Athanasius Archives » Page 2 of 7 » From Daniel to Revelation

2024-08-042024-08-05

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.

Homoousios was not regarded as important at Nicaea.

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

The Nicene Creed of AD 325 states that the Son is homoousios (of the same substance as) the Father. In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, this term is the key word of the Creed. [Show More]

However, soon after Nicaea, it disappeared from the debate. For more than 20 years, nobody mentioned it, not even Athanasius, the great hero of the Arian Controversy and defender of the Nicene Creed, nor the Western church, which is often described as the stalwart defender of Nicaea throughout the fourth century. [Show More]

It wasn’t until the mid-350s, some 30 years after Nicaea, that Athanasius re-introduced the term into the debate. Only after that did the West slowly begin to defend it and the Eusebians began to attack it. [Show More]

In other words, it was not regarded as important at Nicaea. [Show More]

This article explains why it was accepted at Nicaea, why it disappeared from the debate, and why it again became part of the Controversy 30 years later.

This article quotes extensively from leading scholars. Although almost all quotes are hidden in ‘read more’ section, they are a crucial part of this article.

Authors Quoted

Based on discoveries and research over the past century, leading scholars today explain the fourth-century Arian Controversy very differently from scholars in preceding centuries. This article quotes from the main books on the subject from the last 50 years. [Show More]

WHY INCLUDED

Athanasius claimed that homoousion was inserted in the Creed as an anti-Arian term, namely, to force Arius and his supporters to reject the Creed so that the emperor could exile them. But Hanson says that it was included as a pro-Sabellian term, namely, because the Sabellians preferred it.

It was inserted in the Nicene Creed because Constantine insisted on it. Constantine took Alexander’s part in the dispute. Alexander viewed the Father and Son as a single Person (a single hypostasis). Since the majority of the delegates were from the East, and since the Eastern Church regarded the Son to be a distinct Person, Alexander’s theology was in the minority. For that reason, Alexander allied with the other ‘one hypostasis’ theologians, namely, the Sabellians. This gave the Sabellians much influence in the Council. Since the emperor had taken Alexander’s part, he insisted in the term because the Sabellians preferred it. [Show More]

[Show More]

However, although it may be true that homoousios was inserted in the Creed to get Arius exiled, most delegates strongly objected to the concept. As discussed here, the Eusebians opposed the term because it is not Biblical, was borrowed from pagan philosophy, was not part of the standard Christian language of the day, and was already condemned as associated with the heresy of Sabellianism. Furthermore, ‘same substance’ implies that God has a body, which nobody was willing to grant. The Dedication Creed of 341 shows what the majority at Nicaea really believed, when not compelled by an emperor. They opposed both Arius and the term homoousios. The decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority.

[Show More]

More or less the same people who attended Nicaea also attended the Dedication Council 16 years later and the Dedication Creed opposed both Arius and also the term homoousios. So, the Nicene Creed does not reflect die views of the majority: [Show More]

Did Ossius propose the term?

If Ossius, the chairperson, proposed the term, as some think, then it was on instruction of the emperor, for he was the emperor’s agent.

“According to the Arians … the Nicene Creed was presented by Ossius of Cordova in his capacity as president of the assembly.” (P.F. Beatrice) However, Ossius did not preside because of his position in the church. He was the bishop of the “obscure” see of Cordova (Hanson, p. 155). He presided in his capacity “as the Emperor’s representative” (Hanson, p. 154) and represented “the Emperor’s interest.” (Hanson, p. 156)

The emperor was the final authority.

Given the modern culture of religious freedom, the reader might find it strange that an emperor was able to insist on the inclusion of a keyword in a church creed. However, the Roman Empire was not a democracy and religious freedom did not exist. The empire was ruled by the general who commanded the strongest army. Consequently, the emperors decided which religions were allowed and also acted as the final judge in religious disputes.

“If we ask the question, what was considered to constitute the ultimate authority in doctrine (during the Arian Controversy), there can be only one answer. The will of the Emperor was the final authority.” (Hanson, p. 849)

The so-called ‘ecumenical’ church councils of the fourth century were “the very invention and creation of the Emperor” (Hanson, p. 855). “Everybody recognised the right of an Emperor to call a council, or even to veto or quash its being called” (Hanson, p. 849-50). “The Emperor was expected to dominate and control them” (Hanson, p. 855).

Conclusion

The term was not mentioned for some decades after Nicaea because the Nicene Creed was the work of a minority under the protection of the emperor, while the majority was most uncomfortable with this term.

Nicaea was not regarded as binding.

Furthermore, at the time, the Nicene Creed was not regarded as binding. It was a temporary solution to an immediate problem.

“Many modern readers assume that the Nicene creed was intended at its promulgation to stand as a binding and universal formula of Christian faith.” (Ayres, p. 85) However, “by the time Nicaea met, Church leaders … had no precedent for the idea of a council that would legislate for the Church as a whole.” (Ayres, p. 87) “Councils were not expected to produce precise statements of belief.” (Ayres, p. 87)

“All the bishops at Nicaea would have understood their local ‘baptismal’ creed to be a sufficient definition of Christian belief.” (Ayres, p. 85)

For a further discussion of this point, see Ayres – 4.1 The Nicene Creed as a Standard of Faith.

HOW WAS HOMOOUSIOS REVIVED?

As stated above, the term homoousios was re-introduced into the Controversy in the 350s; about 30 years after Nicaea. This section explains the history chronologically.

The West was not at Nicaea.

At first, the West was not part of the Controversy. For example, the Westerners at the Council represented a tiny minority.

At Nicaea in 325, “around 250–300 attended, drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire.” (Ayres, p. 19)

“The Westerners at the Council represented a tiny minority.” “The Eastern Church was always the pioneer and leader in theological movements in the early Church.” (Hanson, p. 170)

Post-Nicaea Correction

The inclusion of the term homoousios caused an intense struggle during the years immediately after Nicaea. Sabellians claimed the homoousios in the Creed as a victory for their side but that struggle resulted in the exile of all leading Sabellians. After that, homoousios disappears from the debate. (See here.)

Period of no Controversy

As already mentioned, after the post-Nicaea Correction, the Nicene Creed and Homoousios were not part of the Controversy for more than 25 years. In fact, there was no controversy.

“At some times there was almost no controversy at all. If there was any controversy from 330 to 341, it was a controversy about the behaviour of Athanasius in his see of Alexandria.” (Hanson, p. xviii)

“There was a long period of confusion and uncertainty from 341 to 357 when it was far from clear what the controversy was about, if there was a controversy.” (Hanson, p. xviii)

In other words, the Council of Nicaea brought the dispute between Arius and his bishop Alexander to an end. The Real Controversy began only decades later:

Athanasius’ Polemical Strategy

After he was exiled in 335, Athanasius developed a masterful polemical strategy to explain why he was exiled. He claimed that:

- - Arius developed a novel heresy.
  - He (Athanasius) represents scriptural orthodoxy.
  - He was exiled for his opposition to Arianism.
  - An Arian Conspiracy manipulated the council of Tyre to exile him for violence, of which he was innocent.
  - His opponents are ‘Arians’, meaning followers of Arius’ condemned theology.

None of these points are true but the important point for the current article is that homoousios was not yet part of his polemical strategy.

During those decades after Nicaea, while nobody thinks about homoousios, Athanasius and Marcellus were both exiled from the East and sent to the West (Rome). There they met and joined forces against the East:

“Athanasius and Marcellus now seem to have made common cause against those who insisted on distinct hypostases in God.” (Ayres, p. 106)

In Rome, Athanasius developed his polemical strategy:

“Athanasius’ engagement with Marcellus in Rome seems to have encouraged Athanasius towards the development of” “an increasingly sophisticated account of his enemies;” “the full flowering of a polemical strategy that was to shape accounts of the fourth century for over 1,500 years;” “a masterpiece of the rhetorical art.” (Ayres, p. 106-7)

What was his polemical strategy?

“Athanasius’ account begins by presenting Arius as the originator of a new heresy.” (Ayres, p. 107) In contrast, “Athanasius presents himself as the preserver of the one theological tradition that is equivalent with scriptural orthodoxy.” (Ayres, p. 107)

Athanasius described “his enemies as ‘Arians’ seeking to perpetuate a theology stemming from Arius.” (Ayres, p. 106) “To this end Athanasius quotes extensively from Arius’ Thalia.” (Ayres, p. 107) See also – Athanasius invented Arianism.

This polemical strategy is discussed further in – The Creation of ‘Arianism’. It presents a misleading picture of that Controversy:

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

“Once we begin to grasp the problems with Athanasius’ rhetorical unmasking of ‘Arians’ then we need to look beyond the Athanasian terminology of an ‘Arian’ conspiracy to get a more accurate sense of how to understand non-Marcellan and non-Athanasian eastern theologies during this period.” (Ayres, p. 432)

Rome accepted Athanasius.

Using his polemical strategy, Athanasius appealed to the bishop of Rome. The bishop accepted his version of reality, called a council, and vindicated both him and Marcellus.

The subsequent events are described in more detail here. In brief:

“Athanasius appealed to Julius of Rome in 339–40 by using his strategy of narrating a theological conspiracy of ‘Arians’. His success had a profound impact on the next few years of the controversy.” (Ayres, p. 108)

Julius of Rome held a council in Rome which “quickly vindicated Marcellus and Athanasius.” (Ayres, p. 109)

“Julius wrote to the east in 341 in a letter which shows the strong influence of the emerging Athanasian account of ‘Arianism’.” (Ayres, p. 109)

Caused division between East and West

It is traditionally thought that the West had always supported Nicaea. In reality, similar to the East, most in the West believed that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct Beings. However, after the West had declared Athanasius and Marcellus orthodox, cracks in that unity began to appear. That was the real beginning of the ‘Arian’ Controversy.

In Ayres’ discussion of the Western (Latin) Theologists at the time of Nicaea, he concludes that they believed more or less the same as the theologians in the East:

“These Latin theologians have as far to travel towards later pro-Nicene theology as the eastern trajectories.” (Ayres, p. 75)

“Ironically, an anti-monarchian, anti-‘modalist’ polemic fundamentally shapes these early Latin theologians, and that is taken so often to be determining the future course of a unitary western theology!” (Ayres, p. 74)

This last quote says that the West opposed the idea that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one Being.

So, around the time of Nicaea, there was harmony between East and West. It was the West’s acceptance of Athanasius’ polemical strategy that first caused division between East and West:

“Once Julius had acted we begin to see divisions between the Church in the eastern and western halves of the empire emerging.” (Ayres, p. 109)

This, in the early 340s, was the real beginning of the ‘Arian’ Controversy. However, the bishop of Rome’s acceptance of Athanasius’ strategy did not mean that the entire West accepted it.

“We should … be cautious in our reading of these divisions. The divisions we initially observe are between one group of eastern bishops taking their lead from Eusebius of Nicomedia and Julius and his immediate associates. We must be wary of reading this as reflecting a simple division between eastern and western theology. Even when just such a division appears to come clearly into the open at the Council of Serdica in 343, even there the participants cannot usefully be divided in purely geographic terms.” (Ayres, p. 109-110)

Constantius strived for unity.

In the 340s, while the empire remained divided East and West, the division between the church in the East and West remained. However, after Constantius became emperor of the entire empire in the early 350s, he attempted to get the Western church to agree to the key eastern decisions of the previous few years.

In the same year that Julius wrote his letter to the East (AD 341), the East formulated the Dedication Creed which says that the Father, Son, and Spirit “are three in hypostasis but one in agreement.” Two years later, in 343, the West formulated a Manifesto at Serdica which “opted clearly for Una substantia meaning one hypostasis.” (Hanson, p. 201) There-after. the Western and Eastern churches continued to oppose one another. Since they were ruled by different emperors, there was little incentive to reconcile these opposing views.

However, in the early 350s, Constantius became emperor of the entire Roman Empire:

“Over the period AD 351–3, and after a complex civil war, the eastern Emperor Constantius achieved complete control of the whole empire.” (Ayres, p. 133)

“At this point Constantius found himself sole ruler of the Roman world and with the ability to push for a unified religious policy throughout his domains in a way no emperor had been able to do since the death of his father in 337.” (Ayres, p. 133)

He attempted to get the Western church to agree to the eastern Creeds:

“As his control over the west grew Constantius increased his attempts to get bishops to agree to the key eastern decisions of the previous few years.” (Ayres, p. 135)

“Through the 350s … we seem to see a growing opposition to Constantius’ attempts to force western councils to agree to the decrees of Sirmium 351.” (Ayres, p. 136)

He attempted to isolate Athanasius.

Since Constantius’ greatest enemy, both politically and in the church, was Athanasius, his primary goal was to isolate Athanasius.

“Athanasius had a desire for power; he suppressed ruthlessly whenever he could any opposition to him within his diocese … towards the end of his life he had reached a position in which his power (in Egypt), not only ecclesiastical but also political, was virtually beyond challenge.” (Hanson, p. 421)

Therefore, the emperor “attempted to get the condemnation of Athanasius and probably some sort of theological statement accepted throughout the west.” (Ayres, p. 135) With that double goal in mind, “the council of Sirmium in 351 set the trend for a series of councils.” (Ayres, p. 135) For here for a discussion of the Creed of 351.

Athanasius re-introduced Homoousios.

In response to the emperor’s attack on him, Athanasius incorporated homoousios into his polemical strategy, which was the basis for the schism between the East and West. Therefore, homoousios became part of the dispute. As argued above, that was in the mid-350s.

“He began to use it [homoousios] first in the De Deeretis and thereafter regularly in his theological works, defending it fiercely against all criticism of it. If we place De Deeretis in 356 or 357, we can perhaps see the reason for this change of policy. By then it had become abundantly clear not only that Constantius was everywhere trying to isolate Athanasius himself from ecclesiastical support both in the East and the West … Athanasius decided that he must begin a policy of defending the very words of N as a slogan or banner round which to gather.” (Hanson, p. 438)

It was a turn to Nicaea.

Athanasius and the West did not oppose Constantius because they defended Nicaea. Rather, they turned to Nicaea to strengthen their resistance to the emperor’s efforts.

“It seems unlikely that previous adherence to Nicaea motivated their (the West’s) growing opposition (to Constantius’ efforts): it is much more likely that events in the second half of the decade prompted a turn to Nicaea as a focus for their already strong opposition.” (Ayres, p. 136)

In the ‘West’ there were, already before 357, “the beginnings of attempts on the part of a few to turn to Nicaea as a standard against the direction of Constantius’ policies.” (Ayres, p. 139)

Anti-Nicene Accounts Emerged.

As stated above, anti-Nicene theologies, particularly Homoianism, emerged in the late 350s; only after Athanasius introduced homoousios into his polemical strategy.

For example, Homoian theology is specifically anti-Nicene. Particularly, it opposes ousia-language. For example, they were “refusing to allow ousia-terms of any kind into professions of faith.” (Williams, p. 234) It appeared only in the 350s:

“Though Homoian Arianism derived from the thought both of Eusebius of Caesarea and of Arius, we cannot with confidence detect it before the year 357, when it appears in the Second Sirmian Creed.” (Hanson, p. 558)

“Many of the theologies we have considered so far are non-Nicene more than anti-Nicene: only in the 350s do we begin to trace clearly the emergence of directly anti-Nicene accounts.” (Ayres, p. 139)

Homoousios divided the church.

As a result of the introduction of homoousios into the Controversy, the church divided into various factions. Those who accepted homoousios were divided between one-hypostasis and three-hypostases views. Those who rejected homoousios were divided between those who rejected all ousia (substance) language and those who did use the term in their theologies.

One-hypostasis Homo-ousians (Sabellians), such as Athanasius and Marcellus, interpreted homoousios as “one substance,” namely, as saying that Father and Son are one Being. See above the Council of Serdica in 343, where the Western delegates asserted ‘one hypostasis’.

Three-hypostases Homo-ousians, such as Basil of Caesarea and Meletius of Antioch, interpreted homoousios as “same substance,” namely, that Father and Son are two beings with the same type of substance. (See – Basil.)

The Homoi-ousians (from ὅμοιος, hómoios, “similar”) maintained that the Son’s substance is like the Father’s, but not the same.

The Heter-ousians said that the Son is like the Father but His substance is unlike the Father’s.

The Homo-ians, who remained the dominant emperor-supported faction, rejected all use of ousia-terms. They held that Jesus Christ is like the Father, without referencing ousia (essence or substance).

OVERVIEW

INTRODUCTION

Authors quoted

Three prominent Sabellians

HISTORY

The Nicene Council

After Nicaea

Deposed for Sabellianism

Accepted in the West

THEOLOGY

The Son is in the Father.

A Single Hypostasis

The Logos

Only one Divine Mind

WHO IS JESUS?

THE HOLY SPIRIT

CONCLUSIONS

Sabellian Antecedents

The Western Church

Athanasius’ Theology

They were not Sabellians.

Low view of Christ

Biblical Unitarians

SUMMARY

OTHER ARTICLES

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

Authors Quoted

WHY INCLUDED

Did Ossius propose the term?

The emperor was the final authority.

Conclusion

Nicaea was not regarded as binding.

HOW WAS HOMOOUSIOS REVIVED?

The West was not at Nicaea.

Post-Nicaea Correction

Period of no Controversy

Athanasius’ Polemical Strategy

Rome accepted Athanasius.

Caused division between East and West

Constantius strived for unity.

He attempted to isolate Athanasius.

Athanasius re-introduced Homoousios.

It was a turn to Nicaea.

Anti-Nicene Accounts Emerged.

Homoousios divided the church.

OTHER ARTICLES