Category: The Trinity Doctrine

Posted on

Incarnation and Soteriology in the Arian Controversy

Overview

This article compares the 4th-century Nicene and Eusebian (Arian) views of the Incarnation and Redemption.

While Nicene theology regarded the Father and Son as a single Person (one hypostasis), the Arians believed that the Son is a distinct Person. This resulted in very different views of the incarnation:

Nicene theology:

Since the Father and Son are a single Person with a single mind, the Son cannot become incarnate. Rather, the Holy Spirit inspired a mere human being with the Word of God.

That human has a human mind. Some things Jesus said came from that human mind, for example, that he does not know the day or hour. At other times, it was God’s Word speaking, for example, when He said, ‘The Father and I are one.’

Since the Father and Son are a single Person, the Son is impassible, meaning He cannot suffer or die. It was a mere man who died, was resurrected, and ascended to heaven.

The Arian View:

To redeem the world, God produced a distinct divine Person (the Son) with a lower divinity who could become incarnate, suffer, and die. Jesus does not have a human soul (mind). Rather, the Logos (the Son) functions as Jesus’ mind. Consequently, Jesus Christ is the same Person as the pre-incarnate Son of God. Everything Jesus said was said by God’s eternal Son.

The Logos (the Son) experienced all of Jesus’ suffering, and He died. The Creator and God of the earth was crucified, died, was resurrected, and ascended.

The term ‘Arian’

The term ‘Arian’ is a complete misnomer because Arius was insignificant and did not leave behind a school of followers. (Read More) Nevertheless, this article continues to use that term because most people are familiar with it. 

Authors

Following discoveries and research during the 20th century, scholars now explain the Arian Controversy very differently. R.P.C. Hanson described the traditional account of the Arian Controversy as a complete travesty (see here).

“The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack (published around the year 1900) can today be completely ignored” (Hanson, p. 95).

This article series is based on books published by world-class Trinitarian scholars over the last 50 years.  

Is the Son a distinct Person?

Different views of the nature of the eternal Son of God result in different views of the incarnation. Show More

In their debates, the Greek church fathers used the term hypostasis to indicate a distinct existence. To say that the Father and Son are one hypostasis means they are one Person. Show More

In Nicene theology, the Father and Son are one single Person (hypostasis). 

The Nicene Creed describes the Father and Son as a single hypostasis (Person).

“That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one hypostasis” (Hanson, p. 235). 

That is what Athanasius believed:

The “clear inference from his (Athanasius’) usage” is that “there is only one hypostasis in God” (Ayres, p. 48). 

The only ‘creed’ explaining pro-Nicene theology in the decades after Nicaea was the manifesto formulated by the Western pro-Nicenes in 343, and it explicitly confessed a single hypostasis.

“He [Athanasius] had attended the Council of Serdica among the Western bishops in 343, and a formal letter of that Council had emphatically opted for the belief in one, and only one, hypostasis as orthodoxy. Athanasius certainly accepted this doctrine at least up to 359, even though he tried later to suppress this fact” (Hanson, p. 444). (Read More) 

What Athanasius believed is another key indicator of Nicene theology and is discussed here. In his view, the Son is IN the Father. This confirms that, in his view, the Father and Son are a single Person.

“In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius’ theology” (Hanson, p. 426).

The “clear inference from his (Athanasius’) usage” is that “there is only one hypostasis in God” (Ayres, p. 48). Show More

In Arian theology, the Son is a distinct Person. 

In contrast, in Eusebian (Arian) theology, the pre-existent Son or Logos is a distinct Person. For example, commenting on the Arian (Eastern) Dedication Creed of 341:

“The bishops of Antioch indignantly denied being followers of Arius. But their main theological opponent was Marcellus, whose doctrine they countered by insisting that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostaseis” (Anatolios, p. 24).

Is the Son Passible?

All theologians accepted that God is impassible, meaning that He cannot suffer or die. In Nicene theology, since the Father and Son are a single Person, the Son has the same uncaused and unoriginated substance as the Father. Therefore, He also cannot suffer or die. He is impassible. In contrast, in the Eusebian (Arian) view, to ensure the salvation of the world, God produced a Son with a lower divinity who could die:

“The Son as a reduced divinity capable, unlike the Father, of becoming incarnate” (Hanson, p. 32).

“Is the Son the immortal God? … No, he is not (i.e. he is the God who can do the dying whereas the Father cannot” (Hanson, p. 109). Show More

Who was incarnated?

In Nicene theology, the Spirit was incarnated. 

In Nicene theology, since the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Person, they are inseparable. One cannot say that the Son resides in Jesus Christ because that would mean that the Father also resides in Him. The pro-Nicenes, therefore, argued that God’s Word resides in the man Jesus Christ through God’s Spirit. Effectively, the Spirit was incarnated. For example, the Western pro-Nicene manifesto formulated at Serdica in 343 declares:

“We believe in and hand down the Comforter the Holy Spirit which the Lord promised and sent to us. And we believe that he was sent. And he (the Spirit) did not suffer, but the man whom he put on, whom he assumed from the Virgin Mary, the man who was capable of suffering, because man is mortal but God immortal” (Hanson, p. 302).

Reading this, “it is hard to avoid the impression that the Incarnation consisted of the Spirit taking a body which did the suffering, and that the Son is not distinguishable from the Spirit” (Hanson, p. 303). 
In Arianism, the Logos (God’s Son) became incarnate. 

That was not the first time that He appeared in a human body. The orthodox view of the first three centuries was that the one we know as Jesus Christ is the One who appeared to Israel as Yahweh:

“It is he who appeared in the Old Testament epiphanies. He took a body to appear under the New Testament as Saviour and Redeemer” (Hanson, p. 103).

For the Eusebians, “the pre-existent Christ who appeared in the Old Testament on various occasions was the same as he who was crucified” (Hanson, p. 40, quoting Asterius, a leading early Arian). 

Does Jesus have a human mind?

In the Nicene view, Jesus Christ has a human mind. 

At the incarnation, the Logos took on a complete human being with a human body and soul. For ‘soul’ we can read mind and emotions. For example, the Sabellians Eustathius and Marcellus, primary supporters of the Nicene Creed, taught that Christ had a human soul:

“Eustathius of Antioch … criticized the Eusebians for not allowing Christ a human soul. We may also be able to attribute a belief in Christ’s human soul to Marcellus of Ancyra” (Ayres, pp. 76-77).

“Marcellus had allowed Jesus a human soul” (Hanson, p. 453). 

Athanasius’s incarnation theory is discussed here. For most of his life, he refused to admit that Jesus had a human mind or soul. He describes Jesus as God in a human body, like an astronaut in a spacesuit. He said that Jesus only pretended fear and lack of knowledge. Only in the last decade of his life did he admit a human mind in Jesus.

The Arians denied that Jesus has a human soul (mind). 

In their view, the Logos or Son functioned as the human mind in Jesus. The eternal Son assumed a body without a human soul. For example:

“They insisted that, in becoming incarnate, the Son had taken to himself, not a complete human individual, but a body without a soul, meaning a body without a human mind and emotions” (Hanson, p. 26). Show More

Consequently, the Son directly experienced the pain of Jesus’ suffering and death.

“Lucian and all the Lucianists deny that the Son of God took a soul (i.e., a human soul), ‘in order that … they may attach human experiences directly to the Logos” (Hanson, p. 80, quoting Epiphanius). 

Who spoke, the divine or a human?

In Nicene theology, sometimes His divine nature spoke. At other times, the human mind spoke. 

In Nicene theology, some of the things Jesus said were said by His divine nature, such as ‘The Father and I are one.’ At other times, the human mind spoke. For example:

      • ‘The Son of Man does not know the day and hour of His return.’
      • ‘My Father is greater than I.’
In Arianism, everything Jesus said was said by the eternal Son of God. 

The incarnated Son of God is a single undivided “man:”

“The Arians dislike dividing Christ’s words and acts into those relevant to his human nature and those to his divine nature” (Hanson, p. 103). 

The pre-existent Son, who also appeared to the Jews as Yahweh, is one and the same as the incarnated Son:

“The pre-existent Christ who appeared to the Israelites … is exactly the same as he who was crucified” (Hanson, p. 108). 

In other words, the Arians believed that it was the eternal Son who said, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).

Who died?

In the Nicene view, a mere man died. 

The eternal Son of God did not suffer and die because He cannot. His human soul and mind were a buffer between the Son of God and His human experiences.

It was the man (His human nature – the human body and mind) who suffered, died, was resurrected, ascended to heaven, and sits at God’s right hand. For example, Eustathius, a keen supporter of the Nicene Creed, said:

“It is the man who sits at God’s right hand” (Hanson, p. 214). 
In the Arian view, the Creator died. 

In the Eusebian (Arian) view, the Creator and God of the earth was crucified and died.

Arians objected that, in Nicene theology, Christ’s death cannot save because a mere man died. Asterius, one of the leading ‘Arians’, said his opponents’ “interpretation of the person of the incarnate Son … (did) remove the Godhead from the act of redemption” (Hanson, p. 40). In contrast, in the Arian view:

“The Gentiles and the peoples crucified the God of the four comers of the earth, and crucified him because he tolerated it” (Asterius, Hanson, p. 109).

“The Creator was crucified” (Asterius, RH, 38-39). Show More

Conclusions

It used to be said that Arians avoided soteriology, but the Nicenes did. 

In the few pages that had survived of his own writings, Arius said nothing about soteriology (how people are saved) (Hanson, p. 96). It used to be said that Arians ignored soteriology:

“Williams and Harnack denied that Arius had any soteriology. … It is understandable … because almost every word … by Arius that survives is concerned with the relation of the Father to the Son independently of the Incarnation” (Hanson, p. 96). 

However, “in their 1981 book Early Arianism: A View of Salvation, Robert Gregg and Denis Groh argued that Arius was motivated primarily by soteriological concerns” (Ayres, pp. 55-56). In the Bible, God suffered on the Cross. The Arian system was designed to say this:

“It used to be thought that the Arians were so much interested in metaphysics and the relation of the Father to the Son that they ignored soteriology, whereas the pro-Nicenes, because of their concern to prove the divinity of Christ, paid more attention to the doctrine of salvation. Simonetti has rightly rejected this theory. The Arians were concerned with soteriology, and their ideas about the relation of the Son to the Father show this. They made a serious effort to meet the evidence of the Bible that God suffers, whereas the general impression which the writings of the pro-Nicenes produces is that this is the last admission which they wish to make” (Hanson, pp. 826-7). 

It was the pro-Nicenes who avoided this topic:

“The Arians understood’ very well the necessity of allowing that in some sense God suffered in the course of saving mankind; the pro-Nicenes consistently tried to avoid this conclusion” (Hanson, p. 870).

“Arian thought achieved an important insight into the witness of the New Testament denied to the pro-Nicenes of the 4th century, who unanimously shied away from and endeavoured to explain away the scandal of the Cross” (Williams, pp. 21-22, quoting RPC Hanson). 
The Nicenes and the Sabellians were on the same side. 

Both the Sabellians and Nicenes taught that the Father and Son are one hypostasis and that Jesus Christ has a human mind. At Nicaea, Alexander allied with the Sabellians, and a decade later, Athanasius allied with Marcellus. As discussed here,  the main dividing line in the Arian Controversy was between one- and three-hypostases theologies, and the Nicenes and Sabellians were on the same side.

Other Articles

Posted on

Sabellians taught that the Father and Son are a single Person.

Summary

At the Nicene Council of 325, the Sabellians vigorously opposed Arius and Arianism, joined forces with Alexander, and significantly influenced the Nicene Creed. However, within about ten years after Nicaea, the church deposed all leading Sabellians. This article analyses what the Sabellians believed.

The three leading Sabellians in the fourth century were Eustathius, Marcellus, and Photinus. Eustathius and Marcellus attended the Nicene Council. Photinus lived a few decades later.

Sabellian theology taught as follows:

The relationship between God and His Word can be explained using the analogy of a human person and her reason.

The Logos or Word is eternally in the Father, intrinsic to the Father’s existence.

Consequently, the Father and His Logos are a single Person (hypostasis). There is only one distinct reality in the Godhead. ‘One hypostasis’ of the Godhead became their slogan and rallying cry.

The Logos (the Word) does not have a real distinct existence. He is not a distinct Person. The Logos is a mere word spoken by God. The Logos was a manifestation of the Father, a power or aspect of him not in any serious sense distinct from him.

Only one divine mind exists. Since the Father and Son are a single Existence (a single hypostasis), they have a single mind.

Since the Logos is not a divine Person with a distinct mind, He cannot become a human person. Since the Logos is as divine and immutable as the Father, He cannot suffer or die. Consequently, the birth of Jesus Christ brought into existence a new and complete human being with a human body and soul (mind), with the Word of God dwelling in the man Jesus as an energy or inspiration. 

The human body and soul (mind) absorbed all human experiences. It was only a human being who suffered and died, was resurrected, and who now sits at God’s right hand.

God’s only begotten Son is not the Logos but the man Jesus. “Begotten” refers to when Jesus was conceived in Mary’s womb. In other words, Christ, God’s Son, did not exist before He was born from Mary.  

The Holy Spirit is not a Person. Similar to the Logos in the man Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit is merely an activity of or an energy from God.

One surprising conclusion is that the Eusebian (Arian) view of Jesus Christ is infinitely higher than the Sabellian view. In the Eusebian view, Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God. In the Sabellian view, he is an exceptionally inspired but mere man. 

Introduction

Experts in the field explain the Arian Controversy very differently today compared to the 19th century.

Due to ancient documents discovered and research since the 20th century, modern scholars conclude that the traditional account of the fourth-century Arian Controversy is history written by the winner and, in some respects, a complete travesty. Show More

Older books and ‘elementary textbooks’ – written by authors who do not specialize in the history of the Arian Controversy – often still offer the traditional account. Show More

This article is based on the writings of experts over the last 50 years, reflecting the revised account.

This specific article quotes mainly from:

Hanson R.P.C.,
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381 (1988)

Williams, Rowan,
Arius: Heresy and Tradition (2002/1987)

Ayres, Lewis,
Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (2004)

Lienhard Joseph, The “Arian” Controversy: Some Categories Reconsidered, a 1987 article

The three leading Sabellians in the fourth century were Eustathius, Marcellus, and Photinus. 

In chapter 8 of his book, RPC Hanson discusses the three Sabellian bishops who were prominent during the fourth-century Arian Controversy:

      • Eustathius of Antioch
      • Marcellus of Ancyra, and
      • Photinus of Sirmium. 

Ayres, in chapter 3.1 of his book, discusses one of the three (Marcellus) as one of the four “trajectories” in the church when the Arian Controversy began. The current article combines and summarizes these two sections of these two books, with comments from Lienhard added.

The theologies of the three Sabellians were similar. Marcellus learned his theology from Eustathius, and Photinus was a devoted disciple of Marcellus. Show More

History

The Nicene Council

At Nicaea, the Sabellians joined forces with Alexander and significantly influenced the Nicene Creed. 

Eustathius and Marcellus attended Nicaea, allied with Alexander, and were some of Arius’ most vocal critics. Show More

The emperor took Alexander’s part in his dispute with Arius. Consequently, their alliance with Alexander allowed the Sabellians to significantly influence the wording of the Nicene Creed. Show More

After Nicaea

However, the church deposed all leading Sabellians within about ten years after Nicaea. 

Eustathius and Marcellus were deposed in the decade after Nicaea. Photinus lived a little later and was deposed in 351:

Eustathius was “deposed from the see of Antioch by a council and exiled by Constantine” (Hanson, p. 209).

“About ten years after the Council of Nicaea he (Marcellus) was deposed by a council held in Constantinople” (Hanson, p. 217). Show More

Initially, the Western Church was not part of the Arian Controversy. 

For example, almost all delegates at Nicaea came from the East:

The delegates were “drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire” (Ayres, p. 19).

“The Council was overwhelmingly Eastern, and only represented the Western Church in a meagre way” (Hanson, p. 156).

But after the Eastern Church deposed the Sabellian Marcellus, the Western Church accepted him as orthodox. 

“Julius (bishop of Rome), in the year 341, summoned a council to Rome, which vindicated the orthodoxy of Marcellus, as well as that of Athanasius” (Hanson, p. 218).

“Julius, however, persisted in holding a synod, which upheld the orthodoxy and innocence of Athanasius, Marcellus, and others; and Julius received them into communion” (Lienhard, p. 417).

In this way, the Western Church became a main player in the Controversy.

Theology

The Sabellians believed that the Logos is in the Father. 

For example, Marcellus taught:

“The Word … eternally is in the Father” (Ayres, p. 63).

“Before the world existed the Word was in the Father” (Ayres, p. 63).

“The Word was in the Father as a power” (Ayres, p. 63).

“To describe the relationship between Word and God he (Marcellus) deploys the analogy of a human person and her reason.” In other words, the Word eternally exists “intrinsic to” the Father’s existence (Ayres, p. 62).

Consequently, the Father and His Logos are a single Person (hypostasis). 

Hanson refers to Eustathius’ “insistence that there is only one distinct reality (hypostasis) in the Godhead, and his confusion about distinguishing Father, Son and Holy Spirit” (Hanson, p. 216).

“One point about Marcellus which is unequivocally clear is that he believed that God constituted only one hypostasis” (Hanson, pp. 229-230). Show More

It follows that the Logos does not have a real distinct existence. He is not a distinct Person.

For example:

Hanson defines Sabellianism as “a failure to distinguish Father and Son” (Hanson, p. 224). 

“’The Logos for Eustathius,’ says Loofs, … ‘has or is no proper hypostasis’” (Hanson, p. 215). 

Eusebius of Caesarea “accuses Marcellus of Ancyra of rejecting the hypostasis i.e. the distinct individuality, of the Son” (Hanson, p. 53).

The Logos was and is a mere word spoken by God. 

For example:

For Marcellus, “the Son was a mere word … immanent [inherent] during the time that the Father was silent, but active in fashioning the creation, just as one’s speech is inactive when we are silent, but active when we speak” (Hanson, p. 224).

“Like Marcellus, he (Photinus) favoured the analogy of a man and his thought for the relation of the Father to the Son” (Hanson, p. 237). Show More

While ‘Arians’ taught two divine minds – God and His Son, Sabellians taught only a single divine mind. 

The Eusebians taught that God’s Son always existed with His own mind, distinct from the Father. For example, both Alexander and Athanasius recorded that Arius, one of the Eusebians, taught that the Son has a distinct ‘Wisdom’:

Athanasius wrote that, for Arius, “There are … two Wisdoms, one God’s own who has existed eternally with God, the other the Son who was brought into existence. … There is another Word in God besides the Son” (Hanson, p. 13; cf. Williams, p. 100).

Alexander similarly noted that Arius stated of the Son: “Nor is he the Father’s true Logos … nor his true Wisdom” (Hanson, p. 16). “He came into existence himself through the proper Logos of God and the Wisdom which was in God” (Hanson, p. 16).

Hanson explained:

In Arius’ theology, “there are two Logoi and two Wisdoms (Sophiae) … Arius distinguished between an original Reason (Logos) or Wisdom immanent from eternity in the Godhead and the Son who was not immanent in the Godhead but created” (Hanson, p. 20)

Note that these quotes use the terms ‘Logos’, ‘Word’, ‘Reason’, and ‘Wisdom’ as synonyms. For the Eusebians, there are two ‘Wisdoms’ or minds. 

The Sabellians, in contrast, consistent with Jewish monotheism, denied the existence of two divine minds. Since they argued that the Logos is ‘in’ the Father, the Father and Son are a single Existence (a single hypostasis). It follows that they also have a single mind. There is only one ‘Wisdom’ or mind in God. For example:

In response to the Eusebian claim of two Wisdoms, Marcellus denied the existence of “another Logos and another Wisdom and Power.” He described the Logos as “the proper and true Logos of God” (Hanson, p. 230).

“Marcellus of Ancyra held … God is one ousia, one hypostasis, and one prosôpon. … God had to be one prosôpon, because Marcellus could not conceive of two “I”s in the Godhead” (Lienhard, p. 426).

Who is Jesus?

The above discusses the nature of God and His Word apart from the incarnation. A further important issue is what ‘one hypostasis’ theology means for who Jesus Christ was and is.

Jesus Christ was born as a complete human person with a human mind. 

The Eusebians (the so-called Arians) argued that Christ does not have a human soul (mind) but that God gave Him a body without a human mind. Therefore, the Logos functions as Christ’s mind. In that way, the Logos directly suffered all the pain and insult of the Cross. The Eusebians described the Son as God (see here) but with a lower divinity that could suffer and even die.  

In contrast, in Sabellian theology, since the Logos is not a divine Person with a distinct mind, He cannot become a human person. Since the Logos is as divine and immutable as the Father, He cannot suffer or die. Consequently, they argued, the birth of Jesus Christ brought into existence a new and complete human being with a human body and soul (mind). For example: 

Eustathius wrote: “The man whom the Logos assumed was a complete man: ‘he consists of soul and body” (Hanson, p. 213).

“Marcellus also sees the need for a human soul or mind in Christ. … Marcellus points out that Mt 26:39 (‘not as I will, but as you will’) demonstrates that their wills were not always in harmony; hence Christ had a distinct center of consciousness (a human mind)” (Lienhard, p. 427)

Photinus “certainly taught that the human body of Jesus had a human mind or soul” (Hanson, p. 236). Show More

The Logos dwells in the man Jesus as an Energy or Inspiration. 

A critical question is, in what sense was God in this man? 

“It would seem that Eustathius … holds that the Logos is … dwelling as an ‘energy‘ in Jesus” (Hanson, p. 215).

For Marcellus, with respect to “the Incarnation … the Godhead would appear to be extended simply by activity so that in all likelihood the Monad is genuinely indivisible” (Hanson, p. 228).

“Everybody in the ancient world accuses Photinus of reducing Christ to a mere man adopted by God, i.e. the union between Logos and man was one of inspiration and moral agreement” (Hanson, p. 237).

God’s only begotten Son is not the Logos but the man Jesus. 

Marcellus said: 

“The only title that is proper to the Preincarnate is “Word”; all other titles are titles of the incarnate Christ. The Word ‘goes forth’ from the Father; ‘begetting’ is better reserved for the Virgin’s conceiving. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and receives His mission through the Son” (Lienhard, p. 426).

Christ, God’s Son, did not exist before He was born from Mary. 

For Marcellus, the term “begotten” refers to the event, 2000 years ago, when Jesus was conceived in Mary’s womb. “It was not the Logos that was begotten, but the Son” (Hanson, p. 224).

Photinus wrote: “The Son did not come into existence until the Incarnation and was defined as the whole human being who was born of Mary; Christ had no pre-existence” (Hanson, p. 237).

“The Logos was only called Son or Jesus or Christ after the Incarnation” (Hanson, p. 225).

It was only a human being who suffered and died. 

Since the Logos is part of or an aspect of God, He cannot suffer or die. The human body and soul absorbed all human experiences:

“The human being absorbs all the human experiences attributed to Christ in the Gospels, leaving the divine element untouched” (Hanson, p. 215).

“This soul was able to endure the human experiences which it was unfitting for the divine element in Christ to endure” (Hanson, p. 212).

It was only a human person who was resurrected, and who now sits at God’s right hand:

Eustathius “distinguishes between ‘the Logos … and ‘Christ’s man’ who was raised from death and is exalted and glorified” (Hanson, p. 213). “It is the man who sits at God’s right hand” (Hanson, p. 214).

Initially, Marcellus taught that Jesus Christ would cease to exist. 

If the Logos is only an activity or energy of God in the man Jesus, then that activity should end when the goal is accomplished. For example:

“Marcellus set a limit to this period of Christ’s reign. At the end of this reign the flesh of Christ was to be abandoned, the body deserted, and the Logos would return to God from whom he had (before the creation of the world) come forth” (Hanson, p. 226-7).

“He is most concerned to uphold God’s rule as complete and unmediated, and thus the kingdom of Christ must end” (Ayres, p. 66).

Marcellus seemed to have later changed his view on this:

“He played down his more eccentric earlier ideas” (Hanson, p. 238).

The Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit is not a Person but an Activity or Energy. 

Similar to the Logos in Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit is merely an activity of or an energy from God. For example, for Marcellus:

“The Spirit remains inseparably in God, but goes forth as activity from the Father and the Logos” (Hanson, p. 229).

“The same language of going forth in energy is used for the Spirit as was used in the case of the Son” (Ayres, p. 67).

Conclusions

Sabellians claimed they were not Sabellians and could point to differences, but they all taught one hypostasis. 

Marcellus insists “that he is not a Sabellian” (Ayres, p. 63). Technically, this may be true. Sabellius taught that the Father and Son are parts of the one God (see here). In contrast, as stated, for Marcellus, the Son is “in the Father” (Ayres, p. 63, 64). Nevertheless, in both views, the Father and Son are one single hypostasis (Reality), and the Son is not a distinct Person. 

Sabellians had a low view of Christ. 

One surprising conclusion is that the Eusebian (Arian) view of Jesus Christ is infinitely higher than the Sabellian view. In the Eusebian view, Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God. In the Sabellian view, he is merely an exceptionally inspired man. 

Biblical Unitarians are Sabellians. 

Another surprising conclusion is that the Socianians, or so-called Biblical Unitarians, continue the theology of the ancient Sabellians. On the Internet, one finds heated debates between the Biblical Unitarians and Trinitarians, but, in fact, the two systems are very close:

Both teach that the Son of God, eternally, does not have a distinct existence.

Both teach that Jesus Christ is a mere man. 

Other Articles

Proudly powered by WordPress

Table of Contents

→ TABLE OF CONTENTS