Athanasius Archives » From Daniel to Revelation

2024-08-102024-08-11

Arius described the Son as mutable but unchangeable.

Summary

Following ancient Greek philosophy, theologians generally accept that God is immutable, meaning, unable to change. The question arises, Is God’s Son also immutable? Can He change? In particular, can He become evil?

Arius’ opponents Alexander and Athanasius believed that the Son is part of the Father. (See here) As such, the Son is as immutable as the Father.

The Nicene Creed similarly anathematizes those who say, “The Son of God is … subject to alteration or change.”

Arius described the Son as “Like the Father, ‘unchangeable’.” (RW, 96) However, his enemies Alexander and Athanasius claimed that Arius taught the exact opposite, namely, that the Son is, “like all others … subject to change.” (Athanasius in Contra Arianos(v), RW, 100) Arius’ thinking was as follows:

By nature, the Son is mutable. His enemies preferred to emphasize this point.

God did not override the Son’s freedom (mutability). God did not make it impossible for His Son to change or to sin.

The Son does not sin because He loves righteousness and hates iniquity. He is “unchangeable” because He will not sin; not because He cannot sin.

God had always given the Son all authority in heaven and earth because He always knew His Son would never sin.

Note how Arius’ enemies emphasize the one part of Arius’ thinking, that the Son is mutable by nature, and omits that Arius also said the Son will never change. This is one example of how Athanasius misrepresents Arius. (Read more)

The Son came to this world to be tested to see whether He would also sin under the ‘right’ circumstances. (See here) If He couldn’t sin, His victory over sin would be meaningless.

Purpose

Since Athanasius wrote that Arius taught the Son is mutable, why did Arius say the Son is unchangeable?

Theologians generally agree, based mainly on the principles of Greek philosophy (See – Classical Theism), that God is immutable, meaning “unchanging over time.” All other beings are then thought to be subject to change.

Ancient Greek philosophers thought that God cannot change. For example, Plato argues that God is perfect and cannot and does not change. (Wikipedia) Aristotle called God ‘The Unmoved Mover’.

Origen said: “The divine (is) distinguished from the rest by possessing immutable existence not subject to the change.” (RH, 67).

The question arises, Is God’s Son also immutable?

Arius’ opponents Alexander and Athanasius believed that the Son is part of the Father. (See here) Consequently, the Son is as immutable as the Father.

In the Nicene Creed, the Son is begotten from the substance of the Father and is of the same substance as the Father. This implies that He is as immutable as the Father. The Creed anathematizes those who say, “The Son of God is … subject to alteration or change.”

Arius argued that, since the Father has begotten the Son, the Father has caused His existence and the Father alone exists without a cause. Therefore, the Son could be thought of as created. As such, He must also be mutable. But Arius described the Son as:

“Like the Father, ‘unchangeable’” (RW, 96).

The purpose of this article is to explain why Arius described the Son both as a ‘creature’ and unchangeable.

Arius is important.

Arius is traditionally regarded as the mother of heretics but Trinitarian scholars now say he was a good theologian.

The term ‘Arian’ is derived from the name of the fourth-century presbyter Arius. Traditionally, “Arius … came … to be regarded as a kind of Antichrist among heretics” (RW, 1). However, scholars have recently said: “Once we stopped looking at him from Athanasius’ perspective, we shall have a fairer picture of his strength” (RW, 12-13).

The point is that most of what we know about Arius comes from Athanasius’ criticism of Arius’ writings and “Athanasius, a fierce opponent of Arius … certainly would not have stopped short of misrepresenting what he said” (RH, 10). Athanasius used “unscrupulous tactics in polemic and struggle” (RW, 239).

Since most theologians over the centuries had taken Athanasius at his word, Arius’ theology has traditionally been “represented as … some hopelessly defective form of belief” (RW, 2). But Rowan Williams recently, after careful study of the ancient documents, described Arius as:

“A thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness and originality.” (RW, 116)

“An important dimension in Christian life that was dis-edifyingly and unfortunately crushed.” (RW, 91)

For that reason, it would be appropriate for us to take note of what Arius wrote. Read more

Authors Quoted

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

Due to research and a store of ancient documents that have become available over the last 100 years, scholars today conclude that the traditional account of the Controversy – of how and why the church accepted the Trinity doctrine – is history written by the winner and fundamentally flawed. In some instances, it is the opposite of the true history.

Following the last full-scale book on the fourth-century Arian Controversy in English, written by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, only a handful of full-scale books on the Arian Controversy have been published. This article in particular quotes from:

RH = Bishop RPC Hanson
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God –
The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987

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

‘Arian’ is a misnomer.

Arius did not have followers. Athanasius invented the ‘Arian’ concept as a polemical device.

Arius was already dead when Athanasius wrote. However, he used Arius as a stick to beat his opponents with. He called his opponents ‘Arians’, meaning followers of Arius, and then selectively quoted Arius as an attack on his opponents.

But his opponents were not followers of Arius. Arius did not leave behind a school of disciples. He had very few real followers. Nobody regarded his writings worth copying. His theology played no part in the Controversy after Nicaea. The term ‘Arian’, therefore, is a serious misnomer. The only reason so many Christians believe Arius was important is because they accept Athanasius’ distortions. (Read more)

In reality, Arius was part of a group we may call the ‘Eusebians’; followers of Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia. (Read more) Consequently, this article series often refers to the anti-Nicenes as the Eusebians rather than ‘Arians’.

Alexander and Athanasius

Athanasius claimed that Arius described the Son as “changeable by nature” “like all others.”

Athanasius, in his paraphrasing of Arius’ writings, claimed that Arius wrote:

The Son is “like all others … subject to change … because he is changeable by nature” (Contra Arianos(v), RW, 100; cf. RH, 13).

“God foresaw that the Son was going to be good, and so exempted him from evil in advance, i.e., deprived him of the possibility of earning merit” (RH, 21; cf. RH, 13).

This quote is from Contra Arianos in which Athanasius paraphrases Arius’ theology. Williams confirms this “has no parallel in S, nor any in Arius’ letters” (RW, 104). (“S” stands for de synodis 15, the other work by Athanasius in which he seems to quote Arius’ actual words.)

Alexander also claimed that Arius described the Son as “of a mutable nature.”

Alexander was Arius’ bishop. The Arian Controversy began as a dispute between them. Two of Alexander’s letters “emphasize very strongly that Arius taught a mutable Logos, whose divine dignity is a reward for his unswerving spiritual fidelity” (RW, 104). Alexander described Arius as saying that the Son “is of a mutable nature” (RH, 16-17) and “mutable and alterable in his nature as are all rational beings” (RH, 16; cf. RW, 104-5).

Arius

In his own writings, Arius said that the Son is and always was unchangeable.

In the three letters of Arius that have survived, he described the Son as:

- - “Like the Father, ‘unchangeable’” (RW, 96).
  - “Stably and inalienably” (L, RW, 97).
  - “Unchangeable and unalterable” (RH, 7; cf. RH, 6, 8).
  - “By the will of God, the Son is stably and unalterably what he is” (RW, 98).

While Alexander claimed that Arius’ Son is mutable because He was “promoted because of virtue” (RW, 113), namely, that His “divine dignity is a reward for his unswerving spiritual fidelity” (RW, 104), Arius said that the Son always had His “divine dignity:”

“Arius’ scheme depends upon the fact that God bestows power and glory upon the Son from the beginning” (RW, 113).

“The Son (was) creative Word and Wisdom and the image of the Father’s glory from before the world was made” (RW, 114).

There was no “sort of change in his status … (no) time when he is not Wisdom and Word” (RW, 114).

Arius’ Rationale

Rowan Williams explains how Arius could describe the Son as both a creature and as immutable on pages 113-116 of his book:

By nature, the Son is mutable. The Son has divine attributes, not by nature, but because He receives them from the Father.

For Arius, the Son “does not by nature possess any of the divine attributes … his godlike glory and stability [immutability] … and so must be given them” (RW, 113-114).

For example, the Son has life in Himself and all the fullness to dwell in Him, but He received those things (John 5:26; Col 1:19).

God did not override the Son’s freedom. God did not make it impossible for His Son to change or to sin:

“As a rational creature he is mutable according to his choice and what is to be avoided here is the suggestion that God overrules the Son’s freedom by his premundane [before the creation of the world] gifts and graces” (RW, 114).

The Son does not and will not sin because He hates iniquity, not because He cannot sin. In that sense, He is immutable:

In Arius’ view, “the Son, in his pre-incarnate state and in his life on earth voluntarily ‘loved righteousness and hated iniquity’” (RW, 114).

God always knew that His Son would never sin. Even though the Son can sin, God has given Him all authority in heaven and on earth and “all the gifts and glories God can give” (L, RW, 98) right from the beginning. If the Son would sin, that would cause great unhappiness. However:

“God, in endowing the Son with this dignity of heavenly intimacy from the very beginning of his existence, is … acting not arbitrarily but rationally, knowing that his firstborn among creatures is and will always be worthy of the highest degree of grace, a perfect channel for creative and redemptive action, and so a perfect ‘image’ of the divine” (RW, 114-5).

Conclusions

Arius did not describe the Son as immutable because He cannot sin; He is immutable because He will not sin.

The Son came to this world to be tested to see whether He would also sin under the ‘right’ circumstances. (See here) If it was impossible for Him to sin, His victory over sin would be meaningless.

While Arius wrote that the Son is immutable, Athanasius, without an explanation, stated that Arius taught the exact opposite. This is one example of how Athanasius misrepresented Arius. “Athanasius … certainly would not have stopped short of misrepresenting what he (Arius) said” (RH, 10). We must not blindly accept what Athanasius wrote.

Sabellians taught a single divine mind in God.

OVERVIEW

The Sabellians taught that only a single divine mind or ‘Wisdom’ exists. The Word (the Logos) exists ‘in’ the Father and does not have a distinct existence. The Word is a mere Word spoken by the single ‘Person’ (hypostasis) of God.

Since they taught that the Word is not a divine Person with a distinct mind, He cannot become a human person. Therefore, Jesus Christ was born a complete human person with a human mind, with the Word dwelling in the man Jesus as an Energy or Inspiration.

Furthermore, since the Word is part or an aspect of God, He cannot suffer or die. It was only a human being who suffered, died, was resurrected, and who now sits at God’s right hand.

In the fourth century, the Council of Nicaea was attended almost exclusively by Easterners, teaching two divine minds – God and His Son. In opposition to them, the Sabellians joined forces with Alexander, who also taught a single divine mind. Through their alliance with Alexander, the Sabellians significantly influenced the Nicene Creed.

However, after Nicaea, while the anti-Nicene Eastern church deposed all leading Sabellians, the pro-Nicene Western Church accepted the Sabellians as orthodox. The Western Church, like the Sabellians, taught that the Father and Son are a single Person (hypostasis).

INTRODUCTION

Authors quoted

Scholars today explain the Arian Controversy very differently from how they explained it in 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.

“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)

Ayres wrote in 2004: “A vast amount of scholarship over the past thirty years has offered revisionist accounts of themes and figures from the fourth century” (Ayres, p. 2).

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.

“Many summary accounts present the Arian controversy as a dispute over whether or not Christ was divine, initially provoked by a priest called Arius whose teaching angered his bishop, Alexander of Alexandria. Eventually, this traditional account tells us, the controversy extended throughout the century—even after the decisive statements of the Council of Nicaea—because a conspiracy of Arians against the Nicene tradition (represented particularly by Athanasius) perpetuated Arius’ views.” (Ayres, p. 13)

“ELEMENTARY TEXTBOOKS often paint a clear and dramatic picture of the “Arian” controversy, more or less as follows. Shortly before 318, in Alexandria, Arius began to preach that the Son of God is a creature. In 318 a synod convoked by the bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, condemned Arius’ teaching. Arius then withdrew to Asia Minor, where he won many converts to his doctrines, especially from among the Sylloukianistai, his fellow pupils of the martyr Lucian of Antioch. In 325 the Council of Nicaea decisively rejected Arianism and proclaimed the orthodox doctrine in its creed and particularly in the renowned word homoousion. But the majority of Eastern bishops continued to adhere to the Arian heresy in subtler and subtler forms; and Arianizing emperors, especially Constantius, conspired with these bishops to force Arius’ heresy on the whole Church. At first, resistance to Arianism came almost singlehandedly from Athanasius of Alexandria, who, despite persecution and exile, indefatigably defended Nicene orthodoxy. The year 360 marked the nadir: “The whole world groaned and marveled that it was Arian,” wrote Jerome. Constantius’ death in 361 was a turning point. The three Cappadocian Fathers received the baton of orthodoxy from Athanasius and continued the defense of the Nicene doctrine. The ascendancy of Arianism was definitively ended by the Council of Constantinople in 381, and orthodoxy triumphed.” (Lienhard)

This article series quotes from primary scholars in this field of the last 100 years, reflecting the revised account.

This specific article quotes mainly from:

Hanson RPC,
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 T, The “Arian” Controversy: Some Categories Reconsidered, a 1987 article

Three prominent Sabellians

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 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.

“Marcellus learnt the main lines of his theology from Eustathius.” (Hanson, p. 234)

Their theologies only differ “in minor respects” (Hanson, p. 216) and “stem from the same theological tradition.” (Hanson, p. 234)

“Photinus, bishop of Sirmium … came from Ancyra, was a devoted disciple of Marcellus of Ancyra.” (Hanson, p. 235-6)

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.

“Marcellus, Eustathius and Alexander were able to make common cause against the Eusebians.” (Ayres, p. 69)

“Eustathius and Marcellus … certainly met at Nicaea and no doubt were there able to join forces with Alexander of Alexandria and Ossius.” (Hanson, p. 234) (Ossius presided over the meeting as the emperor’s agent.)

Eustathius “was clearly a vigorous opponent of Arius and Arianism.” (Hanson, p. 208

Since the emperor had taken Alexander’s part in his dispute with Arius, their alliance with Alexander allowed the Sabellians to significantly influence the wording of the Nicene Creed:

“Tension among Eusebian bishops was caused by knowledge that Constantine had taken Alexander’s part and by events at the council of Antioch only a few months before.” (Ayres, p. 89)

“Marcellus … played a major role at Nicaea.” (Ayres, p. 62)

“If we are to take the creed N at its face value, the theology of Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea. That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one hypostasis. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men.” (Hanson, p. 235)

After Nicaea

Deposed for Sabellianism

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)

“It seems most likely that Eustathius was primarily deposed for the heresy of Sabellianism.” (Hanson, p. 211)

“Marcellus of Ancyra had produced a theology … which could quite properly be called Sabellian.” (Hanson, p. ix) Marcellus of Ancyra “cannot be acquitted of Sabellianism.” (Hanson Lecture) “Marcellus was deposed for Sabellian leanings.” (Hanson, p. 228) Eusebius regards Marcellus’ “doctrine as outright Sabellianism.” (Hanson, p. 224)

Marcellus’ book “was accused of favouring the ideas of Paul of Samosata.” (Hanson, p. 217). (This Paul was a prominent third-century Sabellian who had been condemned at a council in Antioch in 268.)

Photinus was “censured” and “condemned” in 344, 345, and 347, “but was only ousted and exiled finally … in 351.” (Hanson, p. 236)

Accepted in the West

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

For example, almost all delegates 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, p417)

THEOLOGY

The Son is in the Father.

The Sabellians believed that the Logos is specifically 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)

A Single Hypostasis

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, p. 229-230)

The “’one hypostasis’ of the Godhead was to become the slogan and rallying-cry of the continuing Eustathians.” (Hanson, p. 213)

“The point’ which was to them (Marcellus’ followers) crucial, that there was one hypostasis with one ousia.” (Hanson, p. 223-4) “Marcellus … is particularly incensed at the use of hypostasis or ousia in the plural.” (Ayres, p. 63)

“Marcellus and the clergy who remained faithful to him wrote to Athanasius ca. 371 and asked him to approve their doctrine. They had given up all of Marcellus’ distinctive beliefs but held tenaciously to the doctrine of one divine hypostasis.” (Lienhard)

“That (Nicene) creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one hypostasis. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men (Eustathius and Marcellus).” (Hanson, p. 235)

The Logos

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

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)

For Marcellus, “the Word, as God’s dynamis or power, is eternal; when God speaks, then His Word became an active power.” (Lienhard, p426)

For Photinus, “The Logos … was simply a mode of manifestation of the Father, a power or aspect of him not in any serious sense distinct from him.” (Hanson, p. 237)

“Manuals often take Marcellus’ doctrine of God as a Monad that temporarily expands into a Triad as the most typical element of his theology.” (Lienhard, p427

Only one Divine Mind

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” (RH, 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.” (RH, 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, p426)

WHO IS JESUS?

The above discusses the nature of God apart from the incarnation. A further important issue is what ‘one hypostasis’ theology means for who Jesus Christ was and is. After all, that was perhaps the most fundamental question in the Arian Controversy.

Since the Logos is not a divine Person with a distinct mind, He cannot become a human person. Therefore, 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. The Logos functions as Christ’s mind. In that way, the Logos suffered all the pain and insult of the Cross. The Eusebians described the Son as God (read more) but with a lower divinity that could suffer and even die. They claimed that the Bible teaches that God had to suffer and die.

In contrast, in Sabellian theology, the Logos is as divine as the Father and, therefore, cannot become a human being and 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, p427)

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

“The miahypostatic [one hypostasis] tradition … sees the Incarnation as a radically new stage in the existence of the God the Logos. Because the Logos is God, the Incarnation is a profound, new mystery. There is little speculation on Christ’s human soul in the early fourth century; but what there is begins on the side of the miahypostatic tradition, particularly in Eustathius of Antioch and Marcellus of Ancyra. … Eusebius accuses Marcellus of … saying that Christ had a human soul or mind.” (Lienhard, p428) (Read 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, p426)

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 the Logos assumed flesh. “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)

Since the Logos is part or an aspect of God, He cannot suffer or die. It was only a human being who suffered, died, was resurrected, and who now sits at God’s right hand.

It was the human person who suffered and died. 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)

Only a human being rose from death, was resurrected, and 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.

In the same way as 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

Sabellian Antecedents

Sabellianism, formulated by Sabellius in the third century, continued but revised second-century Monarchianism.

“Scholarship has also consistently linked Marcellus with ‘Monarchian’ theologies. Monarchian theologians in the second and third centuries appear to have focused on the unity of God centred in the person of the Father. By their opponents they are accused of teaching that the Son and the Spirit do not have real independent existence and are in fact simply modes of the Father’s being. … Some scholarship has seen this theological tendency as a strong and persistent theological voice, both in Rome and in Asia through the third century, with Marcellus as the last prominent Monarchian voice.” (Ayres, p. 69)

The Western Church

The Western Church, like the Sabellians, taught that the Father and Son are a single Person.

As stated above, in 340, the Western church accepted Marcellus as orthodox. The question is why. As is also stated above, at first, the West was not involved in the Arian Controversy. The West became involved only after the exiled Athanasius and Marcellus appealed to the bishop of Rome. Hanson proposes that the West accepted Marcellus because it did not properly understand the issues:

“Pope Julius and his associates who declared Marcellus’ doctrine to be orthodox can have never met the works of Origen nor known anything of the theology of the Eastern Church.” (Hanson, p. 231)

An alternative answer is that the West and the Sabellians had a shared Monarchian heritage, believing that the Father and Son are a single Person with a single mind (a single hypostasis):

Hanson refers to the Western bishops’ “traditional Monarchianism.” (Hanson, p. 272)

At Serdica in 343, the Western delegates formulated a manifesto confessing explicitly one hypostasis, which is a Sabellian statement. Read More

“Athanasius, Marcellus, and the Westerners insisted … that the divine hypostasis, the reality of God, is singular.” (Lienhard, p. 421)

“Westerners, especially Romans, are probably rightly said to have held on to the spirit of the monarchian theology of the late second and early third centuries and thereby virtually to have ignored Tertullian.” (429) (Lienhard, p. 429)

“The doctrinal statement of the Western Council of Sardica (342 or 343), in which Athanasius and Marcellus participated, insisted even more belligerently that ‘We have received and been taught, and we hold this catholic and apostolic tradition and faith and confession: there is one hypostasis (which is termed ‘essence’ [ousia] by the heretics) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.’” (Lienhard, p421)

“The majority of bishops in Asia Minor and Syria were sympathetic to the dyohypostatic [two hypostases] tradition. Athanasius, Marcellus, and the Westerners represent the miahypostatic [one hypostasis] tradition.” (Lienhard, p429).

The second-century Monarchians, also known as Modalism, had a primitive Sabellian theology in which Father and Son are two names for the same one Entity.

Athanasius’ Theology

Athanasius’ theology was similar to the Sabellians.

As stated above, both Athanasius and Marcellus were exiled by the Eastern Church; Marcellus for Sabellianism and Athanasius for violence. However, they joined forces and appealed to the Western Church together. Athanasius claimed that he was in fact exiled for his opposition to Arianism and that his eastern judges were Arians (followers of Arius).

Alexander and Athanasius were similar enough in their theology to the Sabellians to join forces with them, both at Nicaea and during the decades after Nicaea. Read more

“Athanasius and Marcellus could come together in Rome. The perception that these two trajectories held to very similar beliefs would help to shape widespread eastern antipathy to both in the years after Nicaea.” (Ayres, p. 69)

“The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis.“ (Ayres, p. 69)

“During this same period (the 350s) the miahypostatic [one hypostasis] tradition is represented most fully by Athanasius.” (Lienhard, p434-5)

“Studer’s account here follows the increasingly prominent scholarly position that Athanasius’ theology offers a strongly unitarian Trinitarian theology whose account of personal differentiation is underdeveloped.” (Ayres, p. 238)

“At the Council of Jerusalem and the Council of Tyre in the same year he (Marcellus) had supported Athanasius.” (Hanson, p. 217)

“Athanasius … continued to defend the orthodoxy of Marcellus.” (Hanson, p. 220) “Though he (Athanasius) may temporarily at this period, when he was preparing to return from his second exile, have wished to place a distance between himself and Marcellus, he had no intention of making a final break with him. It is doubtful if he ever did this.” (Hanson, p. 220)

They were not Sabellians.

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. (Read more) 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. This site uses the term “Sabellian” for any view in which God is only one hypostasis (a single Existence).

Low view of Christ

Sabellians had a low view of Christ.

One surprising conclusion is that the Arian (Eusebian) 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

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.

SUMMARY

Scholars today explain the Arian Controversy very differently from how they explained it in the 19th century. This article series quotes from primary scholars in this field of the last 100 years, reflecting the revised account.

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

At Nicaea, the Sabellians joined forces with Alexander and significantly influenced the Nicene Creed. However, the church deposed all leading Sabellians within about ten years after Nicaea.

Initially, the Western Church was not part of the Arian Controversy. But after the Eastern Church deposed the Sabellian Marcellus, the Western Church accepted him as orthodox.

The Sabellians believed that the Logos is specifically in the Father. Consequently, the Father and His Logos are a single Person (hypostasis).

It follows that the Logos does not have a real distinct existence. He is not a distinct Person (a hypostasis). The Logos was and is a mere word spoken by God.

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

Since the Logos is not a divine Person with a distinct mind, He cannot become a human person. Therefore, Jesus Christ was born as a complete human person with a human mind. The Logos dwells in the man Jesus as an Energy or Inspiration.

God’s only begotten Son is not the Logos but the man Jesus, who did not exist before He was born from Mary.

Since the Logos is part or an aspect of God, He cannot suffer or die. It was only a human being who suffered, died, was resurrected, and who now sits at God’s right hand.

Final Observations

Sabellianism, formulated by Sabellius in the third century, continued but revised second-century Monarchianism.

The Western Church, like the Sabellians, taught that the Father and Son are a single Person.

Athanasius’ theology was similar to the Sabellians.

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

Sabellians had a low view of Christ.

Biblical Unitarians are Sabellians.

Tag: Athanasius