Overview
Tertullian and Sabellius represented two opposing trajectories. Tertullian was a Logos theologian and Sabellius developed from Monarchianism. Nevertheless. their theologies were similar:
Both taught that Father, Son, and Spirit are a single hypostasis, meaning, a single Existence.
But both distinguished between Father, Son, and Spirit within the one hypostasis.
Introduction
A hypostasis is a distinct existence.
The Greek church fathers used the word hypostasis for something distinct from other things. So, to say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases means they are three distinct Beings. [Show More]
|
A hypostasis is a distinct existence:
Hanson explains hypostasis as “individual existence.” (Hanson, p. 193)
Litfin defines hypostases as “distinct personalities” and as “to be existent.” He says, to say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases, implies “three distinct existences within the Godhead.”
|
Logos-theology
In Tertullian’s time, Logos-theology and Monarchianism were two main views. Beginning in the second century, following Justin Martyr, Logos-theology dominated non-Jewish Christianity. It taught that the Logos existed through two stages: He always existed as an aspect of God but became a distinct but subordinate hypostasis (Person) when God decided to create. (See – The Apologists.)
Monarchianism
Opposing Logos-theology, the Monarchians (also known as Modalism) believed that Father, Son, and Spirit are a single hypostasis. Specifically, they believed that ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are two names for the same Person. Consequently, the Father suffered on the Cross. [Show More]
| Monarchians were Modalists.
“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.” (Ayres, p. 68)
“Adolph Von Harnack coined the term ‘Modalism’ for this 2nd-century doctrine, which referred to the Trinity as consisting of ‘three modes or aspects of one divine existence’.” (Willem Oliver)
The Father suffered on the Cross.
“This ‘monarchian’ view was … suggesting the Father and Son were different expressions of the same being, without any personal distinctions between them. In other words, the Father is himself the Son, and therefore experiences the Son’s human frailties.” (Litfin)
“In the words of Noetus: … the Father … Himself became His own Son.” “It was therefore God who was born from a virgin and who confessed himself to humankind as the Son of God. At the cross, God commended his spirit to himself, as he acted to be dead, but he was not dead in reality, although he raised himself on the 3rd day.”
“The Latin Fathers … called them ‘Patripassians‘ because they have identified the Father and the Son to such an extent that they believed that it was the Father who suffered and died on the cross.” (Willem Oliver)
|
Sabellianism
Sabellianism is named after the early third-century theologian Sabellius. Like the Monarchians, he explained the Father, Son, and Spirit as a single hypostasis (one Person). [Show More]
| Only one Person (hypostasis)
He believed “there is but one undivided person in God.” (Von Mosheim)
The “refusal to acknowledge the distinct existence of the Persons.” (Hanson, p. 844)
“The denial of a distinction between the three within the Godhead.” (Hanson, p. 287)
“Believing in only one Person (hypostasis) in the Godhead. … favour the expression ‘one hypostasis’.” (Hanson, p. 801)
|
It is sometimes stated that Sabellianism is another name for Monarchianism but that is not entirely true. None of Sabellius’ writings have survived. Everything we know about him comes from the writings of his opponents and we know that one’s enemies seldom fairly reflect one’s views. But Von Mosheim studied the available documents and concluded that Sabellius, while maintaining that Father, Son, and Spirit are one hypostasis (Person), opposed the Monarchian concept that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are simply three names for the same Person. Rather, he argued that Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct forms or aspects or portions of the one divine Person. [Show More]
|
“While he maintained that there was but one person in God, he yet held that there are three forms, or aspects of the one God. Divers forms of one and the same being involve some real distinction.” (page 218)
“Sabellius … believed that, as a man in just one person, and yet in his person three things may be discriminated, not in thought only, but as having a real existence, namely, the body, the soul, and the spirit, so, also, although there is but one undivided person in God, yet in that person, the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit can be discriminated, not in thought only, but they must be really discriminated and kept distinct.” (219-220)
“As Sabellius held to the simple unity of the person and nature of God, and yet supposed the Father, Son, and holy Spirit to differ really from each other, and not to be three names of the one God, acting in different ways; we are obliged to believe, that he considered the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as being three portions of the divine nature.” (220)
|
Origen – three hypostases
In the third century, Origen refined Lagos theology but still taught that the Son is a distinct Existence. Following him, in the fourth century, the Arians, claimed three hypostases, meaning that the Father, Son, nd Spirit are three hypostases. For example, the main purpose of the Arian Dedication Creed of 341 was to oppose Sabellianism. For that purpose, while Sabellianism favored ‘one hypostasis’, that creed explicitly confesses three hypostases. [Show More]
| “The creed clearly and strongly argues against Sabellian emphases and those emphases were associated with Marcellan theology. We see these emphases, for instance, in the insistence that there are three names which ‘signify exactly the particular hypostasis and order and glory of each’.” (Ayres, p. 119) |
Tertullian
Did not oppose Sabellius.
Wikipedia states that Tertullian was “one of the chief critics of Sabellianism.” This was true to the extent that Monarchianism and Sabellianism formed a single trajectory, but Tertullian (ca. 160–225) wrote slightly before Sabellius (fl. ca. 215) and did not oppose Sabellius directly. Tertullian’s enemy was Sabellius’ precursor – the Monarchians. [Show More]
| Wrote before Sabellius
“Shortly after Tertullian’s day, a theologian named Sabellius gave …” (Litfin) (Bryan M. Litfin, University of Virginia, Professor of Theology at Moody Bible Institute, Chicago)
His enemies were Monarchians.
“Tertullian’s targets here are Monarchian theologians for whom the Word does not exist as a distinct existing thing.” (Ayres, p. 74)
“The treatise Against Praxeas is widely recognized as Tertullian’s greatest work on the Trinity. The view apparently taught by Praxeas has come to be called ‘modalism’, thanks to that designation appearing in Adolf von Harnack’s History of Dogma (1897). Tertullian simply calls his opponent a ‘monarchian’.” (Litfin)
Tertullian’s “efforts were directed against a view whose chief error was to conflate the Father and Son, meaning that, among other things, the Father suffered on the Cross—a view known as ‘patripassianism’, which Tertullian found abhorrent.” (Litfin).
|
Was a Logos-theologian.
Tertullian is often praised as an accurate anticipation Nicene theology. He did use the language of the Trinity doctrine; one substance, three Persons. [Show More]
|
“He also offered a formula that, more than a century later, would assume the status of doctrinal orthodoxy. God is … one substance cohering in three’.” (Litfin)
In Tertullian’s theology, “while the Son does share the substance of the Father, both are distinct Persons. This is precisely the trinitarian terminology that would eventually win the day.” (Litfin)
|
However, he believed that the Son and the Spirit are subordinate to the Father. [Show More]
|
“The Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: ‘My Father is greater than I.’ … Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son.” (In Against Praxeas 9, Tertullian)
“He tended toward a profound theological subordination of the Son and the Spirit.” (Litfin)
“The Trinity, he believed, possessed a genuine, stepwise ranking according to each Person’s gradus, forma, and species. This is indeed a bold view of the architecture of the Trinity, one that skirts close to Arian subordinationism.” (Litfin)
“The Son and Spirit are emissaries of the Father’s will—not ontologically inferior to him, yet ranked lower.” (Litfin)
“For Tertullian, the Son is second in order.” (Ayres, p. 73-74)
|
And, like Arius, he believed there was a time when the Son did not exist. [Show More]
|
Tertullian wrote: “There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son … He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son.” (see here)
“The notion that the First Person was not essentially and eternally a Father … became anathema to later generations. Yet this was precisely what Tertullian believed, and for this reason his doctrine of temporal paternity and filiation was closer to the Arian point of view.” (Litfin)
“But even more problematic from an orthodox point of view was Tertullian’s firm conviction that a relationship of fatherhood and sonship is not intrinsic to the Trinity.” (Litfin)
“For Tertullian, the Son … comes from the Father in connection with the Father’s decision to create, he also insists that the Son was always in the Father: the same two-stage conception …” (Ayres, p. 73-74)
“Tertullian … believed and taught that, though the Son or Logos was eternally within the being of the Father, he only became distinct … at a particular point for the purposes of creation, revelation and redemption” (Hanson, p. 872)
|
Consequently, he did not teach the Trinity doctrine. He was a typical Logos theologian. Consistent with Logos-theology, he taught that the Son or Logos was eternally within the being of the Father and only became distinct at a particular point for creation, revelation, and redemption. [Show More]
|
“Tertullian was not really a forward-thinking Nicene trinitarian born a century out of time, but a typical theologian of his day. … We should not be too quick to anoint Tertullian as the Latin foundation upon which the Greek edifice of Nicaea was going to be built.” (Litfin)
“Historical theologians need to start admitting that Tertullian was a far cry from being fully Nicene.” (Litfin)
“When he (Tertullian) is examined against the background of his immediate predecessors, he falls into place as a typical second-century Logos theologian.” (Litfin)
“His ideas were essentially those of the Greek Logos theologians combined with insights from Bishop Irenaeus.” (Litfin)
|
Tertullian is regarded as important, not for his theology, but for introducing certain words that later became ‘orthodox. Particularly, he introduced the terms ‘trinity’, ‘substance’, and ‘person’. [Show More]
| “Why such enthusiasm for Tertullian’s trinitarianism? As the above selections demonstrate, the answer is essentially terminological. Historical theologians like to suggest that Tertullian’s use of the term trinitas, and his one substantia/three personae formula, make him a kind of proto-Nicene hero.” (Litfin) |
Similar to the Sabellians
Although Sabellius and Tertullian represented two different trajectories, their theologies were similar. Although Tertullian was a Logos theologian, in his peculiar theology, like Sabellius, the Son was not a distinct existence. He taught that the three Persons are a single hypostasis. The Monarchians criticized the Logos theologians for teaching that the one God divided into two Gods. Tertullian developed his theology to overcome that criticism. He deviated from the standard Logos theory by describing God as three personae in one substance. [Show More]
| Monarchian Criticism:
“The theology of the Apologists involves a division in the being and unity of God that is unacceptable.” (Ayres, p. 68)
Logos-theology teaches two creators and two Gods (bi-theism), “inconsistent with monotheism (Tertullian Praxeas, ch. 3)” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Three personae, one substance
“In Tertullian’s new trinitarian schema, God is characterized by a single divine ‘substance’ of rulership over the cosmos. Yet he is fundamentally arranged or disposed in three personae.” (Litfin)
|
So, the question is, what did Tertullian mean by “personae?” Are they parts or aspects of one hypostasis, as Sabellius proposed, or did he understand Father, Son, and Spirit to be three hypostases (three Persons with three distinct minds)? The following shows that Tertullian believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single hypostasis (a single Person with a single mind).
Tertullian said: “For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole.” (Against Praxeas, Chapter 9) Therefore, the Son is part of the Father and not a distinct Person.
Litfin wrote, “The term substantia as Tertullian used it signified the existence of a single, discrete entity (here, the One God).” In other words, the entire substance is a “discrete entity;” not the individual parts.
Hanson states that the entire substance is one hypostasis: “The word in Greek translation of Tertullian’s una substantia would not be the word homoousios but mia hypostasis (one hypostasis).” (Hanson, p. 193)
Assuming that the fourth-century Nicenes followed Tertullian, as is often claimed, we also see his doctrine in Nicene theology. The Western pro-Nicenes of the fourth century continued his understanding. Both Alexander and Athanasius described the Father, Son, and Spirit as a single hypostasis, with the Logos intrinsic to the being of the Father. [Show More]
| One hypostasis
“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)
An aspect of the Father
“Alexander of Alexandria, [Rowan] Williams thinks, had maintained that the Son … is a property or quality of the Father, impersonal and belonging to his substance..” (Hanson, p. 92)
Intrinsic to the Father
“In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius’ theology.” (Hanson, p. 426).
“Athanasius’ increasing clarity in treating the Son as intrinsic to the Father’s being” (Ayres, p. 113)
(See Article) |
And the manifesto compiled by the Western delegates at the Council of Serdica, which is the only uninhibited manifesto of pro-Nicene theology, during the fourth century, explicitly confesses one hypostasis. [Show More]
| Almost all major creeds and manifestos during the fourth century were significantly influenced by the emperors.
“If we ask the question, what was considered to constitute the ultimate authority in doctrine during the period reviewed in these pages, there can be only one answer. The will of the Emperor was the final authority.” (Hanson, p849)
Sedica 343 proclaims one hypostasis.
“We have received and have been taught this … tradition: that there is one hypostasis, which the heretics (also) call ousia, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Hanson, p. 301).
|
Tertullian’s Persons are not real.
Tertullian’s ‘Persons were not ‘Persons’ in the sense of distinct Beings with distinct minds.
While the Logos theologians said that the Logos separated from the Father to become a distinct hypostasis, Tertullian proposed that the Logos “became more clearly distinguished” but remained part of the Father. Consequently, Father and Son remained a single hypostasis (one single Mind):
“Tertullian believed … (that) God, while not ceasing to be what he always was, nonetheless extended himself or projected himself forward, so that the three Persons became more clearly distinguished. By means of these now-more-distinct Persons, the one God creates the world, rules over it, and enters into it for salvation.” (Litfin)
The term for ‘person’ (prosopon) was also used by Sabellius. (Hanson, p. 328) It is sometimes translated as “role.” (Hanson, p. 649) Basil of Caesarea “can readily use prosopon in the traditional exegetical sense of ‘character’ or ‘part’ (almost as in a play) which God or Christ or others were supposed to have assumed.” (Hanson, p. 692)
The Trinity doctrine follows Tertullian.
| Like Tertullian, the Trinity doctrine teaches that the three Persons are one Being with one mind and will. |
Both the traditional Trinity doctrine and Tertullian:
-
-
- Assert three Persons in one substance.
- Use the term ‘Person’ misleadingly because the ‘Persons’ are not distinct and do not each have a mind. The Three are a single Being with a single mind. (See here for a discussion of the Trinity doctrine.)
- Equate the ‘substance’ with the Being of God.
| The Trinity doctrine is Athanasius’ ‘one hypostasis’ theology with ‘three Persons’ misleadingly added. |
Athanasius taught one hypostasis. Basil of Caesarea was the first three-hypostasis pro-Nicene. He said that Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct Persons with the same type of substance and, therefore, equal divinity. As stated, the difficulty with that view is tritheism. For that reason, the traditional Trinity doctrine says that Father, Son, and Spirit are one Being. Essentially, that reverts to Athanasius’ one-hypostasis view but adds Basil’s ‘three Persons’ (three hypostases). However, since the hypostases are not real persons, that is misleading. The traditional Trinity doctrine is camouflaged Sabellianism!
Conclusion
It is valid to classify Tertullian as a Sabellian if we define Sabellianism as teaching that Father, Son, and Spirit are only one Person within whom the Father, Son, and Spirit are somehow distinguished.
Other Articles
In Modalism, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are mere “modes” of how the one God interacts with creation. Like an actor on a stage, God sometimes appears as the Father and other times as the Son or the Spirit, but it is one and the same Person. For example, He appears as the Father in the creation, the Son in Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit after Christ’s ascension.