Tag: Hypostasis

The church adopted the Trinity doctrine at the conclusion of the fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy. However, over the last 100 years, scholars have discovered that the traditional account of how and why the church accepted this doctrine is grossly inaccurate. Several articles in this series discuss different critical errors in the traditional account. During the Arian Controversy, Athanasius was the main defender of the Nicene Creed and the term homoousios. He claimed to present the orthodox view. The present article shows that this was a false claim. It shows that he was a Unitarian and not a Trinitarian. He believed that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis, a single Person with a single mind, similar to Sabellianism, a theology which had already been rejected as heresy in the preceding century. The Arian Controversy began with a dispute between Arius and his bishop, Alexander of Alexandria. Much less of Alexander’s writings survived, but this article shows that his theology was similar to Athanasius. He was also a one-hypostasis theologian

Introduction

Authors

This article quotes from the world-class specialists in the fourth-century Arian Controversy.

Hanson Lecture – An informative 1981 lecture by R.P.C. Hanson on the Arian Controversy.

Hanson, Bishop RPC
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God –
The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1988

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

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

Sabellians

Sabellians believed that the Son is an aspect of the Father, and that Father and Son are only one Person.

As discussed here, Sabellians believed that “before the world existed the Word was IN the Father.” (Ayres, p. 63) In their view, the Logos is the Father’s only rational capacity.

Hanson refers to “a Sabellian, believing in only one Person (hypostasis) in the Godhead.” (Hanson, p. 801)

In this view, the preexistent Logos is merely “a power or aspect” of the Father and “not in any serious sense distinct from him.” (Hanson, p. 237)

Since the Logos has no real distinct existence, the incarnated Jesus is a mere man.

He may be maximally inspired, but he remains a mere man. Consequently:

Christ did not exist before He was born from Mary.

The Logos dwells in the man Jesus merely as an energy, an activity, or as inspiration from God.

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

The purpose of this article is to show that this is also what Alexander and Athanasius believed.

Eusebians

The Eusebians believed in three distinct Persons with three distinct Minds.

In opposition to the Sabellians, the Eusebians (mistakenly called Arians) believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct ousiai (substances), meaning three hypostases (Persons), with three distinct Minds, united in agreement. [Show More]

Arius was one of the Eusebians. Both Athanasius and Alexander noted that Arius spoke about two Wisdoms and two Words, meaning two divine minds. The one is God’s. The other is the Son. [Show More]

Terminology

Terminology makes it difficult to explain fourth-century concepts to modern readers.

Firstly, during the Arian Controversy, Nicene theologians used hypostasis (Person) and ousia (Being, substance) as synonyms (See here). Therefore, the modern view that God is one Being (ousia) but three Persons (hypostases) did not yet exist. In their view, the Trinity is both one Being and one Person.

Secondly, in the fourth-century understanding of the term, each hypostasis (Person) had a distinct Mind. In contrast, in the modern Trinity doctrine, perhaps unknown to most, the three hypostases (Persons) share a single Mind. For example, Karl Rahner, a leading Catholic scholar, wrote:

“Each Person shares the Divine will … that come from a mind. … Each Person’s self-awareness and consciousness is not inherent to that Person (by nature of that Person being that Person) but comes from the shared essence.”

“There is only one real consciousness in God, which is shared by the Father, Son, and Spirit, by each in his own proper way.”

For that reason, and since the modern term “person” implies a distinct mind, Catholic scholars describe the term “Person” in the Trinity doctrine as misleading:

For example, R.P.C. Hanson says that the term “Person” is misleading. He describes the three ‘Persons’ as “three ways of being or modes of existing as God.” (Hanson) 

See here for a discussion of the Trinity doctrine.

The Core Issue

The core issue of the Controversy is how many Minds a particular theology taught.

To avoid confusion caused by terminology, this article asks how many Minds (rational capacities, wills, or consciousnesses) a specific theologian taught:

• • • The Sabellians taught one.
    • The Eusebians taught three.
    • The Trinity doctrine also teaches one.

Athanasius’ Theology

Athanasius claimed to defend the orthodox view.

[Show More]

The quotes in this article sometimes refer to ‘the Son’ and sometimes to ‘the Logos’. Alexander and Athanasius used these terms as synonyms. For example:

“The original Logos and Wisdom … is the Son.” (Hanson, p. 427).

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

Similar to the Sabellians, Athanasius believed that the Son is part of the Father: In the Father.

For example:

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

“The Son is in the Father ontologically.” (Hanson, p. 428)

“Athanasius’ increasing clarity in treating the Son as intrinsic to the Father’s being” (Ayres, p. 113) [Show More]

Athanasius described the Son as one of the Father’s faculties.

Athanasius often described the Son as idios to the Father.

For example:

“The Word and Son is idios to the Father’s essence.” (Ayres, p. 114) [Show More]

Idios means “pertaining to one’s self, one’s own, belonging to one’s self” (Bible Study Tools). This means that Athanasius though of the Son as one of the Father’s faculties, confirming that He is part of the Father:

“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.” (Ayres, p. 115)

He described the Son as the Father’s only Wisdom.

While the Eusebians (misleadingly called ‘Arians’) taught two Logoi (two Wisdoms or minds or Words), namely, the Father and the Son, Athanasius said there is only one Logos, namely, that the Son is also God’s one and only Logos and Wisdom (rational capacity). [Show More]

Athanasius said that the Son is the Father’s one and only Logos:

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

Athanasius wrote: “There is no need to postulate two Logoi.” (Hanson, p. 431)

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

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

This again means that the Son is part of the Father.

The Holy Spirit is also a part of the Father.

Just as the Son is part of the Father, the Holy Spirit is part of the Son and, therefore, not a distinct Person

“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’.” (Ayres, p. 214)

For that reason, the Cappadocians concluded that Athanasius did not afford the Holy Spirit a distinct existence (a separate Person or hypostasis). For example:

“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.” (Ayres, p. 214)

The Father, Son, and Spirit are a single hypostasis.

Following Origen, the Eusebians taught that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct hypostases (Persons). In contrast, consistent with the idea that the Son is part of the Father, Athanasius believed that Father and Son are a single hypostasis (a single Person). For example:

The “clear inference from his (Athanasius’) usage” is that “there is only one hypostasis in God.” (Ayres, p. 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.” (Ayres, p. 46)

In this, Athanasius agreed with the Sabellians Eustathius and Marcellus:

“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)

That is also what the Western Manifesto at Serdica declared. This manifesto is very important. For much of the fourth century, Arian emperors forced the Nicenes to accept Arian Creeds. However, in the 340s, the Western emperor was sympathetic to the Nicenes and allowed them to state their views uninhibited: 

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

Therefore, Athanasius opposed the concept of “three hypostases.”

He regarded the phrase as “unscriptural and therefore suspicious.” (Ayres, p. 174; Hanson, p. 440) For example:

“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’.” (Hanson, p. 445)

The real and fundamental issue in the entire Arian Controversy was whether God is one or three hypostases (See here). 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.” (Ayres, p. 106)

Athanasius described the Father, Son, and Spirit as a single Person.

Athanasius defended the view that Father and Son are one Being:

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

This sounds like the Trinity doctrine, believing that Father and Son are a single ousia (substance or Being). However, as stated above, Athanasius did not distinguish between Person and Being:

“Clearly for him hypostasis and ousia were still synonymous.” (Hanson, p. 440)

Therefore, for him, one Being is one Person. In other words, when he argues for “ontological unity,” meaning that Father and Son are one ousia (substance), he is also saying that they are a single hypostasis or Person.

He did not believe that the Son is the Mediator between God and man.

The Logos-theology of the church in the second and third centuries, which was based mostly on Greek philosophy, said that God cannot interact directly with matter. Therefore, it proposed a two-stage existence of the Logos: God’s Logos always existed inside Him, but when God decided to create, the Logos became a distinct hypostasis with a lower divinity, which enabled Him to create and interact with matter. God created all things through the Logos and reveals Himself to the creation through the Logos. (See – the Apologists.)

Since this was largely based on Greek philosophy, Hanson refers to this Logos as “a convenient philosophical device.” But Athanasius rejected the idea of the pre-existent Logos as Mediator between God and creation:

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

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

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

Athanasius’ opposition to the idea of the Logos as Mediator between God and creation further illustrates his insistence on a single hypostasis in God.

The Mediator is the man Jesus.

The Bible describes Christ as the Mediator between God and man (e.g., 1 Tim 2:5). In the Eusebian view, the Son always was the Mediator between God and creation. But Athanasius, since he did not recognize the Logos as a distinct hypostasis, limited Christ’s role as Mediator to the incarnation. For example:

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

Athanasius said: “God needed no mediator to create the world. … The Logos/Son is a redemptive, not a cosmic principle.” (Hanson, p. 423) [Show More]

Athanasius was a Unitarian, not a Trinitarian.

Ayres describes both the theologies of Athanasius’ and the Sabellian Marcellus as “unitarian.”

Ayres refers to “Athanasius’ own strongly unitarian account.” (Ayres, p. 435)

But he also describes Marcellus’ theology as ‘Unitarian’. He refers to “supporters of Nicaea whose theology had strongly unitarian tendencies. Chief among these was Marcellus of Ancyra.” (Ayres, p. 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.” (Ayres, p. 238)

Athanasius and Marcellus

Thus far, this article has shown that Athanasius believed that the Son is intrinsic to the Father ontologically and that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis. Both are clear indications of Sabellianism. By showing that Athanasius’ theology was similar to Marcellus’ and that they were allies, this section provides additional support for this conclusion:

Athanasius’ theology was similar to that of Marcellus, the main Sabellian of the fourth century.

For example:

“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.” (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) (Eustatius was the other important Sabellian in the fourth century. See – here).

Athanasius and Marcellus were allies.

The similarity of their theologies allowed Athanasius to form an alliance with Marcellus, and Athanasius never repudiated Marcellus. For example:

“They considered themselves allies.” (Ayres, p. 106)

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

They supported and defended each other:

“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)

It is often claimed that Athanasius, at a point, repudiated Marcellus. However:

“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.” (Ayres, p. 106)

“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)

The Meletian Schism

In the Meletian Schism, Athanasius sided with the ‘one hypostasis’ side.

The Meletian Schism was a dispute in Antioch between two factions within the pro-Nicene camp:

The Eastern Cappadocians proclaimed three hypostases and supported Meletius as bishop of Antioch.

The Western Nicenes, including Athanasius, supported Paulinus for that position. That Athanasius supported Paulinus, who was a follower of Sabellian Eustathius, who taught that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis, shows again that Athanasius believed in one hypostasis, similar to the Sabellians. [Show More]

Athanasius never abandoned the Sabellians.

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

“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.” (Hanson, p. 801)

See here for a detailed discussion of the Meletian Schism.

Alexander

Alexander believed similar to Athanasius.

Like the Sabellians and Athanasius, Alexander believed that the Son is part of the Father.

Athanasius received his theology from Alexander:

“Alexander’s theology found its most famous advocate in his successor Athanasius.” (Ayres, p. 45) 

. , namely, God’s only Wisdom or Word, and explained Father and Son as a single hypostasis; a single Persona 

Similar to Athanasius and the Sabellians, Alexander:

• • • Maintained that the Son is a property or quality of the Father and, therefore, part of the Father.

“[Rowan] 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.” (Hanson, p. 92)

• • • Described the Son as idios to the Father:

“The (Alexander’s) statement then that the Son is idios to (a property or quality of) the Father is a Sabellian statement.” (Hanson, p. 92)

• • • Taught that the Logos in Christ is the Father’s intrinsic Word and Wisdom, God’s only Wisdom or Word and, therefore, part of the Father.

“Alexander taught that … as the Father’s Word and Wisdom the Son must always have been with the Father.” (Ayres, p. 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.” (Ayres, p. 44)

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

• • • Explained Father and Son as a single hypostasis, similar to 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.“ (Ayres, p. 69)

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

In conclusion, there is no substantial difference between the theology of Alexander and Athanasius and that of the main Sabellians of their day; Eustathius and Marcellus. Since Athanasius learned his theology from Alexander, this is further evidence that Athanasius was a Sabellian.

THE INCARNATION

.

 

Athanasius described Jesus as God the Father walking around on earth in a human body but without a human mind. This is different from the Sabellian explanation of Jesus as a mere human being but is also a very unconvincing explanation.

If Athanasius was a Sabellian, we should also see this in his theory of the incarnation. If he was a Sabellian, he should describe the incarnated Christ as 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 who dwells in the human body.

He completely ignored the human side of Jesus Christ, so much so that scholars “conclude that whatever else the Logos incarnate is in Athanasius’ account of him, he is not a human being.” (Hanson, p. 451) In other words, he described Jesus as God in a human body. For example, when he discusses Jesus’ ignorance and fears, Athanasius says that God only pretended to be ignorant and to fear. For such 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.” (Hanson, p. 451)

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

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

CONCLUSION

As ‘one hypostasis’ theologians, Alexander and Athanasius were part of a minority in this church. And since both Sabellius’ theology and the term homoousios were already formally condemned as heretical during the preceding century, they followed an already discredited theology.

The Western Council of Serdica in 343, where Athanasius played a dominant part, is devastating evidence. It explicitly describes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one hypostasis and Athanasius approved and supported this creed.

“The Westerners had at Serdica in 343 produced a theological statement which appeared to have the most alarmingly Sabellian complexion, and ‘Athanasius had certainly supported this statement, though he later denied its existence.” (Hanson, p. xix)

People struggle with this conclusion is that it shows that Athanasius, who is regarded as the hero of the Arian Controversy, was a Sabellian; not a Trinitarian. But, as Hanson stated, the traditional account of the Arian Controversy is a Complete Travesty.

---

Other Articles

• • • Origin of the Trinity Doctrine – Including the pre-Nicene Church Fathers and the fourth-century Arian Controversy
    • All articles on this website
    • Is Jesus the Most High God?
    • Trinity Doctrine – General
    • The Book of Daniel
    • The Book of Revelation
    • The Origin of Evil
    • Death, Eternal Life, and Eternal Torment