Tag: Hypostasis

Purpose

“Athanasius presents himself as the preserver of the one theological tradition that is equivalent with scriptural orthodoxy.” (LA, 107) In contrast, this article argues that Athanasius was a Sabellian; a theology that was already rejected as heretical during the preceding century.

Much less of Alexander’s writings survived but indications are that he was also a Sabellian.

What does a Sabellian believe?

To determine whether Athanasius was a Sabellian, one needs to know what Sabellians believed. Sabellianism is defined in the article – The Sabellians of the Fourth Century. In summary:

Concerning the Godhead, Sabellians believed that “before the world existed the Word was IN the Father.” (LA, 63) In their view, the Logos is part of the Father as His only rational capacity.

A more general definition would be to say that a Sabellian believes that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one single hypostasis, “meaning distinct reality” (RH, 190) or “distinct individuality” (RH, 53). “Later theology would not have said … (one single) Person.” (RH, 190)

This would mean that the Logos has no real distinct existence. Rather, the preexistent Logos was merely “a power or aspect” of the Father and “not in any serious sense distinct from him.” (RH, 237)

If that is true, then the incarnated Jesus Christ would be a mere man. He may be a maximally inspired man, but he remains essentially a man, meaning:

Firstly, Christ did not exist before He was born from Mary.

Secondly, the Logos dwells in the man Jesus merely as an energy or an activity or as inspiration.

Thirdly, God did not suffer or die. In Sabellian view, Christ is a complete human being with a human soul (mind). That soul or mind absorbed all human suffering so that God did not suffer at all. It was that human being that suffered, died, was resurrected, and now sits at God’s right hand.

This may be contrasted again with the Eusebian view. They said that Christ does NOT have a human soul. Rather, God gave Him a body WITHOUT a human soul (mind) so that the Logos, who is a distinct hypothesis (Reality), could function as Christ’s mind. In that way, they said, the Logos, why they called God, suffered and died on the Cross.

* NOTE: As discussed, the term Arian is a complete misnomer. This article refers to the anti-Nicenes and Eusebians because Eusebius of Caesarea was their real leader.

Summary

The Son is part of the Father.

Similar to the Sabellians, Athanasius regarded the Son (the Logos) as part of the Father:

(A) “In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius’ theology.” (RH, 426) “The Son is in the Father ontologically.” (RH, 428)

(B) Athanasius often used the Greek term idios, which was used to indicate that certain qualities and activities are intrinsic to a being, to describe how the Son relates to the Father. For example: “The Word and Son is idios to the Father’s essence.” (LA, 114)

(C) While the Eusebians postulated two Logoi in the Godhead – the Logos that became incarnated and the Father’s own Logos – Athanasius, similar to the Sabellians, said that there is only one Logos, namely, the Father’s own internal Logos (rational capacity).

(D) For Athanasius, the Holy Spirit is also part of the Father. “Just as his account of the Son can rely heavily on the picture of the Father as one person with his intrinsic word, so too he emphasizes … the Spirit as the Son’s ‘energy’.” (LA, 214)

Only one Hypostasis (One Reality or Person)

(A) While the Eusebians taught that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct hypostases, the “clear inference from his (Athanasius’) usage” is that “there is only one hypostasis in God.” (LA, 48)

(B) Athanasius opposed the concept of “three hypostases.” He regarded the phrase as “unscriptural and therefore suspicious.” (LA, 174; RH, 440) “Athanasius and Marcellus … made common cause against those who insisted on distinct hypostases in God.” (LA, 106)

(C) Athanasius “defends constantly … the ontological unity of the Father and the Son.” (RH, 422, cf. 428) This may sound as if he was a Trinitarian, believing that Father and Son are one single Being (substance). But “clearly for him hypostasis and ousia were still synonymous.” (RH, 440) In other words, when he argues for “ontological unity,” meaning that Father and Son are one ousia (substance), he is really saying that they are one single hypostasis (Person).

(D) While the Eusebians regarded the Logos as Mediator between God and creation both during His incarnation and beyond, Athanasius, because he does not recognize the Logos as a distinct hypostasis, limited the Son’s role as mediator to the incarnation.

Athanasius was a Sabellian.

Thus far, this article has shown that Athanasius believed that the Son is part of the Father and that Father and Son are one single hypostasis. Both are clear indications of Sabellianism. Further indications of this include the following:

(A) The similarity of their theologies allowed Athanasius to form an alliance with Marcellus, who was the main Sabellian of the fourth century. “They considered themselves allies.” (LA, 106)

(B) At the time, their beliefs were seen as similar. “The perception that these two trajectories (Athanasius and Marcellus) held to very similar beliefs would help to shape widespread eastern antipathy to both in the years after Nicaea.” (LA, 69)

(C) The Meletian Schism also identifies Athanasius as a Sabellian. That schism was a dispute between two factions within the pro-Nicene camp, namely, between the ‘one hypostasis’ and the ‘three hypostasis’ factions. The leaders of the ‘one hypostasis’ faction (the Sabellians) were bishop Damasus of Rome and Athanasius. Basil of Caesarea and Meletius of Antioch led the ‘three hypostasis’ faction.

(D) In conclusion, “until he could come to terms with a theology which admitted the existence of three hypostases, and no longer regarded the word hypostasis as a synonym for ousia, he could not fail to give the impression that he was in danger of falling into Sabellianism.” (RH, 444)

Alexander

Alexander, similar to Athanasius and the Sabellians:

• • • Maintained that the Son is a property or quality of the Father, 
    • Taught that the Logos in Christ is the Father’s intrinsic Word and Wisdom, and
    • Never spoke about hypostases.

Scholars conclude that “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.“ (LA, 69) Since “Alexander’s theology found its most famous advocate in his successor Athanasius” (LA, 45), this is further evidence that Athanasius was a Sabellian.

Conclusion

There is no real difference between the theology of Alexander and Athanasius and the main Sabellians of that time; Eustathius and Marcellus.

– END OF SUMMARY –

AUTHORS

This article is largely based on the following recent writings of world-class scholars:

Hanson – A lecture by R.P.C. Hanson in 1981 on the Arian Controversy.

RH = Bishop R.P.C. 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

LA = Lewis Ayres
Nicaea and its legacy, 2004
Ayres is a Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United Kingdom.

The Son is Part of the Father.

Alexander and Athanasius used the terms “Son” and “Logos” as synonyms. For example:

• • “The original Logos and Wisdom … is the Son.” (RH, 427).
  • “The Word and Son is idios to the Father’s essence.” (LA, 114)

There are several indications that Athanasius regarded the Son (the Logos) as part of the Father:

(A) The Son is in the Father.

Athanasius described the Son, not as in God generally, but as IN the Father specifically. For example:

“In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius’ theology.” (RH, 426) “The Son is in the Father ontologically.” (RH, 428)

“Athanasius’ increasing clarity in treating the Son as intrinsic to the Father’s being.” (LA, 113)

“Athanasius’ argument speaks not of two realities engaged in a common activity, but develops his most basic sense that the Son is intrinsic to the Father’s being.” (LA, 114)

“The Son’s existence is intrinsic to the Father’s nature.” (LA, 116)

“Although Athanasius’ theology was by no means identical with Marcellus’, the overlaps were significant enough for them to be at one on some of the vital issues—especially their common insistence that the Son was intrinsic to the Father’s external existence.” (LA, 106)

Athanasius said: “That which is made is external to the maker, but that the Son is ‘the own offspring of his ousia’” (RH, 430). This also implies that the Son is ‘internal’ to the Father.

(B) The Son is Idios to the Father.

Athanasius often used the Greek term idios to describe how the Son relates to the Father. For example:

“The Word and Son is idios to the Father’s essence.” (LA, 114)

“For the Son is in the Father … because the whole being of the Son is idios to the Father’s essence, as radiance from light and stream from fountain.” (LA, 115)

He “insisted continually that the Son was the Father’s own (idios).” (RH, 425)

Idios means “pertaining to one’s self, one’s own, belonging to one’s self” (Bible Study Tools). Ayres comments as follows on the meaning of idios:

“Initially used to indicate that certain qualities and activities are intrinsic to being human, the use of the term to indicate that the Son is idios to the Father’s ousia serves to reinforce his tendency to present the Father/Son relationship as most like that of a person and their faculties.” (LA, 115)

So, to say that the Son (the Logos) is idios to the Father means that He is part of the Father. Ayres says that “it probably served only to reinforce his opponents’ sense that the use of ousia language could only serve to confuse the clear distinction between Father and Son, God and Word.” (LA, 115)

(C) The Son is God’s Internal Wisdom.

While the Eusebians postulated two Logoi in the Godhead – the Logos that became incarnated and the Father’s own Logos – Athanasius, similar to the Sabellians, said that there is only one Logos. The Logos in Christ must then necessarily be the Father’s own internal Logos (wisdom, rational capacity, or mind); not a separate hypostasis (reality).

Athanasius wrote: “There is no need to postulate two Logoi, as he thinks the Arians in effect do.” (RH, 431)

He argued that the pre-existent Son is “present with Him (the Father) as his Wisdom and his Word.” (LA, 46)

He criticized “the [Arian] idea that Christ is a derivative Wisdom and not God’s own wisdom.” (LA, 116)

(D) A Ray of the Sun

“He takes the old analogy of the sun and the ray.” (RH, 430)

Just as the ray is part of the light, for Athanasius, the Son is part of the Father.

(E) The Holy Spirit is also part of the Father.

For Athanasius, just as the Son is part of the Father, the Holy Spirit is part of the Son and, therefore, not a distinct Reality:

“Just as his (Athanasius’) account of the Son can rely heavily on the picture of the Father as one person with his intrinsic word, so too he emphasizes the closeness of Spirit to Son by presenting the Spirit as the Son’s ‘energy’.” (LA, 214)

The Cappadocians concluded that Athanasius did not afford the Holy Spirit a distinct existence:

“The language also shows Athanasius trying out formulations that will soon be problematic. … ‘The Cappadocians’ will find the language of ἐνέργεια [superhuman activity] used of the Spirit … to be highly problematic, seeming to indicate a lack of real existence.” (LA, 214)

One Hypostasis
(One Reality or Person)

(A) Only one hypothesis in God

Following Origen, the Eusebians taught that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct hypostases. The previous section has shown in several ways that Athanasius regarded the Son as part of the Father; similar to the Sabellians. This section fortifies that conclusion by showing that Athanasius believed that Father and Son are one single hypostasis (one single Reality):

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

“Athanasius’ most basic language and analogies for describing the relationship between Father and Son primarily present the two as intrinsic aspects of one reality or person.” (LA, 46)

“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.“ (LA, 69)

“He 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.” (RH, 444)

(B) Opposed three Hypostases

This is also indicated by Athanasius’ opposition to the concept of “three hypostases:”

He regarded the phrase as “unscriptural and therefore suspicious.” (LA, 174; RH, 440)

“He clearly approves of the sentence of … that it is wrong to divide the divine monarchy into ‘three powers and separate hypostases and three Godheads’, thereby postulating ‘three diverse hypostases wholly separated from each other’.” (RH, 445)

He wrote: “Those whom some were blaming for speaking of three hypostases, on the ground that the phrase is unscriptural and therefore suspicious … we made enquiry of them, whether they meant … hypostases foreign and strange, and alien in essence from one another, and that each hypostasis was divided apart by itself.” (LA, 174)

Another article shows that the real issue and the fundamental dispute in the entire Arian Controversy was whether God is one or three hypostases. For Athanasius, the enemy was those who taught more than one hypostasis (Person) in God:

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

(C) Opposed Logos-theology

Athanasius’ insistence on one single hypostasis in God is further illustrated by his opposition to the two hypotheses in Logos-theology:

In the traditional Logos-theology of the previous centuries, based mostly on principles from Greek philosophy, which says that God cannot interact directly with matter, the church fathers developed the Logos-theology. In it, God’s Logos always existed inside Him but, when God decided to create, God’s Logos became a separate hypostasis (reality) with a lower divinity which enabled Him to create and interact with matter. Through the Logos, God created all things and, through the Logos, God reveals Himself to the creation. Since this was based mostly on Greek philosophy, Hanson refers to this Logos as “a convenient philosophical device.” But Athanasius rejected the idea of the pre-existent Logos as a distinct reality (hypostasis). He said:

“He (the Father) was no remote God who required a lesser god (the Logos) to reveal Him.” (RH, 423)

“He refused to use the pre-existent Christ as a convenient philosophical device.” (RH, 423)

“He never accepted the Origenistic concept of the Logos as a mediating agent within the Godhead.” (RH, 425)

The point is that, for Athanasius, in the Godhead, there was only one hypostasis.

(D) Ontological Unity

Athanasius “defends constantly … the ontological unity of the Father and the Son.” (RH, 422, cf. 428)

Now, this may sound as if he was a Trinitarian, believing that Father and Son are one single Being (substance). But “clearly for him hypostasis and ousia were still synonymous.” (RH, 440) In other words, when he argues for “ontological unity,” meaning that Father and Son are one ousia (substance), he is really saying that they are one single hypostasis (Person).

(E) No Mediator outside the Incarnation

The Bible describes Christ as the Mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5). In the Eusebian view, the Son always had this role; also before His incarnation. But Athanasius, since he did not believe in the Logos as a distinct hypostasis in God, limited Christ’s role as Mediator to the incarnation:

“God needed no mediator to create the world. … The Logos/Son is a redemptive, not a cosmic principle.” (RH, 423)

“When he comes to interpret the crucial text, Proverbs 8:22 ff, [The Lord made me at the beginning of His ways] he insists that its terms apply to the incarnate, not the pre-existent Christ … it shows that Athanasius placed the mediating activity of the Son, not in his position within the Godhead, but in his becoming incarnate.” (RH, 424)

“Athanasius firmly places the mediating activity of the Logos, not within the Godhead, but in the Incarnation.” (RH, 447)

In other words, apart from the Incarnation, there is no Mediator.

(F) Unitarian

Ayres refers to “Athanasius’ own strongly unitarian account.” (LA, 435) The term “unitarian” is used for ‘one hypostasis’ or ‘one reality’ theologies, with Marcellus of Ancyra as the prime example. For example:

“A great deal of controversy was caused in the years after the council by some supporters of Nicaea whose theology had strongly unitarian tendencies. Chief among these was Marcellus of Ancyra.” (LA, 431)

“Studer’s account [1998] here follows the increasingly prominent scholarly position that Athanasius’ theology offers a strongly unitarian Trinitarian theology whose account of personal differentiation is underdeveloped.” (LA, 238)

Athanasius was a Sabellian

Thus far, this article has shown that Athanasius believed that the Son is part of the Father and that Father and Son are one single hypostasis; both clear indications of Sabellianism. This section provides additional support for this conclusion:

(A) Alliance with Marcellus

The similarity of their theologies allowed Athanasius to form an alliance with the main Sabellian of the fourth century; Marcellus:

“They considered themselves allies.” (LA, 106) At the time when both were exiled to Rome, “Athanasius and Marcellus now seem to have made common cause against those who insisted on distinct hypostases in God.” (LA, 106)

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

“Athanasius … continued to defend the orthodoxy of Marcellus.” (RH, 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.” (RH, 220)

Contrary to the traditional account, “it is … no longer clear that Athanasius ever directly repudiated Marcellus, and he certainly seems to have been sympathetic to Marcellus’ followers through into the 360s.” (LA, 106)

(B) Similar Beliefs

Their beliefs were seen at the time and are still seen today as similar:

“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.” (LA, 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.“ (LA, 69) (Eustatius was the other important Sabellian in the fourth century. See – The Sabellians of the Fourth Century) 

“Athanasius and Marcellus can and should both be counted as ‘original Nicene’.” (LA, 99) This again implies a strong similarity between their theologies.

(C) Meletian Schism

Hanson’s discussion of the Meletian schism also identifies Athanasius as a Sabellian.

That schism was a dispute between two factions within the pro-Nicene camp, namely, between the ‘one hypostasis’ and the ‘three hypostasis’ factions. The leaders of the ‘one hypostasis’ faction (the Sabellians) were bishop Damasus of Rome and Athanasius. Basil of Caesarea and Meletius of Antioch led the ‘three hypostasis’ faction:

In a letter to Basil, “Damasus sent a very cool reply … deliberately avoided making any statement about the three hypostases. It was the adhesion of Basil, Meletius and their followers to this doctrine of the hypostases which caused Damasus … to suspect them of heresy.” (RH, 798)

The Bishop of Antioch

One of the main issues of dispute was about the rightful bishop of Antioch. Damasus and Athanasius supported Paulinus because Paulinus taught ‘one hypostasis’:

In 375, Damasus wrote a letter that “constituted also an official recognition of Paulinus, not Meletius, as bishop of Antioch.” (RH, 799) 

Paulinus “was recognized as legitimate bishop of Antioch by Athanasius.” (RH, 801)

Paulinus was “Marcellan/Sabellian.” (RH, 799) He derived “his tradition in continuity from Eustathius who had been bishop about forty years before” (RH, 800-1). (Eustathius and Marcellus were the two famous Sabellians of the fourth century.)

Basil, on the other hand, opposed Paulinus:

“Paulinus was a rival of Basil’s friend and ally Meletius. … Basil suspected that Paulinus was at heart a Sabellian, believing in only one Person (hypostasis) in the Godhead.” (RH, 801)

Note that the previous quote confirms that a person who believes in one hypostasis is a Sabellian. This quote also confirms again that Basil believed in three hypostases.

Support for the Marcellans

The theologies of Damasus, Athanasius, and Basil are also reflected in their support or opposition to the Marcellans. The ”watch-word” of “these disciples of Marcelius … had always been ‘only one hypostasis in the Godhead’.” (RH, 802)

Damasus and Athanasius supported the Marcellans:

Basil wrote a letter that “contained some shafts directed at Damasus because of his toleration of Eustathius and the Marcellans.” (RH, 799)

“Basil was never sure in his own mind that Athanasius had abandoned Marcellus of Ancyra and his followers.” (RH, 797)

“In a letter written to Athanasius he (Basil of Caesarea) complains that the Westerners have never brought any accusation against Marcellus.” (RH, 802)

“About the year 371 adherents of Marcellus approached Athanasius, presenting to him a statement of faith. … He accepted it and gave them a document expressing his agreement with their doctrine.” (RH, 801)

(D) Conclusions

So, was Athanasius a Sabellian? Hanson concludes:

“Athanasius, not through lack of good intention but through lack of vocabulary, verges dangerously close to Sabeilianism.” (RH, 429)

“Loofs in his earlier work said that Athanasius swung between the Sabellian and the anti-Sabellian tendencies in his thought.” (RH, 443)

“He could not fail to give many the impression that he did not distinguish between the ‘Persons’ of the Trinity.” (RH, 444)

“The evidence that for Athanasius hypostasis was the same as ousia is unmistakable.” (RH, 445) “He could not fail to give many the impression that he did not distinguish between the ‘Persons’ of the Trinity. This was not his intention; he was not a Sabellius, not even a Marcellus. But until he could come to terms with a theology which admitted the existence of three hypostases, and no longer regarded the word hypostasis as a synonym for ousia, he could not fail to give the impression that he was in danger of falling into Sabellianism.” (RH, 444)

All the people I quote are Trinitarians and they, naturally, defend Athanasius. But, in my opinion, the evidence is quite clear that Athanasius was a Sabellian.

Alexander of Alexandria

“Alexander’s theology found its most famous advocate in his successor Athanasius.” (LA, 45) Alexander’s theology, therefore, should provide additional information on the question of whether Athanasius was a Sabellian.

RPC Hanson quotes Rowan Williams:

“Williams’ work is most illuminating. Alexander of Alexandria, Williams thinks, had maintained that the Son … is a property or quality of the Father, impersonal and belonging to his substance. Properties or qualities cannot be substances …; they are not quantities. The statement then that the Son is idios to (a property or quality of) the Father is a Sabellian statement.” (RH, 92)

Similar to the Sabellians and Athanasius, Alexander taught that the Logos in Christ is the Father’s intrinsic Word and Wisdom:

“Alexander taught that … as the Father’s Word and Wisdom the Son must always have been with the Father.” (LA, 16)

“Alexander argues that as Word or Wisdom the Son must be eternal or the Father would, nonsensically, have been at one time bereft of both.” (LA, 44)

“In Alexander, and in Athanasius … Christ is the one power and wisdom of the Father.” (LA, 54)

Alexander never spoke about hypostases:

With respect to both Alexander and Athanasius, Ayres concludes, “This trajectory … is also resistant to speaking of three hypostases.” (LA, 43)

“We never find him (Alexander) using hypostasis as a technical term for the individual existence of one of the divine persons, and he never speaks of there being two or three hypostases.” (LA, 45)

Alexander and Athanasius, therefore, believed, since He is God’s only Wisdom or Word, that the Son is part of the Father. In their view, therefore, there is only one hypostasis in God. Consequently, scholars conclude that their theologies were close to that of the ‘one hypostasis‘ theology of the Sabellians:

“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.“ (LA, 69)

Incarnation

If Athanasius was a Sabellian, we would also see that in his theory of the incarnation. If he was a Sabellian, the incarnated Christ would be a maximally inspired man, but still a mere man with a human soul (mind). However, Athanasius refused to admit that Jesus had a human mind. He describes Jesus as the Logos dwelling in a human body. Since, in his view, the Logos is part of the Father, it is really the Father that dwells in the human body. But when he discusses Jesus’ ignorance and fears, Athanasius says that God only pretended to be ignorant and to fear. For these reasons, scholars say:

“The chief reason for Athanasius’ picture of Jesus being so completely unconvincing is of course that, at least till the year 362, it never crossed his mind that there was any point in maintaining that Jesus had a human soul or mind.” (RH, 451)

“We must conclude that whatever else the Logos incarnate is in Athanasius’ account of him, he is not a human being.” (RH, 451)

“Athanasius involves himself in the most far-fetched explanations to explain away some of the texts which obviously represents Jesus as having faith.” (RH, 450)

“It must therefore be frankly acknowledged that his authority as a theologian of the Incarnation has been exaggerated.” (RH, 452)

See – The Incarnation for a discussion of Athanasius’ view on the subject.

Conclusion

There is no real difference between the theology of Alexander and Athanasius and the main Sabellians of that time; Eustathius and Marcellus. As ‘One Reality’ theologians, Alexander and Athanasius were part of a minority in this church. And since both Sabellius’ theology and the term homoousios were already formally rejected by the church during the previous century, they followed an already discredited theology.

Other Articles

• • • The Truth about the Origin of the Trinity Doctrine ¹For the first more than 300 years, the church fathers believed that the Son is subordinate to the Father. The Trinity Doctrine was developed by the Cappadocian fathers late in the fourth century but the decision to adopt it was not taken by the church. This is a list of all articles on the Arian Controversy.
    • Arius ²Who was he? What did he believe?
    • The Nicene Creed ³Who created it? What does it say?
    • Homoousios ⁴What does it mean?
    • Fourth-Century ‘Arianism’ Including their theology, the Homoian and the Homoi-ousians
    • The Pro-Nicenes ⁵Including Athanasius, Eustathius, Marcellus, and Photinus
    • Is Jesus the Most High God? ⁶The conclusion that Jesus is ‘God’ forms the basis of the Trinity Doctrine.
    • Trinity Doctrine – General ⁷Including Modalism, Eastern Orthodoxy view of the Trinity, Elohim, and Eternal Generation
    • All articles on this website

• 1
  For the first more than 300 years, the church fathers believed that the Son is subordinate to the Father. The Trinity Doctrine was developed by the Cappadocian fathers late in the fourth century but the decision to adopt it was not taken by the church. This is a list of all articles on the Arian Controversy.
• 2
  Who was he? What did he believe?
• 3
  Who created it? What does it say?
• 4
  What does it mean?
• 5
  Including Athanasius, Eustathius, Marcellus, and Photinus
• 6
  The conclusion that Jesus is ‘God’ forms the basis of the Trinity Doctrine.
• 7
  Including Modalism, Eastern Orthodoxy view of the Trinity, Elohim, and Eternal Generation