian Schism)

The anti-Nicenes were divided as follows:

The homo-i-ousians claimed that the Son’s substance is similar to the substance of the Father but not the same.

The hetero-ousians said that the substance of the Son is different from the Father’s. This was also Arius’ view but Heterousianism was significantly different from Arius’ theology.

The homoians (homo-eans) said that the Son is like the Father but rejected all uses of the word ousia (substance), including homo-ousios and homoi-ousios because the Bible does not say anything about God’s substance. For example:

The Homoeans made “attempts in the credal statements of conservative synods in the 350s’ to bracket the whole Nicene discussion by refusing to allow ousia-terms of any kind into professions of faith” (Williams, p. 234).

Arius and Athanasius were the extremists.

Arius’ theology approximated that of the hetero-ousians. But the homo-i-ousians and the homo-ians dominated in the years after Nicaea. For example, several councils were held in which homo-i-ousian or homo-ian creeds were accepted to replace the Nicene Creed (e.g., the Long Lines Creed). In the mid-fourth century, the anti-Nicenes were the “mainstream Christians” and regarded both Athanasius and Arius as extremists:

“The very wide spectrum of non-Nicene believers thought of themselves as mainstream Christians, and regarded Athanasius and his allies as isolated extremists – though increasingly they also looked on the more aggressive anti-Nicenes (Aetius, Eunomius, and the like) as no less alien to the mainstream of Catholic tradition.” (Williams, p. 82)

In the Second Phase,
Arius was irrelevant.

So, Arius was important in the first 7 years of the Controversy, but in the second and main part of the Controversy, which raged for another 55 years, the focus was on the new words from pagan philosophy. In this phase, Arius was irrelevant. The following is further evidence of this:

His theology was irrelevant.

“Arius’ own theology is of little importance in understanding the major debates of the rest of the century.” (Ayres, p. 56-57)

“Those who suspected or openly repudiated the decisions of Nicaea … certainly (did not have) a loyalty to the teaching of Arius as an individual theologian” (Williams, p. 233).

The so-called ‘Arians’ opposed Arius.

“Arius was suspect in the eyes of the Lucianists and their neo-Arian successors.” (Williams, p. 234)

“Arianism (was) the … long-lasting hostility to or unease with Nicaea among those who would have found the Thalia puzzling and none too congenial” (Williams, p. 167).

“Holger Strutwolf (1999) … concludes that Eusebius initially misunderstood Arius as saying something similar to himself, and then distanced himself more and more from the Alexandrian as he realized his error, while still opposing the theology … advanced by Alexander” (Williams, p. 261).

The so-called ‘Arians’ never quoted Arius.

“The Arians could and did appeal to great names in the past … but not Arius!” (RH, 828).

“We have no knowledge of later Arian use of the Thalia [Arius’ book] … which suggests that it was not to the fore in the debates of the mid-century.” (Williams, p. 65)

“He may have written a lot of works … but (not even) … his supporters … thought them worth preserving. Those who follow his theological tradition seldom or never quote him.” (RH, xvii)

Bishops did not support Arius; they opposed Alexander.

Arius was supported by several bishops; not because they agreed with Arius, but because they opposed also Alexander:

“Many of Arius’ earliest supporters appear to have rallied to him because they, like him, opposed Alexander’s theology” (Ayres, p. 14).

“Arius gained support from some bishops … Although these supporters may have been wary of some aspects of Arius’ theology … they joined in opposition to Alexander.” (Ayres, p. 17)

Eusebius of Caesarea “thought the theology of Alexander a greater menace than that of Arius.” (Williams, p. 173)

Arius was not the leader of the ‘Arians’.

“We are not to think of Arius as dominating and directing a single school of thought to which all his allies belonged.” (Williams, p. 171)

“The bishops at Antioch in 341 … did not look on him as a factional leader, or ascribe any individual authority to him.” (Williams, p. 82-83, cf. 166)

“Arius … was not an obvious hero for the enemies of Nicaea.” (Williams, p. 166)

Arius was an academic.

“Arius, like his great Alexandrian predecessors, is essentially an ‘academic’.” (Williams, p. 87)

“He (Arius) is not a theologian of consensus, but a notably individual intellect.” (Williams, p. 178)

He did not leave behind a school of disciples.

“Arius evidently made converts to his views … but he left no school of disciples.” (Williams, p. 233)

“Arius’ role in ‘Arianism’ was not that of the founder of a sect. It was not his individual teaching that dominated the mid-century eastern Church.” (Williams, p. 165)

“The later ‘neo-Arians’ of the mid-century traced their theological ancestry back to the Lucianists rather than Arius” (Williams, p. 31).

Arius was part of a wider theological trajectory.

“Arius was part of a wider theological trajectory; many of his ideas were opposed by others in this trajectory: he neither originated the trajectory nor uniquely exemplified it.” (Ayres, p. 2)

Arius was only the spark.

“Many of the issues raised by the controversy were under lively discussion before Arius and Alexander publicly clashed” (RH, 52).

“The views of Arius were such as … to bring into unavoidable prominence a doctrinal crisis which had gradually been gathering. … He was the spark that started the explosion. But in himself he was of no great significance.” (RH, xvii)

“In the fourth century there came to a head a crisis … which was not created by … Arius.” (RH, xx)

The fuel for the Controversy has been gathering over the previous centuries as writers expressed conflicting views about how the Son relates to the Father. Before Christianity was legalized, Christians were simply too busy just trying to survive to do much wrestling on this topic. But, as soon as the persecution came to an end, this explosion was inevitable. And Arius, as Hanson stated, was only the spark that ignited the fire.

Why, then, the name ‘Arian’?

If the word “Arian” is derived from Arius’ name, and if Arius “in himself … was of no great significance” (RH, xvii) during the second and main phase of the ‘Arian Controversy’, why is it called the ‘Arian Controversy’?

Athanasius invented Arianism.

The only reason we today use the terms “Arian” and “Arianism” is because:

“The textbook picture of an Arian system … inspired by the teachings of the Alexandrian presbyter, is the invention of Athanasius’ polemic.” (Williams, p. 234)

“’Arianism’ is the polemical creation of Athanasius above all.” (Williams, p. 247) (Athanasius was the main defender of Nicene theology against the anti-Nicene majority.)

What was Athanasius’ purpose?

Athanasius’ purpose was to create the impression that, although the various anti-Nicene views seem to differ, they all constituted a single coherent system; all based on Arius’ teachings. For example:

“Athanasius’ controversial energies … are dedicated to building up the picture of his enemies as uniformly committed … to a specific set of doctrines advanced by Arius and a small group of confederates” (Williams, p. 82-83).

“The professed purpose of Athanasius … is to exhibit the essential continuity of Arianism from first to last beneath a deceptive appearance of variety, all non-Nicene formularies of belief really lead back to the naked ‘blasphemies of Arius’.” (Williams, p. 66)

“Athanasius … was determined to show that any proposed alternative to the Nicene formula collapsed back into some version of Arius’ teaching, with all the incoherence and inadequacy that teaching displayed.” (Williams, p. 247)

Athanasius’ purpose, therefore, was to argue, since Arius’ theology was already formally rejected by the church, that all opposition to the Nicene Creed was also already rejected.

Athanasius was accused of Sabellianism.

After Nicaea, the anti-Nicenes accused Alexander, Athanasius, and the Nicene Creed of submitting to Sabellianism; a theology which was already formally rejected during the previous century. For example:

“The so-called Semi-Arians in particular objected to this Greek term homoousios on the grounds that it has a Sabellian tendency.”³

It was to counter this accusation, and “to tar” his opponents with the name of another theology that was already rejected, that Athanasius referred to his opponents as ‘Arians’.

“Heresiological labels enabled early theologians and ecclesiastical historians … to tar enemies with the name of a figure already in disrepute. Most famously some participants in the debate described loosely related but clearly distinct thinkers as Arians.” (Ayres, p. 2)

The term ‘Arian’ was intended to insult.

Athanasius was fond of insulting his opponents by calling them all sorts of names. (See Tuggy’s podcasts 169, 170, 171.) The name ‘Arian’ fits this pattern:

“’The Arians’, (and a variety of abusive names whereby he [Athanasius] distinguishes them.” (RH, 19)

Athanasius quotes Arius because he “relies on such texts being a positive embarrassment to most of his opponents” (Williams, p. 234).

A Serious Misnomer.

There was no single, coherent ‘Arian’ party.

The term “Arian” creates the impression that there was only one anti-Nicene view. However:

As already shown above, the term homoousios divided the church into several different branches, including several very different anti-Nicene views.

“‘Arianism,’ throughout most of the fourth century, was in fact a loose and uneasy coalition of those hostile to Nicaea in general and the homoousios in particular” (Williams, p. 166).

“Scholars continue to talk as if there were a clear continuity among non-Nicene theologians by deploying such labels as Arians, semi-Arians, and neo-Arians. Such presentations are misleading.” (Ayres, p. 13-14)

“There was no such thing in the fourth century as a single, coherent ‘Arian’ party.” (Williams, p. 233)

Arius was not the dominant teacher.

Furthermore, the term “Arian” creates the impression that Arius was the dominant teacher of the ‘Arian’ movement and that his disciples propagated his theology later in the century. However:

“No clear party sought to preserve Arius’ theology. Many … are termed Arian … (but) their theologies often have significantly different concerns and preoccupations.” (Ayres, p. 13)

“There was no single ‘Arian’ agenda, no tradition of loyalty to a single authoritative teacher. Theologians who criticized the Creed of Nicaea had very diverse attitudes to Arius himself.” (Williams, p. 247)

“The fourth-century crisis … is very far from being a struggle by ‘the Church’ against a ‘heresy’ formulated and propagated by a single dominated teacher” (Williams, p. 234).

“It is virtually impossible to identify a school of thought dependent on Arius’ specific theology.” (Ayres, p. 2)

A Serious Misnomer

Since Arius was not the dominant teacher but, actually, a relatively unimportant person, and since there was no single ‘Arian’ party, our authors concluded that:

“The expression ‘the Arian Controversy’ is a serious misnomer.” (RH, xvii-xviii)

“’Arianism’ is a very unhelpful term to use in relation to fourth-century controversy.” (Williams, p. 247)

“This controversy is mistakenly called Arian.” (Ayres, p. 13)

Rowan Williams concluded, “I was still, in 1987, prepared, even with reservations, to use the adjective ‘Arian’ in a way I should now find difficult” (Williams, p. 248).

And Lewis Ayres said, “For these reasons some scholars now simply refrain from using the term Arian other than as an adjective to describe Arius’ own theology and I shall follow that practice.” (Ayres, p. 14)

A Complete Travesty

Hanson stated that the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, which stems originally from the version given of it by the victorious party, is now recognized by a large number of scholars to be a complete travesty. Our authors confirm:

The “older accounts (of the Arian Controversy) are deeply mistaken.” (Ayres, p. 11)

“The accounts of what happened which have come down to us were mostly written by those who belonged to the school of thought which eventually prevailed and have been deeply coloured by that fact.” (RH, xviii-xix).

This message, however, has yet to fully reach the level of preachers and ordinary Christians due to, as Williams indicated, the prejudice caused by the long history of ‘demonizing’ Arius is extraordinarily powerful. (Williams, p. 2)

Athanasius distorts.

In the view of the Catholic Church and many, many Protestants, Athanasius is the hero of the Arian Controversy and they believe whatever he wrote. But, apart from Jesus, nobody is without sin, and the above shows that Athanasius’ writings distort the nature of that Controversy:

“If Athanasius’ account does shape our understanding, we risk misconceiving the nature of the fourth-century crisis.” (Williams, p. 234)

“This book has attempted to view Arius without the distorting gloss of Athanasian polemic intervening and determining our picture of the heresiarch.” (Williams, p. 234)

The article titled Complete Travesty lists several aspects of the traditional account that are blatantly wrong but the fact that ‘Arianism’ is a serious misnomer is one of the more important aspects.

Trinitarian Christianity continued the deception.

Unfortunately, after Emperor Theodosius, in the year 380, made the Trinitarian version of Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire and ruthlessly eliminated all other versions of Christianity from amongst the Roman people, the victorious Trinitarian Christianity accepted and continued Athanasius’ description of the Arian Controversy.

Even today, any person who opposes the Trinity doctrine is labeled as an ‘Arian’, irrespective of what the person believes.

It was only after the ancient documents became more readily available in the 20th century that scholars realized that the textbook account of the Arian Controversy is a complete travesty. But this realization is slow to work its way through to the rank and file of Christianity.

Was Sabellius the first Trinitarian?

PURPOSE

Johann Lorenz von Mosheim (1694-1755) was a German Lutheran theologian who founded the pragmatic school of church historians. This school insisted on the objective, critical treatment of original sources. (Britannica) This article consists of extracts from von Mosheim’s analysis of Sabellius’ theology. Show More

Historical Context

Development within the Bible

At first, the Bible writers did not know who Jesus really is. Jesus never claimed to be God but always presented Himself as subordinate to the Father. He claimed to be the Son of God (John 10:36). Even at Pentecost, Peter proclaimed Jesus as:

“A man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst.” (Acts 2:22)

The high Christology passages of the Bible, such as John 1, Hebrews 1, Galatians 1, and Philippians 2, were only revealed by the Holy Spirit during the decades after Pentecost because, before Christ died, the disciples were not ready to process such information (John 16:12).

Logos-theology

After the books of the New Testament were written, this left the church to work out how Christ relates to God. After the church had become Gentile-dominated in the second century, while the Roman authorities still persecuted it, the Apologists found it convenient to explain the Son as the Logos of Greek philosophy. In this theology, the Son always existed inside God but later became a distinct Person; subordinate to the transient high God. Show More

This was also the view of Origen – the most influential third-century great theologian.

Sabellianism

However, also in the early third century, a movement was formed, spearheaded by Noetus, Praxeus, and Sabellius, which maintained that the Son is equal to the Father. To remain true to the Old Testament revelation that God is one, they proposed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three faces or modes of the one God.

It is known as Sabellianism but was condemned as heresy. The majority view, even at Nicaea, remained the Logos-theology of the previous centuries, as revised by Origen. Show More

Purpose

In the Trinity doctrine, God is both one and three; one Being but three Persons. The purpose of this article is to show that Sabellius also taught that God is both one and three and, therefore, that Sabellianism was the first Trinity doctrine.

SUMMARY

Contrasting views

None of Sabellius’ writings have survived. Everything we know about him comes from the writings of his opponents (Wikipedia). It is, therefore, difficult to determine what he taught. On page 217, Von Mosheim explains that, in ancient times, different people had different views of what Sabellius taught:

Most said that Sabellius taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are only three names of the one God. That would be equivalent to Modalism.

But others said that Sabellius taught that only the Father is truly God and that the Son and the Holy Spirit are mere divine virtues that came from the Father. Therefore, they concluded that Sabellius’ doctrine is equivalent to the mere man Christology of the Socinians.

Von Mosheim’s Understanding

Von Mosheim, “after very carefully comparing and pondering the statements of the ancients,” concludes that both these views are wrong. Beginning on page 217, Von Mosheim explains his understanding:

Sabellius’ goal was to reconcile the doctrine of the unity of the divine nature with the scriptural doctrine of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. His goal, therefore, was to prevent “a plurality of Gods” by denying a “distinction of persons in the divine nature.” In other words, he maintained that there is only one divine person. (p217-218)

But Sabellius still believed the distinction of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be a real distinction; not a mere appellative or nominal one.

Like body, soul, and spirit

In the remainder of the chapter, Von Mosheim defends his understanding. One example is particularly striking. From the writings of Epiphanius, he shows that the Sabellians used to illustrate their doctrine by saying that, just as a man is but one person, and yet in his one person, three things may be discriminated – the body, the soul, and the spirit – so, also, although there is but one undivided person in God, yet in that person, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit can be distinguished. (p219-220)

Conclusion

On this basis, Von Mosheim concludes that Sabellius considered the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit to be three portions of the divine nature, severed, as it were, from God, and differing from each other but not subsisting as three persons. (p220)

Consequently, these three forms of God, according to Sabellius, are neither three qualities of the divine nature, nor three modes of acting, nor three names of the one God; but they are parts or portions, separated in a sense from God, and yet in another sense connected with him.

The First Trinity Doctrine

In the Trinity doctrine, God is one substance or essence but three distinct Persons. According to Von Mosheim, Sabellius also taught that God is one in one sense and three in another, namely one “person” but three “forms” that really differ.

The difference between the words “person” (hypostasis) and ousia (substance) was only worked out late in the fourth century (see – Why the Nicene Creed uses ousia and hypostasis as synonyms). These words had different meanings when Sabellius lived. For example, Sabellius used the words “person” and “nature” as synonyms (page 220). Therefore, we must look beyond the specific words to the underlying principles:

What Sabellius taught, as explained by Von Mosheim, is clearly not the Trinity doctrine as described, for example, in the Athanasian Creed. However, since both Sabellius and the Trinity doctrine teach that God is both one and three, it is possible to conclude that the Trinity doctrine is a refined form of Sabellianism. Perhaps that is what Prof. Ninan meant when he stated: “The first attempt to understand the concept of Trinity was proposed by Sabellius around 217-220 AD.”

Sozomen, the fifth-century church historian, wrote that the controversy continued after Nicaea. However, now Arius’ theology was no longer the focus of attention. Eusebius of Caesarea – “universally acknowledged to be the most scholarly bishop of his day” (Hanson, p. 46)³ “reproached Eustathius for cleaving to the heresy of Sabellius” (LA, 101)⁴. We must remember that Antioch was the headquarters of the church at the time. So, the most scholarly bishop of the day accused the most important bishop of Sabellianism. This is one example to show how accusations of Sabellianism were made frequently during the Arian Controversy, which continued after 325 for another about 55 years.

Since virtually all orthodox theologians prior to the Arian controversy in the latter half of the fourth century were subordinationists to some extent,⁵ and since Sabellius’ theology was a significant break away from the subordinationist orthodoxy of his day, perhaps the orthodox theologians should refer to Sabellius as ‘the Great’ rather than ‘the heretic’!

– END OF SUMMARY –

Introduction

After the middle of this century, Sabellius, an African bishop, or presbyter, of Ptolemais, the capitol of the Pentapolitan province of Libya Cyrenaica, attempted to reconcile, in a manner somewhat different from that of Noetus, the scriptural doctrine of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with the doctrine of the unity of the divine nature. (page 215)

… the error of Sabellius infected several of the Pentapolitan bishops, and perhaps some others … from unquestionable testimony, it appears that, in the fourth and fifth centuries, there were Sabellians in various places. (page 215-6)

Different from Noetus

The doctrine of Sabellius was not identical to that of Noetus. [I rephrase the rest of this paragraph:]

Noëtus taught that the person of the supreme Deity assumed the human nature of Christ into union with himself. Sabellius did not teach this. He taught that only “an energy or virtue, emitted from the Father of all, or, if you choose, a particle of the person or nature of the Father, became united with the man Christ.” (page 216)

And such a virtue or particle of the Father, he also supposed, constituted the Holy Spirit. (page 216)

[This point is important because it is generally thought that Sabellius and Noetus had the same teaching (Wikipedia).]

Hence, when the ancients call Sabellius and his disciples Patripassians, the appellation must be understood differently from what it is when applied to Noetus and his followers. (page 216)

[“Patripassianism” comes from the Latin words pater for “father”, and passus from the verb “to suffer.” Patripassianism is the teaching that the Father suffered on the Cross.]

Evidence of Sabellius’ teachings

The name of Sabellius is of much more frequent and marked notice, in the writings of the ancients than the name of Noetus. Nor is he mentioned solely by those who treat expressly of the sects in the early ages … but there is frequent mention of him also, by those who contended with the Arians and the other corrupters of the doctrine of three persons in God, and by those who expounded the true doctrine concerning God and Christ. (page 216)

Nevertheless, the history of Sabellius is very brief.

[None of Sabellius’ writings have survived. Everything that we know about him comes from the writings of his opponents (Wikipedia).]

His views of God and Christ are stated variously, both by the ancients and moderns. (page 216)

Views Widespread

That his error spread widely … is fully stated by Athanasius … and more concisely by Eusebius … (page 216)

The zeal of Dionysius may have driven the Sabellians from Libya and Egypt. But in the fourth century, according to Epiphanius, (Hæres. Isii. § 1. p. 513) the Sabellians were considerably numerous in Mesopotamia, and at Rome. (page 216)

And in the fifth century, the abbot Euthymius … boldly assailed … the Sabellian doctrine which confounds or combines the Father and the Son. (page 216)

The Majority View

Respecting the real sentiments of Sabellius, there is great disagreement among learned men. The majority says:

He taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are only three names of the one God, originating from the diversity of his acts and operations: that he is called the Father, when he performs the appropriate works of a Father, such as precreating, providing, cherishing, nourishing, and protecting; that he is called the Son, when operating in the Son, and thereby accomplishing what was necessary for the salvation of mankind; and that he is called the Holy Spirit when he is considered as the source of all virtue and sanctification. (page 217)

This exposition of his views is supported by numerous passages from the ancients, who say that Sabellius taught that the Father himself bore the penalties of the sins of mankind; whence he and his disciples were denominated Patripassians. This opinion, Christian Worm, in his Historia Sabelliana, supports with all the arguments and authorities he can command. (page 217)

The Minority View (page 217)

But others, relying chiefly on the authority of Epiphanius, maintain that the ancients misunderstood Sabellius;

That he did not hold the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to be only three appellations of the one God, as acting in different ways;

But that he believed the Father to be truly God, in whom is no division; and the Son to be a divine virtue, descending from the Father upon the man Christ, so that he might be able to work miracles, and to point out correctly the way for men to be saved;

And that he believed the Holy Spirit to be another ray or virtue from the divine nature, moving the minds of men and elevating them to God.

And on this ground, they conclude

That there was a great difference between the doctrine of Sabellius and that of Noëtus, already described; and

That the name of Patripassians was inapplicable to Sabellius, because he did not teach that the Father, or God, suffered penalties, but only some [p. 690] virtue, proceeding from the Father, was present with the man Christ, and aided him when he bore our penalties.

And they say that the doctrine of Sabellius did not differ greatly from that which is maintained by the Socinians. –

Thus have thought, besides others of less fame, Alexander Morus … Isaac de Beausobre … and Simon de Vries …

Von Mosheim’s View

After very carefully comparing and pondering the statements of the ancients, I have concluded,

That those err who make the Sabellian doctrine and that of Noëtus to be the same;

But those also are deceived, to some extent, who deny that the Sabellians could, with any propriety, be called Patripassians by the ancients, declaring that they were very much like the Socinians,

And that if the statements of Epiphanius are compared with those of the earlier writers, the whole controversy will be settled. (p 217)

I will now state, as carefully and perspicuously as I can, what appears to me true in regard to this subject.

Only one God

I That fear, lest God, who as both reason and the Scriptures teach is a perfectly simple unity, should be rent into a plurality of Gods, which influenced Noëtus, likewise induced Sabellius to deny the distinction of persons in the divine nature, and to maintain that there is only one divine person … And hence, according to Epiphanius, (Hæres. Isii. { 1, p504) whenever the Sabellians fell in with unlearned persons, whom they hoped easily to convert, they proposed to them this one question: … What then shall we say? Have we one God, or three Gods? (p217-218)

Real distinctions between Father, Son, and Spirit

II But while Sabellius maintained that there was but one divine person, he still believed the distinction of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, described in the Scriptures, to be a real distinction, and not a mere appellative or nominal one. (p218)

That is, he believed the one divine person whom he recognized, to have three distinct forms, which are really different, and which should not be confounded. (p218)

This remark is of the greatest importance to a correct understanding of Sabellius’ doctrine; and it ought, therefore, to be accurately substantiated.

First Witness – Arnobius

The first witness I adduce is … Arnobius, junior ~ a writer of the fifth century, whose work … was published by Francis Feuardent, subjoined to the works of Irenæus. Though he lived long after Sabellius, he is an author of much importance on this subject, because he gives us statements from a work of Sabellius himself, which he had before him.

He makes Serapion say, ( in Feuardent’s edition of Irenæus, Paris, 1675, Fol. p. 520): Ego tibi Sabellium lego, (Serapion, therefore, must be considered as holding in his hand some book of Sabellius, [p691] from which he read, )

anathema dicentem his, qui Patrem, et Filium et Spiritum sanctum esse negarent, ad convincendam Trinitatem. Serapion had before said: In Sabellii me insaniam induxisti, qui unum Deum, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum confitetur.

And when Arnobius had replied:

Sabellium negare Filium et Spiritum sanctum; that is, that Sabellius taught that the Son and the Holy Spirit are nothing different from the Father,

Serapion produced an actual work of Sabellius and showed from it that Sabellius did not maintain what Arnobius asserted, or did not confound the Son and Holy Spirit with the Father, but clearly discriminated the two former from the latter. (p218)

Arnobius, on hearing this, yields the point, or admits that it is so; but still, he maintains, that there is a wide difference between the doctrine of Sabellius and that of other Christians; because the latter believed the Son to be begotten by the Father, which Sabellius denied:

Nos autem Patrem dicimus et credimus, qui genuit Fi liun, et est Pater unici sui Filii ante tempora geniti. And this is a just representation: for although Sabellius made a distinction between the Father and the Son, yet he would not admit that the Son was a divine person, begotten by the Father. (p218)

From this passage, therefore, it is manifest :

(a) That Sabellius held to a Trinity.

(b) That he anathematized those who denied the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or a Trinity. Whence it follows, that

Had he supposed the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, were three names of the one supreme Deity, there would have been no ground for his anathema. For there never was, and never can be, a single Christian who denies that these terms occur in the Bible, and are there applied to God. It is unquestionable, both from the course of the argument, and from the nature of the case, that Sabellius condemned those who commingled and confounded the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But, most certainly, they do confound the Trinity, who make the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to differ in nothing but in name. Therefore, it was such persons that Sabellius anathematized. (p218-9)

Second Witness – Basil the Great

A second witness comes forward, viz. Basil the Great; who, although he sometimes seems to favor those who held that Sabellius taught a nominal distinction in the Trinity, yet, in two passages shows, not obscurely, that Sabellius held to some real distinction in God.

One of the passages is, ( Epist. ccx. Opp. tom. iii. p. 317. edit Benedict. ):

‘Ανυπόστατον των προσώπων αναπλασμόν, ου δε ο Σαβέλλιος παρητήσατο, ειπών,, τον αυτόν Θεόν ένα το υποκειμένω όντα, προς τις εκάστοτε παραπιπτόυσας χρείας μεταμορφόυμενον, νύν μεν ως πατέρα, νύν δε ως υιόν, νύν δε ως πνεύμα άγιον suadézerfal. lllud hypostasi carens personarum commentum ne Sabellius qui dem rejecit, quippe cum dicat eundem Deum, cum subjecto unus sit, pro occur rentibus subinde occasionibus transformatum, modo ut Patrem, modo ut Filium, modo ut Spiritum s : inctum loqui.

The other passage is (Epist. ccxxxv. p. 364.):

Σαβέλλιος πολλαχου συγχέων την έννοίαν, επιχειρει διαιρεϊν τα πρόσωπα, την αυτήν υπόστασιν λέγων προς την εκάστοτε παρεμπίπτουσαν χρείαν μεταχηματίζεσ- [ p. 692. } fai. Sabellius, tametsi confundit notionem ( Dei ), tamen sæpe conatur personas distinguere, dum hypostasin eamdem ait pro usu subinde occurrente varias per sonas induere.

Basil, indeed, speaks less clearly than I could wish, on this very obscure subject. But this is plain enough, that the Trinity of Sabellius was not merely nominal or verbal. For while he maintained that there was but one person … in God, he yet held that there are three … forms, or aspects of the one God, and that he assumes the one or the other of these forms, according to the state of things. But diverse forms of one and the same being, however they may be considered, involve some real distinction, and cannot be confounded with different appellations for the same thing.

Third Witness – An Analogy

But nothing will better elucidate and confirm my position, than the comparison by which the Sabellians were accustomed to illustrate their doctrine concerning the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as it is stated by Epiphanius, (Hæres. lxii. p513).

Having stated the Sabellian doctrine in the cornmon form: έιναι εν μία υποστάσει τρείς óvoparías, there are three appellations in one person; he proceeds to show that this language must not be construed too rigidly, by saying:

n’s ¿ v dvJpurco, σώμα, και ψυχή, και πνευμα. Και ειναι μεν το σώμα, ως ειπείν τον πατέρα, ψυχήν δε ώς ειπείν τον υιόν, το πνευμα δε ως ανθρώπου, δυσως και το άγιον πνευμα εν Tu Océrati. Patrem, Filium, Spiritum sanctum sic se habere in Deo quemad modum in homine corpus, animam et spiritum; corporis instar Patrem, animæ Filium, Spiritum denique sanctum in Divinitate instar spiritus se habere.

Comparisons, undoubtedly, are not to be pressed too far; but this one would lose every shadow of likeness and similarity, and would become a dissimilarity rather than a similarity if Sabellius had taught only a Trinity of names or words. If the difference between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is the same — I do not say altogether, but only in part — as that between the body, the rational soul or spirit, and the sentient soul in man; then, necessarily, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, must differ really from each other. (p219)

Sabellius, therefore, believed that, as a man is but one person, and yet in his one person, three things may be discriminated, not in thought only, but as having a real existence, namely, the body, the soul, and the spirit, so, also, although there is but one undivided person in God, yet in that person, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit can be discriminated, not in thought only, but they must be really discriminated and kept distinct. (p219-220)

Other testimonies will occur as we proceed.

Three portions of the one divine nature

III As Sabellius held to the simple unity of the person and nature of God, and yet supposed the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to differ really from each other, and not to be three names of the one God, acting in different ways; we are obliged to believe, that he considered the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as (p693) being three portions of the divine nature, severed, as it were, from God, and differing from each other, yet not subsisting as three persons, but all dependent on the one individual divine nature.

[Notice that person and nature are used as synonyms.]

The Father

And therefore God, when about to create the universe, did not put his whole person in action, but he sent out a portion of his nature, by which he accomplished his design. And this portion of the Divinity is called the Father; because, by its agency, God has become the parent of all things, or procreates, sustains, cherishes, and governs all. This Father produced Christ in the womb of the virgin Mary, and for that reason is emphatically Christ’s Father; and Christ is called the Son of God, because he holds the relation of a Son, in regard to this divine energy.

The Son

Again, when the same God would reclaim to himself the human race by Christ, he sent forth another portion of himself, which, being united to Christ, is called the Son; because he resides in the Son of God, and by that Son teaches and works, and, in a certain sense, makes one person with the Son.

Holy Spirit

Lastly, God sent out a third particle of his nature, perfectly separate from the two former, by which he animates the universe, and enlightens, excites, and regenerates the minds of men. This portion of God is called the Holy Spirit; because, like a wind, he excites and produces holy movements in men.

The three forms … of God, therefore, according to Sabellius, were neither three qualities of the divine nature, … nor three modes of acting, nor three appellations of the one God; but they were parts or portions, rent, indeed, in a sense from God, and yet in another sense connected with him.

Comparison with the Sun

This exposition is compatible with that celebrated comparison taken from the sun, which Epiphanius mentions, and which had led some worthy men to make the Sabellians agree with the Socinians.

Epiphanius (Hæres. lxii. p. 513) says, that the Sabellians were accustomed to explaining their doctrine by comparison with the sun, thus:

In the sun there is but one substance … but there are three powers … namely … the illuminating power, the warming power, and the circular form. The warming power answers to the Holy Spirit; the illuminating power, to the Son; and the form or figure … to the Father. (p220)

This representation seems in itself to favor the opinions of those who make Sabellius discard all real distinctions in the divine nature. But Epiphanius explains the comparison in a manner that makes it apparent, that Sabellius did not intend, by this new comparison, to subvert his former comparison, taken from the soul, body, and spirit in a man. For he adds, that the Son was sent out like ray from the Father, to perform what was requisite for the salvation of mankind, and, having accomplished the business, returned again to heaven; and that the Holy Spirit also, in like manner, should be viewed as something sent into the world. Now, whatever is sent forth from God, and afterward returns to God, must undoubtedly be something actually separate in some way from the divine nature: because, it could not possibly return back [p694) to God, unless it had departed and been separated from God. (pages 220-221)

Let no one trouble himself with the difficulties which this dogma involves; for the question is, not how wisely Sabellius reasoned, but what distinction he made between the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit.

What the ancients said about Sabellius

In the remainder of the chapter, Von Mosheim discusses what various ancient writers have written about Sabellius. He argues that they sometimes contradict and correct themselves. But since the purpose of this post is simply to show what Von Mosheim’s conclusions were – not what earlier authors argued – that analysis is not copied here.

– END OF EXTRACTS FROM VON MOSHEIM –

Final Observation

At Nicaea, as the conservative website BIBLE.CA confesses, most of the delegates opposed the Nicene Creed because of the phrases containing the word ousia (substance), including homoousios (same substance). They were concerned that this taught Sabellianism, which was already condemned. Sabellian theologians used these words to explain their theories. For example, the use of the word homoousios by the Sabellian bishops of Libya had been condemned by Dionysius of Alexandria in the 260s (WHC Frend. The Rise of Christianity, 1985, p140-141).

Now, if it is true that the Nicene Creed is a revived and refined form of Sabellianism, then it revived a theory that was already condemned by the church during previous centuries.

Purpose

Summary

The First Seven Years

The Next 55 Years

Athanasius invented Arianism.

‘Arianism’ is a serious misnomer.

Authors / Sources

ARIUS’ WRITINGS

Little of Arius’ writings survived.

Why did so little survive?

Constantine destroyed Arius’ writings.

Arius was not regarded as a great theologian.

The Arian Controversy had two phases.

The first phase focused on Arius.

The second phase focused on Homoousios.

Homoousios divided the church into several sides.

Arius and Athanasius were the extremists.

In the Second Phase, Arius was irrelevant.

His theology was irrelevant.

The so-called ‘Arians’ opposed Arius.

The so-called ‘Arians’ never quoted Arius.

Bishops did not support Arius; they opposed Alexander.

Arius was not the leader of the ‘Arians’.

Arius was an academic.

He did not leave behind a school of disciples.

Arius was part of a wider theological trajectory.

Arius was only the spark.

Why, then, the name ‘Arian’?

Athanasius invented Arianism.

What was Athanasius’ purpose?

Athanasius was accused of Sabellianism.

The term ‘Arian’ was intended to insult.

A Serious Misnomer.

There was no single, coherent ‘Arian’ party.

Arius was not the dominant teacher.

A Serious Misnomer

A Complete Travesty

Athanasius distorts.

Trinitarian Christianity continued the deception.

OTHER ARTICLES

FOOTNOTES

PURPOSE

Historical Context

Development within the Bible

Logos-theology

Sabellianism

Purpose

SUMMARY

Contrasting views

Von Mosheim’s Understanding

Like body, soul, and spirit

Conclusion

The First Trinity Doctrine

Introduction

Different from Noetus

Evidence of Sabellius’ teachings

Views Widespread

The Majority View

The Minority View (page 217)

Von Mosheim’s View

Only one God

Real distinctions between Father, Son, and Spirit

First Witness – Arnobius

Second Witness – Basil the Great

Third Witness – An Analogy

Three portions of the one divine nature

The Father

The Son

Holy Spirit

Comparison with the Sun

What the ancients said about Sabellius

Final Observation

Other Articles

FOOTNOTES

In the Second Phase,
Arius was irrelevant.