Tag: Sabellianism

Posted on

The doctrine of the Trinity deviates from the Nicene Creed.

This article series quotes extensively from leading scholars. Since not all readers are interested in detail, the green blocks summarize the longer sections. 

PURPOSE

The church adopted the Trinity doctrine at the conclusion of the fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy. However, discoveries of ancient documents and research over the past century have revealed that the traditional account of how and why the church accepted that doctrine is grossly distorted. Different articles in this series discuss different errors in the traditional narrative.

The current article addresses the false belief that the Trinity doctrine is consistent with the Nicene Creed of 325. For example, while the Creed uses hypostasis and ousia as synonyms, the Trinity doctrine uses these terms for contrasting concepts; Person and Being. And while the Creed asserts that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis, the Doctrine proclaims three hypostases. See here for a general discussion of the Trinity doctrine.

The New Terms in the Nicene Creed

To describe the Son of God, the Nicene Creed of 325 uses the terms hypostasis and ousia in three statements:

      • The Son is begotten “of the ousia of the Father,”
      • Father and Son are “homoousios,” meaning ‘same ousia’, and 
      • The Son is not “of another hypostasis or ousia.” (Ayres, p. 93)

These terms were not used in any previous Christian creed. A pro-Alexander pre-meeting was held in Antioch just a few months before Nicaea and not even the draft creed produced at that meeting used these terms. (Ayres, p. 92)

The Anathema …

This article focuses on the third instance, which is one of the Creed’s anathemas. Early Church Texts translates it as:

“But as for those … who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance [ousia] … these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.”

With the double negative removed, it says that the Son is of the same hypostasis and ousia as the Father. This seems to deviate from the Trinity doctrine in two ways:

Uses Hypostasis and Ousia as Synonyms.

Firstly, the traditional Trinity doctrine makes a distinction between the terms ousia and hypostasis, saying that God is one ousia (one Being) existing in three hypostases (three Persons); the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For example, the following is one possible definition of the Doctrine:

“The champions of the Nicene faith … developed a doctrine of God as a Trinity, as one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases, three distinct realities or entities (I refrain from using the misleading word’ Person’), three ways of being or modes of existing as God.” (Hanson Lecture)

In contrast, the Anathema uses ousia and hypostasis as synonyms:

Ayres refers to “the seeming equation of ousia and hypostasis. (Ayres, p. 88)

R.P.C. Hanson says the Nicene Creed “apparently (but not quite certainly) identifies hypostasis and ousia.” (Hanson, p. 188)

Says that Father and Son are One Person.

A second difference between the Anathema and the Trinity doctrine is that, while the Trinity doctrine says that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases, the Anathema says they are a single hypostasis:

“The production of N … must have been deeply disturbing for many who could not seriously be described as Arian in sympathy but could not believe that God had only one hypostasis, as the creed apparently professed.” (Hanson, p. 274)

“That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one hypostasis.” (Hanson, p. 235)

A hypostasis is something that exists distinctly. When used for intelligent beings, it is often translated as ‘person’.

Purpose of this article

Therefore, the purpose of this article is to determine whether the Anathema:

    • Uses ousia and hypostasis as synonyms and 
    • Describes Father and Son as a single hypostasis.

Both the translation of the Anathema and the definition of the Trinity doctrine quoted above explain ousia as ‘substance’. Today, we generally understand ‘substance’ as “the real physical matter of which a person or thing consists.” However, the main purpose of the current article is to determine whether that was how the compilers of the Nicene Creed understood the term.

AUTHORS

This article is largely based on the following recent writings of world-class catholic scholars who are regarded as specialists in the fourth-century Arian Controversy:

Hanson – A 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, 1987

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

Anatolios, Khaled,
Retrieving Nicaea, 2011
Ebook edition

BEFORE NICAEA

Etymologically, they are synonyms.

In the earliest uses of these words known to scholars today, ousia and hypostasis were synonyms. 

Etymologically (i.e., relating to the origin and historical development of words and their meanings), hypostasis and ousia are direct cognates (See – Ousía and hypostasis from the philosophers to the councils). That means they have the same linguistic derivation, just like the English father, the German Vater and the Latin pater are cognates. In other words, originally, hypostasis and ousia had the same meaning.

Philosophy: Synonyms for Fundamental Reality

The compilers of the Nicene Creed borrowed these terms from Greek philosophy and that philosophy used these terms as synonyms for the fundamental reality that supports all else.

The authors of the Nicene Creed derived these terms from Greek philosophy. For example, Hanson refers to “the new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day.” (Hanson, p. 846) [Show More]

In Greek Philosophy:

“Hypostasis is the underlying state or underlying substance and is the fundamental reality that supports all else.” (Wikipedia)

Note that both the terms hypostasis and ousia (substance) appear in this definition. In philosophy, a hypostasis was also a substance. Ancient Greek philosophers used these terms as synonyms for the primary, fundamental kind of being, in contrast to the objects in the sensible world which are mere shadows. In a Christian context, we might refer to “the fundamental reality” or Ultimate Reality as ‘God’.

Only one instance in the Bible

The compilers of the Creed did not obtain these terms from the Bible. The Bible never refers to God’s ousia and only once to God’s hypostasis. In that one instance, it is not clear whether hypostasis refers to God’s nature or His entire ‘Person’ (hypostasis). 

The word hypostasis “occurs five times in the New Testament.” (Hanson, p. 182) Four instances do NOT refer to God and are translated as ‘confidence’ and ‘assurance’ (2 Cor 9:4; 11:17; Heb 3:14; 11:1). The only instance where the term hypostasis describes God is Hebrews 1:3. 1“The only strictly theological use (of the word hypostasis) is that of Hebrews 1:3, where the Son is described as ‘the impression of the nature’ [hypostasis] of God.” (Hanson, p. 182) 2“The word also occurs twenty times in the LXX (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament), but only one of them can be regarded as theologically significant. … At Wisdom 16:21 the writer speaks of God’s hypostasis, meaning his nature; and no doubt this is why Hebrews uses the term ‘impression of his nature’.” (Hanson, p. 182) In Hebrews 1:3, “the Son is described as the impression [exact image] of the Father’s hypostasis.” (Hanson, p. 187, 182) This is variously translated (BibleHub):

      • The exact representation of his being (NIV);
      • The exact imprint of his nature (ESV);
      • The express image of his person (King James & New King James);
      • The exact representation of His nature (NASB);
      • The very image of his substance (ASV);
      • The exact likeness of God’s own being (Good News)
      • The exact likeness of his being (ISV)
      • The very imprint of his being (New American)
      • The exact imprint of God’s very being (NRSV)

The three instances in red translate hypostasis as a characteristic or aspect of God but most versions translate it as referring to God as a distinct Individual or Person, meaning that the Son is the exact image of the Person of God, rather than of an aspect of God.

Hypostasis also occurs twenty times in the LXX (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament), but only one instance uses this term to describe God. “At Wisdom 16:21 the writer speaks of God’s hypostasis … and no doubt this is why Hebrews uses the term ‘impression of his nature’.” (Hanson, p. 182)

Since the Bible never refers to God’s ousia and only once refers to His hypostasis, the use of the terms ousia and hypostasis in the Nicene Creed was not based on the Bible:

“The pro-Nicenes are at their worst, their most grotesque, when they try to show that the new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day were really to be found in Scripture.” (Hanson, p. 846)

Origen: Synonyms for distinct Individual

Origen wrote at the beginning of the third century. He used these terms as synonyms. While ousia is today often understood as “substance,” Origen used both terms for the Persons of the Trinity as distinct Individuals, as opposed to their substance.

For example:

He “used hypostasis and ousia freely as interchangeable terms to describe the Son’s distinct reality within the Godhead.” (Hanson, p. 185) “He can say … that the Son is ‘different in ousia’ from the Father, meaning that he is a distinct entity from the Father.” (Hanson, p. 66-67)

“For Origen the words hypostasis … and ousia are … synonyms for … distinct individual entity.” (Hanson, p. 66-67)

While Origen wrote that the Son is “separate in hypostasis or ousia from the Father” (Hanson, p. 66-67), the Nicene Creed states the exact opposite and condemns those who say that He “is of a different hypostasis or substance.”

The vast majority of the delegates to Nicaea were from the Eastern church and were followers of Origen, implying that they used these terms in the same way.

For example:

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

“The great majority of the Eastern clergy [at Nicaea] were ultimately disciples of Origen.” (Bible.ca, quoting W.H.C. Frend)

This implies that most delegates to Nicaea regarded these terms as synonyms for the ‘Person’ of God.

Williams refers to “the respectable pre-Nicene usage of ousia for primary (individual) substance.” (Williams, p. 164)

WHEN THE CONTROVERSY BEGAN

Used differently by different people

When the Controversy began, considerable confusion existed as different people used these terms differently.

Hanson discusses how several ancient theologians used these terms. Did they use these terms to describe the Father and Son as Individuals (Persons) or their substance?

      • “Eusebius of Nicomedia” used ousia to mean Person. He said, “there are two ousiai and two facts.” (Hanson, p. 185)
      • “Eusebius of Caesarea … uses ousia to mean substance.” (Hanson, p. 185)
      • “Alexander of Alexandria … does not use the word ousia, but instead uses hypostasis for both ‘Person’ and ‘substance’.” (Hanson, p. 186)
      • Arius used hypostasis for Person. He “spoke readily of the hypostases of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” (Hanson, p. 186)
      • Asterius, a leading anti-Nicene, “said that there were three hypostases.” In other words, he used hypostasis for ‘Person’. “But he also described the Son as ‘the exact image of the ousia and counsel and glory and power’ of the Father.” In other words, he used ousia for substance. “Once again we find a writer who clearly did not confuse ousia and hypostasis.” (Hanson, p. 187) What Hanson means is that Asterius made a distinction between the two terms and used them as we use them today.

Therefore, considerable confusion existed.

“Considerable confusion existed about the use of the terms hypostasis and ousia at the period when the Arian Controversy broke out.” (Hanson, p. 181)

“Several alternative ways of treating these terms were prevalent.” (Hanson, p. 184)

“That continuing terminological confusion is reflected in the seeming equation of ousia and hypostasis [in the Nicene Creed].” (Ayres, p. 98)

Synonyms for many

Although different people used these terms differently, many used these terms as synonyms.

For example:

“For many people at the beginning of the fourth century the word hypostasis and the word ousia had pretty well the same meaning.” (Hanson, p. 181)

Importantly, Athanasius, the paragon of the West, also used these terms as synonyms: “Clearly for him hypostasis and ousia were still synonymous.” (Hanson, 440)

“For at least the first half of the period 318-381, and in some cases considerably later, ousia and hypostasis are used as virtual synonyms.” (Hanson, p. 183)

MEANING CHANGED

Much later in the Century

The fourth century was a search for orthodoxy; not the defense of orthodoxy. The outcome of that Controversy, the Trinity doctrine, did not yet exist when the Nicene Creed was formulated. As a key part of that search for the doctrine of God, theologians changed the meanings of the terms ousia and hypostasis.

As confirmation that the Nicene Creed does not teach the Trinity doctrine, Lewis Ayres explains that ‘pro-Nicene theology’, which is what we today understand as the Trinity doctrine, was developed later in that century and differs from the theology of the Nicene Creed:

“By ‘pro-Nicene’ I mean those theologies, appearing from the 360s to the 380s … of how the Nicene creed should be understood. … These theologies build closely on and adapt themes found earlier in the century, but none is identical with any original ‘Nicene’ theology apparent in the 320s or 330s.” (Ayres, p. 6)

Consistent with the idea that theology evolved over the fourth century, the meanings of these two terms changed over that period:

“It is only much later in the century that the two are more clearly distinguished by some.” (Ayres, p. 98)

“When at last the confusion was cleared up and these two distinct meanings were permanently attached to these words,” hypostasis and ousia respectively meant “’person’ and ‘substance’.” (Hanson, p. 181)

By the Cappadocians

Some of the ‘Arians’ were the first to distinguish between hypostasis and ousia but the Cappadiocian fathers were the first pro-Nicenes to make that distinction. Based on their authority, the distinction became accepted in the Trinitarian church.

The Cappadocian fathers are traditionally credited for being the first to make a clear distinction between ousia and hypostasis:

“The first person to propose a difference in the meanings of hypostasis and ousía … was Basil of Caesarea.”3Johannes, “Ousía and hypostasis from the philosophers to the councils”

“Basil’s most distinguished contribution towards the resolving of the dispute about the Christian doctrine of God was in his clarification of the vocabulary.” (Hanson, p. 690)

Basil “is often identified” with the “distinction between a unitary shared nature at one level, and the personal distinctions of Father, Son, and Spirit at another.” (Ayres, p. 190-191)

In reality, some of the Eusebians, the so-called Arians, right at the beginning of the Controversy, already made a distinction between hypostasis and ousia and used ousia for ‘substance’; the material a Being consists of:

Arius used hypostasis for ‘Person’. For example, he “spoke readily of the hypostases of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And he said that the hypostases of Father, Son and Holy Spirit “were different in kind and in rank.” (Hanson, p. 187) But he used ousia for “substance.“ He wrote, for example, “The Logos is alien and unlike in all respects to the Father’s ousia.” (Hanson, p. 186) “It seems likely that he was one of the few during this period who did not confuse the two.” (Hanson, p. 187)

Asterius, another leading ‘Arian’, “clearly did not confuse ousia and hypostasis.” He used hypostasis for ‘Person’. For example, he “said that there were three hypostases” and “certainly taught that the Father and the Son were distinct and different in their hypostases.” But he used ousia for ‘substance’. For example, “he also described the Son as ‘the exact image of the ousia and counsel and glory and power’ of the Father.” (Hanson, p. 187)

What we can say is that the Cappadocians were the first pro-Nicenes to make that distinction. While Basil was a three-hypostasis theologian (see here), Athanasius and the earlier pro-Nicene theologians believed in one hypostasis (see here) and did not need a distinction between hypostasis and ousia.

THE CREED

Uses these terms as synonyms.

The fact that, at the time, many people used the two terms as synonyms supports our conclusion above that the Anathema uses them as synonyms. That confirms that the Nicene Creed deviates from the Trinity doctrine in which the distinction between ousia and hypostases is foundational, saying that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases but one ousia.

It would furthermore mean that, in the Nicene Creed, these two terms “did not mean, and should not be translated, ‘person’ and ‘substance’, as they were used when at last … these two distinct meanings were permanently attached to these words.” (Hanson, p. 181) In other words, the translation of the Anathema as quoted above mistakenly translates ousia as ‘substance’. 

Teaches only one hypostasis.

Since the Anathema, with the double negatives removed, says that the Son is of the same hypostasis or substance as the Father, it claims that Father and Son are one single hypostasis. This deviates from the Trinity doctrine which asserts three hypostases.

Is Sabellian.

However, to say that Father and Son are a single hypostasis (a single Person) is Sabellianism.

Sabellianism was already condemned as heresy in the third century. Scholars confirm that the Anathema implies Sabellianism:

“By the standard of later orthodoxy, as achieved in the Creed of Constantinople of 381, it is a rankly heretical (i.e. Sabellian) proposition, because the Son must be of a different hypostasis (i.e. ‘Person’) from the Father.” (Hanson, p. 167)

“The Creed of Nicaea of 325 … ultimately confounded the confusion because its use of the words ousia and hypostasis was so ambiguous as to suggest that the Fathers of Nicaea had fallen into Sabellianism, a view recognized as a heresy even at that period.” (Hanson’s Lecture)

“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) Eustathius and Marcellus were the most famous Sabellians of the fourth century. (See here.)

Confirmed by Sabellian domination

A Sabellian statement was included in the Creed because Sabellians dominated at Nicaea through their alliance with Alexander and through the emperor’s support for Alexander.

The reader may question why the Creed would include a Sabellian statement. This is explained in the article on the meaning of the term Homoousios. (See here.) In brief:

During the Arian Controversy, theologians were divided into ‘one hypostasis’ and ‘three hypostasis’ camps. Following Origen, the Eusebians (the so-called Arians) said that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases (three distinct Persons), each with his distinct ousia. In opposition to them, Sabellians said that Father, Son, and Spirit are one single hypostasis (Person).

Alexander and Athanasius, similar to the Sabellians, maintained that Father, Son, and Spirit are one single hypostasis. (See here.) For that reason, at Nicaea, they were able to join forces with the Sabellians. Emperor Constantine took Alexander’s side in his dispute with Arius. This gave the Sabellians the upper hand at Nicaea.

It is, therefore, no surprise that the Creed presents Father and Son as one single hypostasis. However:

“It is going too far to say that N is a clearly Sabellian document. … It is exceeding the evidence to represent the Council as a total victory for the anti-Origenist opponents of the doctrine of three hypostases. It was more like a drawn battle.” (Hanson, p. 172)

AGREES WITH THE ANATHEMA

However, if one goes beyond the formal wording of the Trinity doctrine to its essence, it does agree with the Anathema in two respects. Firstly, both describe the Father and the Son as a single hypostasis. Secondly, both use the terms ousia and hypostasis as synonyms.  

1. A Single Hypostasis

1a ‘Hypostases’ (Persons) are misleading.

Formally, the Trinity doctrine confesses the Father, Son, and Spirit to be three hypostases (Persons). However, that is misleading. A hypostasis is a distinct being with a unique mind but, in the Doctrine, the Trinity is a single Being with a single mind.

The Trinity doctrine says that the Father, Son, and Spirit are “one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases [Persons].” This leads the reader to think of three distinct Entities because, in normal English, each ‘person’ is a distinct entity with his or her own mind. A hypostasis is also defined as an “individual existence” (Hanson, p. 193) or “distinct existences” (Litfin); something that exists distinctly from other things.  

However, in the Doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit do not exist distinctly. They are a single Being with a single mind. For example, the leading Catholic scholar Karl Rahner (The Trinity) wrote:

“The element of consciousness … does not belong to it [the Person] in our context [the official doctrine of the {Catholic} Church].” “But there exists in God only one power, one will, only one self-presence. … Hence self-awareness is not a moment which distinguishes the divine “persons” one from the other.”

“When today we speak of person in the plural, we think almost necessarily, because of the modern meaning of the word, of several spiritual centers of activity [minds], of several subjectivities [biases, views] and liberties [freedoms]. But there are not three of these in God. … There are not three consciousnesses; rather the one consciousness subsists in a threefold way. There is only one real consciousness in God, which is shared by the Father, Son, and Spirit, by each in his own proper way.”

In other words, the Father, Son, and Spirit share one single will, consciousness, and self-awareness.

“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.” (Rahner) 4“We must, of course, say that Father, Son, and Spirit possess self-consciousness and that each one is aware of the other two ‘persons’. But precisely this self-consciousness … comes from the divine essence, is common as one to the divine persons.” (Rahner) 

If the traditional Trinity doctrine taught three equal Minds, that would have been Tritheism. Other Catholic scholars confirm that the term ‘Person’ is misleading:

“The champions of the Nicene faith … developed a doctrine of God as a Trinity, as one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases, three distinct realities or entities (I refrain from using the misleading word’ Person’), three ways of being or modes of existing as God.” (Hanson Lecture)

“By the conventions of the late fourth century, first formulated in Greek by the ‘Cappadocian Fathers’, these three constituent members of what God is came to be referred to as hypostases (‘concrete individuals’) or, more misleadingly for us moderns, as prosōpa (‘persons’).” (Anatolios, xiii) 5In contrast to the traditional Trinity doctrine, some modern theologians propose a ‘Social Trinity’ with “three Centres of Consciousness” (Hanson, p. 737), i.e., three ‘minds’, but this article only considered the standard, traditional Doctrine.

Rather than the word ‘Person’, Hanson above explains the hypostases in the Trinity doctrine as “three ways of being or modes of existing” of the same one God. This reminds us of Modalism, the name Von Harnack gave to second-century Monarchianism; the teaching that Father, Son, and Spirit are merely three names for the same Entity.

1b Origins do not make them distinct.

In the Doctrine, the only distinction between the ‘Persons’ is their origins, but that is an internal and invisible distinction within the one Being. It does not make them three ‘Persons’. So, the three-ness of God is a verbal formula without any practical implications. For us, in the Doctrine, God is only one Person.

In the Doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit differ only in their “relationships of origin;” the Son is begotten from the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father (and from the Son in Western theology). 6 For example, Karl Rahner, a leading Catholic scholar, in his book – The Trinity – says: “It follows that we must say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are identical with the one godhead and are ‘relatively’ distinct from one another. These three as distinct are constituted only by their relatedness to one another … in God everything is one except where there is relative opposition.”

However, that does not mean that they exist distinctly because, firstly, the Son did not separate from the Father when He was begotten and the Spirit also does not separate when He proceeds:

“The eternal generation of the Son occurs within the unitary and incomprehensible divine being;” “within the unitary and simple Godhead.” (Ayres, p. 236)

Secondly, that distinction is invisible to created beings:

“By the last quarter of the fourth century, halting Christian attempts … had led … to … ‘the doctrine of the Holy Trinity’: the formulated idea that the God … is Father and Son and Holy Spirit, as one reality or substance, operating outward in creation always as a unity, yet always internally differentiated by the relationships of origin that Father and Son and Holy Spirit have with one another.” (Anatolios, xiii)

Therefore, in the Doctrine, from the perspective of the created universe, the Father, Son, and Spirit are one single Being. That agrees with the Anathema.

We also see the one-ness of God reflected in how the Doctrine interprets the term homoousios. Literally, it means ‘same substance’, implying two Entities with the same kind of substance. (See here.) But the Doctrine interprets it as ‘one substance’, which depicts Father and Son God as a single Entity, which we can describe as one hypostasis or one Person.

1c Conclusion

So, despite the evolution of theology in the fourth century and despite the change in the meanings of the terms ‘ousia’ and ‘hypostasis,’ in reality, the Doctrine of the Trinity continues to explain God as the Anathema and Athanasius explained Him; a single hypostasis.

As discussed here, Athanasius believed in one hypostasis. Above we concluded that the Anathema also implies one hypostasis. In its essence, despite its formal wording, the Trinity doctrine is still one-hypostasis theology.

2. Ousia and Hypostasis as synonyms

The Doctrine does not interpret the term ousia in the Creed as ‘substance’ but as referring to the Being of God. In other words, similar to the Anathema, it interprets ‘ousia’ as an individual existence, which is what hypostasis means.

We argued above that the Anathema uses hypostasis and ousia as synonyms. 7Ayres refers to “the seeming equation of ousia and hypostasis. (Ayres, p. 88) We also noted that Athanasius used them as synonyms. 8“Clearly for him hypostasis and ousia were still synonymous.” (Hanson, 440)

The Doctrine uses the same two terms but, as already stated, by asserting three hypostases (three Persons) and one ousia (one Being), the Doctrine seems to give different meanings to the two terms. 

However, if ‘substance’ means “the real physical matter of which a person or thing consists,” note that the Doctrine does not interpret ousia as ‘substance’. It interprets it as a ‘Being’ – an individual existence, another way of saying Person or hypostasis.

In other words, similar to Athanasius and the Anathema, the Doctrine uses hypostasis and ousia as synonyms; both meaning an individual existence.

OTHER ARTICLES

FOOTNOTES

  • 1
    “The only strictly theological use (of the word hypostasis) is that of Hebrews 1:3, where the Son is described as ‘the impression of the nature’ [hypostasis] of God.” (Hanson, p. 182)
  • 2
    “The word also occurs twenty times in the LXX (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament), but only one of them can be regarded as theologically significant. … At Wisdom 16:21 the writer speaks of God’s hypostasis, meaning his nature; and no doubt this is why Hebrews uses the term ‘impression of his nature’.” (Hanson, p. 182)
  • 3
    Johannes, “Ousía and hypostasis from the philosophers to the councils”
  • 4
    “We must, of course, say that Father, Son, and Spirit possess self-consciousness and that each one is aware of the other two ‘persons’. But precisely this self-consciousness … comes from the divine essence, is common as one to the divine persons.” (Rahner)
  • 5
    In contrast to the traditional Trinity doctrine, some modern theologians propose a ‘Social Trinity’ with “three Centres of Consciousness” (Hanson, p. 737), i.e., three ‘minds’, but this article only considered the standard, traditional Doctrine.
  • 6
    For example, Karl Rahner, a leading Catholic scholar, in his book – The Trinity – says: “It follows that we must say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are identical with the one godhead and are ‘relatively’ distinct from one another. These three as distinct are constituted only by their relatedness to one another … in God everything is one except where there is relative opposition.”
  • 7
    Ayres refers to “the seeming equation of ousia and hypostasis. (Ayres, p. 88)
  • 8
    “Clearly for him hypostasis and ousia were still synonymous.” (Hanson, 440)
Posted on

Athanasius was not a Trinitarian. He was a Unitarian.

PURPOSE: The Trinity doctrine was adopted by the church at the conclusion of the fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy. However, over the last 100 years, scholars have uncovered that the traditional account of how it came that the church accepted this doctrine is grossly inaccurate. Different articles in this series discuss different critical errors in the traditional narrative. The present article addresses the misconception that Athanasius was a proponent of scriptural orthodoxy. It shows that he was a Sabellian and not a Trinitarian, meaning that he believed that the Father and Son are one and the same Person; a theology that had already been denounced as heretical in the preceding century.

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

During the Arian Controversy, Athanasius was the main defender of the Nicene Creed and the term homoousios. He presented himself as the preserver of scriptural orthodoxy.1“Athanasius presents himself as the preserver of the one theological tradition that is equivalent with scriptural orthodoxy.” (Ayres, p. 107)

But this article shows that Athanasius was a one-hypostasis theologian, meaning that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are a single Person with a single Mind. This is similar to Sabellianism; a theology already rejected as heretical during 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 concludes that he was also a one-hypostasis theologian.

The green blocks summarize the various sections.

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

What is a Sabellian?

The Trinity is one Person.

Sabellians believed that, before the world existed, the Word was IN the Father and an aspect of the Father. Consequently, Father and Son are only one Person (hypostasis).

As discussed in the article – The Sabellians of the Fourth Century, concerning the eternal Godhead:

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)

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

The Son is a mere man.

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:

      1. Christ did not exist before He was born from Mary.
      2. The Logos dwells in the man Jesus merely as an energy, an activity, or as inspiration from God.
      3. 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.

The Eusebians taught three Minds.

The Eusebians believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct hypostases (Persons) with three distinct Minds.

In opposition to the Sabellians, the Eusebians (the so-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. For example:

The Eusebians followed Origen who “speaks of Father and Son as two ‘things (πράγματα) in hypostasis, but one in like-mindedness, harmony, and identity of will’.” (Ayres, p. 25) “Like-mindedness” speaks of two distinct minds united in agreement.

Arius was one of the Eusebians. Both Athanasius and Alexander noted that there are two Wisdoms and two Words in his theology, meaning two divine minds. The one is God’s. The other is the Son:

“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).

“Arius also talks of two wisdoms and powers, speaking of a Logos that was not distinct from the Father’s hypostasis, after whom the Son is designated Word.” (Ayres, p. 55) (See – Arius’ Theology.)

“Asterius (a leading early Eusebian) insists also that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases.” (Ayres, p. 54) He also distinguished between God’s wisdom and Christ, implying distinct minds. For example: “God’s own power and wisdom is the source of Christ.” (Ayres, p. 53-54)

The Dedication Creed, which was a statement of the Eusebian Eastern Church, says: “They are three in hypostasis but one in agreement.” The phrase “one in agreement” implies three minds.

Challenges with Terminology

Terminology is a major barrier to understanding. Firstly, in the fourth century, the terms ousia and hypostasis were synonyms but the Trinity doctrine uses them for contrasting concepts.

Another article shows that, during the Arian Controversy, most people used hypostasis (Person) and ousia (substance) as synonyms. However, the traditional Trinity doctrine uses these terms as contrasting concepts, saying that God exists as one substance but three hypostases.

Secondly, while, in the fourth century, each hypostasis had a distinct Mind, in the Trinity doctrine, the three hypostases (Persons) share a single Mind.

If the Trinity doctrine taught three distinct and equal minds, that would have been Tritheism. Karl Rahner, a leading Catholic scholar, confirms that, in the traditional Trinity doctrine, the three Persons share a single Mind:

“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, R.P.C. Hanson says that the term “Person” in the traditional Trinity doctrine is misleading. He describes the three ‘Persons’ as “three ways of being or modes of existing as God.” (Hanson) Since, in normal English, each Person has a unique mind, it is false to explain the Trinity doctrine as teaching one Being but three Persons.

The term ousia (substance) is fairly clear. We understand it today more or less in the same way as the ancients did. Two substances are two beings with two distinct minds. In the Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit are one substance and, therefore, one mind.

The term hypostasis was fairly clear during the Arian Controversy. As shown above, each hypostasis or Person is a distinct substance with a distinct mind. However, since the Trinity shares a single substance and a single mind in the traditional Trinity doctrine, modern readers find it difficult to understand the writings of fourth-century theologians.

The core issue is the Number of Minds.

We can avoid the confusion by asking how many Minds a particular theology taught. That approach goes directly to the core of the Controversy.

To sidestep the difficulties with terminology, this article asks how many Minds (rational capacities, wills, or consciousness) a specific theologian taught:

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

ATHANASIUS’ THEOLOGY

The quotes in this article sometimes refer to ‘the Son’ and sometimes to ‘the Logos’. Alexander and Athanasius used these terms as synonyms.2For 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)

The Son is part of the Father.

Athanasius regarded the Son (the Logos), similar to the Sabellians, as part of the Father. Firstly, he described the Son as IN the Father.

Athanasius described the Son, not as in God generally, but specifically as 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) 3Other relevant quotes include: (1) “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.” (Ayres, p. 114) [Note that this quote uses ‘reality’ as a synonym for ‘Person’.] (2) “The Son’s existence is intrinsic to the Father’s nature.” (Ayres, p. 116) (3) “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.” (Ayres, p. 106)

The Son is one of the Father’s faculties.

Secondly, Athanasius often described the Son as idios to the Father, meaning He is one of the Father’s faculties, confirming that He is part of the Father.

Athanasius 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.” (Ayres, p. 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.” (Ayres, p. 115)

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

Idios means “pertaining to one’s self, one’s own, belonging to one’s self” (Bible Study Tools). Ayres comments:

“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)

The Son is the Father’s only Wisdom.

Thirdly, while the Eusebians 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).

The Eusebians were the anti-Nicenes, usually but inappropriately called ‘Arians’. As already quoted above, Arius, as an example of the Eusebians, said:

“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).

In this view, the one Word or Wisdom is the Son and the other is the Father. In contrast, 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.

Fourthly, the Holy Spirit is also 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)

Consequently, 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)\

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)

“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)

“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)

Another article argues that the real and fundamental issue 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.” (Ayres, p. 106)

Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Person.

Athanasius defended the view that Father and Son are one Being. This sounds like the Trinity doctrine but he did not distinguish between Person and Being. For him, one Being is one Person. So, he said that Father and Son are one Person.

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

The Logos is not a Mediator.

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 Logos-theology of the church in the second and third centuries, which was based mostly on principles from 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 separate hypostasis with a lower divinity enabling 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)

The Mediator is the man Jesus.

The Bible describes Christ as the Mediator between God and man (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 said: “God needed no mediator to create the world. … The Logos/Son is a redemptive, not a cosmic principle.” (Hanson, p. 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.” (Hanson, p. 424; cf. ) OR

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

Athanasius was a Unitarian, not a Trinitarian.

Therefore, Athanasius had a ‘unitarian’ theology, similar to the Sabellians.

Ayres describes both Athanasius’ and Marcellus’ Sabellian theologies 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. This section provides additional support for this conclusion:

Athanasius’ theology was similar to Marcellus’.

The theologies of Marcellus, the main Sabellian of the fourth century, and Athanasius were similar.

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 – The Sabellians of the Fourth Century).

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

The Meletian Schism was a dispute in Antioch between two factions within the pro-Nicene camp. The one faction was Sabellian, and Athanasius sided with them.

The faction which Athanasius supported was the Eustathians. They followed the theology of Eustathius,4He derived “his tradition in continuity from Eustathius who had been bishop about forty years before” (Hanson, p. 800-1). who was deposed some decades earlier for Sabellianism.5“It seems most likely that Eustathius was primarily deposed for the heresy of Sabellianism.” (Hanson, p. 211) Their rallying call was ‘one hypostasis’,6“’One hypostasis’ of the Godhead was to become the slogan and rallying-cry of the continuing Eustathians.” (Hanson, p. 213) which means that Father, Son, and Spirit are one Person, which is a Sabellian statement. In the 360s, the Eustathians elected a rival bishop for Antioch named Paulinus. He was also a Sabellian:

Hanson says Paulinus was “Marcellan/Sabellian.” (Hanson, p. 799)

“Basil suspected that Paulinus was at heart a Sabellian, believing in only one Person (hypostasis) in the Godhead.” (Hanson, p. 801)

Athanasius supported Paulinus:

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

This illustrates again the Sabellian tendency of Athanasius’ theology.

“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’S THEOLOGY

Alexander believed similar to Athanasius.

Athanasius learned his theology from Alexander. Similar to the Sabellians, both believed that the Son is a property or quality of the Father, namely, God’s only Wisdom or Word, and explained Father and Son as a single hypostasis; a single Person.

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

FOOTNOTES

  • 1
    “Athanasius presents himself as the preserver of the one theological tradition that is equivalent with scriptural orthodoxy.” (Ayres, p. 107)
  • 2
    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)
  • 3
    Other relevant quotes include: (1) “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.” (Ayres, p. 114) [Note that this quote uses ‘reality’ as a synonym for ‘Person’.] (2) “The Son’s existence is intrinsic to the Father’s nature.” (Ayres, p. 116) (3) “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.” (Ayres, p. 106)
  • 4
    He derived “his tradition in continuity from Eustathius who had been bishop about forty years before” (Hanson, p. 800-1).
  • 5
    “It seems most likely that Eustathius was primarily deposed for the heresy of Sabellianism.” (Hanson, p. 211)
  • 6
    “’One hypostasis’ of the Godhead was to become the slogan and rallying-cry of the continuing Eustathians.” (Hanson, p. 213)
Proudly powered by WordPress