Tag: Sabellians

Posted on

Was Athanasius a Sabellian?

Purpose

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

Much less of Alexander’s writings survived but this article concludes that he was also a Sabellian.

What does a Sabellian believe?

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

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

Sabellianism falls into the category of views in which Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one single hypostasis, “meaning distinct reality” (RH, 190) or “distinct individuality” (RH, 53). “Later theology would not have said … (one single) Person.” (RH, 190)

(On page 801, Hanson refers to “a Sabellian, believing in only one Person (hypostasis) in the Godhead.” This article, similarly, refers to any theology with only one Person (hypostasis) as Sabellian.)

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

The Son is part of the Father.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only one Hypostasis (One Reality or Person)

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

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

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

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

Athanasius was a Sabellian.

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

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

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

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

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

Alexander

Alexander, similar to Athanasius and the Sabellians:

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

Scholars conclude that “the fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis.“ (LA, 69) Since “Alexander’s theology found its most famous advocate in his successor Athanasius” (LA, 45), this is further evidence that Athanasius was a Sabellian.

Conclusion

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

– END OF SUMMARY –

AUTHORS

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

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

RH = Bishop R.P.C. Hanson
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God –
The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987

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

The Son is Part of the Father.

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

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

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

(A) The Son is IN the Father.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(B) The Son is Idios to the Father.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(C) The Son is God’s Internal Wisdom.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Cappadocians concluded that Athanasius did not afford the Holy Spirit a distinct existence (a separate hypostasis):

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

One Hypostasis
(One Reality or Person)

(A) Only one hypothesis in God

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

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

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

“The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis.“ (LA, 69)

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

(B) Opposed three Hypostases

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

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

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

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

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

(C) Opposed Logos-theology

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

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

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

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

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

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

(D) Ontological Unity

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

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

(E) No Mediator outside the Incarnation

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

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

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

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

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

(F) Unitarian

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

“… supporters of Nicaea whose theology had strongly unitarian tendencies. Chief among these was Marcellus of Ancyra.” (LA, 431)

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

Athanasius was a Sabellian

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

(A) Alliance with Marcellus

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

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

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

“Athanasius … continued to defend the orthodoxy of Marcellus.” (RH, 220) “Though he (Athanasius) may temporarily at this period, when he was preparing to return from his second exile, have wished to place a distance between himself and Marcellus, he had no intention of making a final break with him. It is doubtful if he ever did this.” (RH, 220)

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

(B) Similar Beliefs

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

“Athanasius and Marcellus could come together in Rome. The perception that these two trajectories held to very similar beliefs would help to shape widespread eastern antipathy to both in the years after Nicaea.” (LA, 69)

“The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis.“ (LA, 69) (Eustatius was the other important Sabellian in the fourth century. See – The Sabellians of the Fourth Century).

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

(C) Meletian Schism

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

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

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

The Bishop of Antioch

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

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

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

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

Basil, on the other hand, opposed Paulinus:

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

Note that the previous quote confirms that:

    • A person who believes in one hypostasis is a Sabellian.
    • Basil believed in three hypostases.

Support for the Marcellans

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

Damasus and Athanasius supported the Marcellans:

“Basil was never sure in his own mind that Athanasius had abandoned Marcellus of Ancyra and his followers.” (RH, 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.” (RH, 801)

But Basil opposed the Marcellians:

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

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

(D) Conclusions

So, was Athanasius a Sabellian? Hanson concludes:

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

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

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

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

Alexander of Alexandria

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

RPC Hanson wrote:

“[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. The statement then that the Son is idios to (a property or quality of) the Father is a Sabellian statement.” (RH, 92)

Both Athanasius and Alexander, therefore, described the Son as idios to the Father. Furthermore, similar to the Sabellians and Athanasius, Alexander taught that the Logos in Christ is the Father’s intrinsic Word and Wisdom:

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

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

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

Alexander never spoke about hypostases:

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

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

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

“The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis.“ (LA, 69)

Incarnation

If Athanasius was a Sabellian, we would also see that in his theory of the incarnation. If he was a Sabellian, the incarnated Christ would be a maximally inspired man, but still a mere man with a human soul (mind).

However, Athanasius refused to admit that Jesus had a human mind. He describes Jesus as the Logos dwelling in a human body. Since, in his view, the Logos is part of the Father, it is really the Father that dwells in the human body.

But 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.” (RH, 451) In other words, he described Jesus as God in a human body.

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.” (RH, 451)

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

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

Conclusion

There is no real difference between the theology of Alexander and Athanasius and the main Sabellians of their time; Eustathius and Marcellus. As ‘One Reality’ theologians, Alexander and Athanasius were part of a minority in this church. And since both Sabellius’ theology and the term homoousios were already formally rejected as heretical by the church 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. 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. Remember, as Hanson stated, the traditional account of the Arian Controversy is a Complete Travesty.

Other Articles in this Series

Church Fathers

Arian Controversy

Arius

The Nicene Creed

Arianism

    • Athanasius invented Arianism. 15The only reason we today refer to ‘Arians’ is that Athanasius invented the term to falsely label his opponents with a theology that was already formally rejected by the church.
    • Did Arians describe the Son as a creature? 16‘Arians’ described Christ as originating from beyond our universe, the only being ever brought forth directly by the Father, and as the only being able to endure direct contact with God.
    • Homoian theology 17In the 350s, Athanasius began to use homoousios to attack the church majority. Homoian theology developed in response.
    • Homoi-ousian theology 18This was one of the ‘strands’ of ‘Arianism’. It proposed that the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s, but not the same.
    • How did Arians interpret Colossians 2:9? 19Forget about Arius. He was an isolated extremist. This article quotes the mainstream anti-Nicenes to show how they understood that verse.

The Pro-Nicenes

Authors on the Arian Controversy

Extracts from the writings of scholars who have studied the ancient documents for themselves:

Trinity Doctrine – General

    • Elohim 24Elohim (often translated as God) is plural in form. Does this mean that the Old Testament writers thought of God as a multi-personal Being?
    • The Eternal Generation of the Son 25The Son has been begotten by the Father, meaning that the Son is dependent on the Father. Eternal Generation explains “begotten” in such a way that the Son is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.

All articles on this Site

  • 1
    The pre-Nicene fathers described the Son as “our God” but the Father as “the only true God,” implying that the Son is not “true” God. This confusion is caused by the translations.
  • 2
    Sabellius taught that Father, Son, and Spirit are three portions of one single Being.
  • 3
    RPC Hanson states that no ‘orthodoxy’ existed but that is not entirely true. This article shows that subordination was indeed ‘orthodox’ at that time.
  • 4
    The term “Arianism” implies that Arius’ theology dominated the fourth-century church. But Arius was not regarded in his time as a significant writer. He left no school of disciples.
  • 5
    Over the centuries, Arius was always accused of this. This article explains why that is a false accusation.
  • 6
    There are significant differences between Origen and Arius.
  • 7
    Arius wrote that the Son was begotten timelessly by the Father before everything. But Arius also said that the Son did not always exist. Did Arius contradict himself?
  • 8
    New research has shown that Arius is a thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness, and originality.
  • 9
    The word theos, which is translated as “God” in John 1:1 is not equivalent to the modern English word “God.”
  • 10
    Eusebius of Caesarea, the most respected theologian at the Council, immediately afterward wrote to his church in Caesarea to explain why he accepted the Creed and how he understood the controversial phrases.
  • 11
    The Creed not only uses non-Biblical words; the concept of homoousios (that the Son is of the same substance as the Father) is not in the Bible.
  • 12
    The term homoousios was not mentioned by anybody during the first 30 years after Nicaea. It only became part of that controversy in the 350s.
  • 13
    The word is not found in the Bible or in any orthodox Christian confession before Nicaea.
  • 14
    The Trinity doctrine uses two terms that are basically synonyms to describe both what the Father, Son, and Spirit are individually and collectively.
  • 15
    The only reason we today refer to ‘Arians’ is that Athanasius invented the term to falsely label his opponents with a theology that was already formally rejected by the church.
  • 16
    ‘Arians’ described Christ as originating from beyond our universe, the only being ever brought forth directly by the Father, and as the only being able to endure direct contact with God.
  • 17
    In the 350s, Athanasius began to use homoousios to attack the church majority. Homoian theology developed in response.
  • 18
    This was one of the ‘strands’ of ‘Arianism’. It proposed that the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s, but not the same.
  • 19
    Forget about Arius. He was an isolated extremist. This article quotes the mainstream anti-Nicenes to show how they understood that verse.
  • 20
    Eustathius and Marcellus played a major role in the formulation of the Creed but were soon deposed for Sabellianism.
  • 21
    Athanasius presents himself as the preserver of Biblical orthodoxy but this article argues that he was a Sabellian.
  • 22
    A summary of this book, which provides an overview of the fourth-century Arian Controversy. Lewis Ayres is a Catholic theologian and Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology.
  • 23
    A very informative lecture on the Arian Controversy by RPC Hanson, a famous fourth-century scholar
  • 24
    Elohim (often translated as God) is plural in form. Does this mean that the Old Testament writers thought of God as a multi-personal Being?
  • 25
    The Son has been begotten by the Father, meaning that the Son is dependent on the Father. Eternal Generation explains “begotten” in such a way that the Son is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.
Posted on

The Sabellians of the Fourth Century

Overview

This article discusses the views of the three main Sabellians of the fourth century; Eustathius of Antioch, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Photinus of Sirmium.

Two of them (Eustatius and Marcellus) attended Nicaea, joined forces with Alexander, vigorously opposed the Arians, and played a major role in the formulation of the Nicene Creed.

However, both of them were deposed for Sabellianism within ten years after Nicaea. Photinus lived a little later and was deposed in 351.

However, some years later, Marcellus was vindicated by the West, together with Athanasius. Alexander and Athanasius were similar enough in their theology to the Sabellians to join forces with the Sabellians both at Nicaea and during the decades after Nicaea.

In Sabellian theology, the Son is “in” the Father, meaning that Father and Son are one single hypostasis (Reality, or Person in Later Trinitarian language). The Son and Holy Spirit are simply attributes or activities of the one God. It follows that the Logos does not have a real distinct existence. The Logos is merely a word spoken by God or God’s thought. This understanding has some important implications for the question of who Jesus Christ is or was:

Firstly, Christ did not exist before He was born from Mary. The Logos is eternal but “the Son did not come into existence until the Incarnation.” (RH, 237)

Secondly, God did not suffer or die. Neither did the eternal Logos die. Christ is a complete human being with a human soul (mind). That soul absorbed all human suffering so that God did not suffer at all. It was that human being that suffered, died, was resurrected, and now sits at God’s right hand.

This may be contrasted with the so-called Arians, who said that Christ does not have a human soul, but that God gave Him a body without a human soul (mind) so that the Logos could function as Christ’s mind. In that way, they said, God suffered and God died on the Cross.

Thirdly, the eternal Logos dwells in the man Jesus merely as an Energy or an Activity or as Inspiration and Moral agreement.

In consequence, the Logos is God’s only Logos. In contrast, the Arians said that God has two Logoi: The One pre-existed and was incarnated but God also has His own Logos (reason, mind).

The perhaps surprising conclusion is that the Arian (Eusebian) view of the Son is infinitely higher than the Sabellian view. 

Introduction

In chapter 8 of his book,1The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God RPC Hanson discusses three bishops with similar views, that were prominent during the fourth-century Arian Controversy. They are:

    • Eustathius of Antioch
    • Marcellus of Ancyra, and
    • Photinus of Sirmium, which was another important city. Emperor Constans made “Sirmium his Head Quarters.” (RH, 316)2RH refers to Hanson’s book.

Ayres3Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy discusses Marcellus as one of the four “trajectories” in the church when the Arian Controversy began in chapter 3.1 of his book. This article is largely a summary of these two chapters.

Similar Theologies

Their theologies were similar:

“Marcellus learnt the main lines of his theology from Eustathius.” (RH, 234) Their theologies only differ “in minor respects” (RH, 216) and “stem from the same theological tradition.” (RH, 234) That tradition is identified below as that of the second-century Monarchians.

“Photinus, bishop of Sirmium … came from Ancyra, was a devoted disciple of Marcellus of Ancyra.” (RH, 235-6)

The Council at Nicaea

Joined forces with Alexander

Both Eustathius and Marcellus attended Nicaea. There, they joined forces with Alexander and were some of the most vocal opponents of Arius:

“Marcellus, Eustathius and Alexander were able to make common cause against the Eusebians.” (LA, 69)4LA refers to Lewis Ayres’ book. “Eustathius and Marcellus … certainly met at Nicaea and no doubt were there able to join forces with Alexander of Alexandria and Ossius.” (RH, 234) (Ossius presided over the meeting as the emperor’s agent.)

“Marcellus … played a major role at Nicaea.” (LA, 62)

Eustathius “was clearly a vigorous opponent of Arius and Arianism.” (RH, 208)

Triumphed at Nicaea

Eustathius and Marcellus are important because they influenced the wording of the Nicene Creed:

“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.” (RH, 235)

Deposed

However, both Eustatius and Marcellus were deposed within ten years after Nicaea. Photinus lived a little later and was deposed in 351:

Eustathius was “deposed from the see of Antioch by a council and exiled by Constantine.” (RH, 209) Ayres says that this was “soon after Nicaea, probably in 327.” (LA, 68-69). Hanson says it “cannot have been later than 331.” (RH, 209)

“About ten years after the Council of Nicaea he (Marcellus) was deposed by a council held in Constantinople.” (RH, 217)

Photinus was “censured” and “condemned” in 344, 345, and 347, “but was only ousted and exiled finally … in 351.” (RH, 236)

Sabellianism

Eustathius and Marcellus were deposed for Sabellianism:

“It seems most likely that Eustathius was primarily deposed for the heresy of Sabellianism.” (RH, 211)

Marcellus of Ancyra “cannot be acquitted of Sabellianism” (R.P.C. Hanson). “Marcellus of Ancyra had produced a theology … which could quite properly be called Sabellian.” (RH, ix) “Marcellus was deposed for Sabellian leanings.” (RH, 228) Eusebius regards Marcellus’ “doctrine as outright Sabellianism, that is a failure to distinguish Father and Son.” (RH, 224) His book “was accused of favouring the ideas of Paul of Samosata.” (RH, 217). (This Paul was a prominent Sabellians from the third century.)

Vindicated in the West

While Marcellus was deposed in the East (Constantinople), he was vindicated as orthodox in the West (Rome):

“Julius (bishop of Rome), in the year 341, summoned a council to Rome, which vindicated the orthodoxy of Marcellus, as well as that of Athanasius.” (RH, 218)

Note that the West also vindicated Athanasius. His theology was similar to the Sabellians:

“Athanasius and Marcellus could come together in Rome. The perception that these two trajectories held to very similar beliefs would help to shape widespread eastern antipathy to both in the years after Nicaea.” (LA, 69)

“The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis.“ (LA, 69)

The similarity of their theologies is also shown by their alliance:

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

“Athanasius … continued to defend the orthodoxy of Marcellus.” (RH, 220) “Though he (Athanasius) may temporarily at this period, when he was preparing to return from his second exile, have wished to place a distance between himself and Marcellus, he had no intention of making a final break with him. It is doubtful if he ever did this.” (RH, 220)

Another article provides further evidence of the Sabellian leaning of the theologies of Alexander and Athanasius. For example, “Studer’s account here follows the increasingly prominent scholarly position that Athanasius’ theology offers a strongly unitarian Trinitarian theology whose account of personal differentiation is underdeveloped.” (LA, 238) The question is, why did the West vindicate these two Sabellians?

One possible answer is that the West did not understand the issues. At first, the West was not involved in the Arian Controversy. For example, the delegates at Nicaea were “drawn entirely from the East. almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire.” (LA, 19) Hanson concludes that the East failed to properly understand the issues:

“Pope Julius and his associates who declared Marcellus’ doctrine to be orthodox can have never met the works of Origen nor known anything of the theology of the Eastern Church.” (RH, 231)

An alternative answer is that the West was also Sabellian. Hanson comments: “In this medley of opinions it is quite unrealistic to indulge in the business of labelling some as ‘heretical’ and some as ‘orthodox’.” (RH, 216)

One Hypostasis

In the Father

These Sabellians described the Logos, not only as in “God,” but as in “the Father.” With respect to Marcellus, for example:

“The Word … eternally is in the Father.” (LA, 63) “Before the world existed the Word was in the Father.” (LA, 63) “The Word was in the Father as a power.” (LA, 63)

“To describe the relationship between Word and God he (Marcellus) deploys the analogy of a human person and her reason.” In other words, the Word eternally exists “intrinsic to” the Father’s existence. (LA, 62)

One Hypostasis

Hanson defines Sabellianism above as “a failure to distinguish Father and Son.” (RH, 224) Since the Logos is “in” the Father, it follows that God is only One Hypostasis (Reality). In later Trinitarian language, these Sabellians believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one single ‘Person’. The Son and Holy Spirit are simply attributes or activities of the one God. For example:

Hanson refers to Eustathius’ “insistence that there is only one distinct reality (hypostasis) in the Godhead, and his confusion about distinguishing Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” (RH, 216) The “’one hypostasis’ of the Godhead was to become the slogan and rallying-cry of the continuing Eustathians.” (RH, 213)

“One point about Marcellus which is unequivocally clear is that he believed that God constituted only one hypostasis.” (RH, 229-230) “The point’ which was to them (Marcellus’ followers) crucial, that there was one hypostasis with one ousia.” (RH, 223-4) “Marcellus … is particularly incensed at the use of hypostasis or ousia in the plural.” (LA, 63)

The Logos has no real existence.

It follows that the Logos does not have a real distinct existence. For that reason, Ayres also refers to them as Unitarians (LA, 431). For example:

“’The Logos for Eustathius,’ says Loofs, … ‘has or is no proper hypostasis’.” (RH, 215) In other words, the Logos does not have an existence distinct from the Father.

Eusebius of Caesarea “accuses Marcellus of Ancyra of rejecting the hypostasis i.e. the distinct individuality, of the Son.” (RH, 53) 5RH = Bishop RPC Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987 For Marcellus, the Logos was only a temporary word spoken by God: “The Son was a mere word … immanent [inherent] during the time that the Father was silent, but active in fashioning the creation, just as one’s speech is inactive when we are silent, but active when we speak.” (RH, 224)

For Photinus, “The Logos … was simply a mode of manifestation of the Father, a power or aspect of him not in any serious sense distinct from him.” (RH, 237) “Like Marcellus, he favoured the analogy of a man and his thought for the relation of the Father to the Son.” (RH, 237)

Not Sabellian

Marcellus insists “that he is not a Sabellian.” (LA, 63) Technically, this may be true. In Sabellianism, the Father and Son are parts of the one God. See – Sabellius. In contrast, as stated, for Marcellus, the Son is “in the Father.” (LA, 63, 64) Nevertheless, in both views, the Father and Son are one single hypostasis (Reality) and the Son is not a distinct reality. This article, therefore, uses the term “Sabellian” for any view in which God is only one hypostasis.

Who is Jesus?

The discussion above pertains only to the nature of God apart from the incarnation. But the more important issue is what ‘one hypostasis’ theology means for the question of who Jesus Christ is or was. That, after all, was the big question in the Arian Controversy.

Christ had no pre-existence.

All three theologians made a distinction between the Logos and the Son:

      • The Logos is eternal and an attribute of God.
      • The Son came into existence when He was born from Mary.

Marcellus

For example, for Marcellus, “the only-begotten Son” was equal to “Logos + assumed flesh.” (RH, 227) We usually say that the Son was “begotten” in eternity past. But, for Marcellus, the term “begotten” refers to the event, 2000 years ago, when the Logos assumed flesh. Before that event, the “Son” did not exist:

“It was not the Logos that was begotten, but the Son.” (RH, 224)

“The Logos was only called Son or Jesus or Christ after the Incarnation.” (RH, 225)

Eustathius

Eustathius, similarly, “distinguishes between ‘the Logos … and ‘Christ’s man’ who was raised from the dead and is exalted and glorified.” (RH, 213) “It is the man who sits at God’s right hand.” (RH, 214)

Photinus

“The Son did not come into existence until the Incarnation and was defined as the whole human being who was born of Mary; Christ had no pre-existence.” (RH, 237)

Christ has a Human Mind.

The fourth-century Eusebians (the so-called Arians) said that Christ does not have a human soul: God gave Him a body without a human soul or mind so that the Logos may function as Christ’s soul and mind. In that way, the Logos suffered all the pain and insult of the Cross. The Eusebians described the Son as God (divine) but with a lower form of divinity that is able to suffer and even die. They, therefore, were able to say that God suffered and God died. 

In contrast, the Sabellians said that the Son has a human soul (mind) and that that soul absorbed all human experiences. The underlying principle is that the Logos is God and God cannot suffer. For example:

Eustathius

“The man whom the Logos assumed was a complete man: ‘he consists of soul and body.” (RH, 213)

“The human being absorbs all the human experiences attributed to Christ in the Gospels, leaving the divine element untouched.” (RH, 215)

“This soul was able to endure the human experiences which it was unfitting for the divine element in Christ to endure.” (RH, 212)

So, in this theology, it was only a human person that suffered and died.

Marcellus

At first, Hanson says:

“There is no reason to conclude that Marcellus saw the necessity of postulating a human psyche in the flesh assumed by the Logos at the Incarnation.” (RH, 229)

But he later mentions factors that: “might cause us to consider again the conjecture discussed above, that Marcellus did in his middle or later period admit a human soul to Christ.” (RH, 238)

Photinus

“He certainly taught that the human body of Jesus had a human mind or soul.” (RH, 236)

Limited

Since Christ has a human mind, He is limited. For example:

Eustathius said: “God hid the knowledge of the day of the Second Coming from the man, but the divine element in Jesus Christ was omniscient.” (RH, 213-4)

And Photinus argued: “Christ was only Son of God in the sense that all Christians are.” (RH, 238)

An Activity or Energy

So, the question is, in what sense was God in this man? For the Sabellians, the eternal Logos dwells in the man Jesus as an Energy or an Activity or as Inspiration and Moral agreement:

“It would seem that Eustathius … holds that the Logos is  … dwelling as an ‘ENERGY’ in Jesus.” (RH, 215)

For Marcellus, with respect to “the Incarnation … the Godhead would appear to be extended simply by ACTIVITY so that in all likelihood the Monad is genuinely indivisible.” (RH, 228)

“Everybody in the ancient world accuses Photinus of reducing Christ to a mere man adopted by God, i.e. the union between Logos and man was one of INSPIRATION AND MORAL AGREEMENT” (RH, 237)

One or two Logoi?

Marcellus described the Logos as “the proper and true Logos of God.” (RH, 230). He said: There is not “another Logos and another Wisdom and Power.” (RH, 230) This is an attack aimed at the Eusebians who said that Jesus Christ is the Logos of God but God also has His own Logos. The Sabellians, therefore, found it ‘surprising’ that the Eusebians spoke of two Logoi. For the Sabellians, God only has one Logos, and that Logos works in Jesus as an activity.

Christ’s reign will end.

If the Logos is only an activity of God in the man Jesus, then that activity might end when the goal is accomplished. “Marcellus set a limit to this period of Christ’s reign. At the end of this reign the flesh of Christ was to be abandoned, the body deserted, and the Logos would return to God from whom he had (before the creation of the world) come forth.” (RH, 226-7) “He is most concerned to uphold God’s rule as complete and unmediated, and thus the kingdom of Christ must end.” (LA, 66)

Marcellus seemed to have later changed his view on this. “He played down his more eccentric earlier ideas” (RH, 238)

The Holy Spirit

In the same way, the Holy Spirit is merely an activity of or an energy from God. For Marcellus: “The Spirit remains inseparably in God, but goes forth as activity from the Father and the Logos.” (RH, 229) “The same language of going forth in energy is used for the Spirit as was used in the case of the Son.” (LA, 67)

Antecedents – Monarchian

“Scholarship has also consistently linked Marcellus with ‘Monarchian’ theologies. Monarchian theologians in the second and third centuries appear to have focused on the unity of God centred in the person of the Father. By their opponents they are accused of teaching that the Son and the Spirit do not have real independent existence and are in fact simply modes of the Father’s being. … Some scholarship has seen this theological tendency as a strong and persistent theological voice, both in Rome and in Asia through the third century, with Marcellus as the last prominent Monarchian voice.” (LA, 69)

Conclusions

The perhaps surprising conclusion is that the Arian (Eusebian) view of Jesus Christ is infinitely higher than the Sabellian view.

Another perhaps surprising conclusion is that the Socianians or so-called Biblical Unitarians are the continuation of the ancient Sabellians.

Other Articles in this Series

Church Fathers

Arian Controversy

Arius

The Nicene Creed

Arianism

    • Athanasius invented Arianism. 20The only reason we today refer to ‘Arians’ is that Athanasius invented the term to falsely label his opponents with a theology that was already formally rejected by the church.
    • Did Arians describe the Son as a creature? 21‘Arians’ described Christ as originating from beyond our universe, the only being ever brought forth directly by the Father, and as the only being able to endure direct contact with God.
    • Homoian theology 22In the 350s, Athanasius began to use homoousios to attack the church majority. Homoian theology developed in response.
    • Homoi-ousian theology 23This was one of the ‘strands’ of ‘Arianism’. It proposed that the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s, but not the same.
    • How did Arians interpret Colossians 2:9? 24Forget about Arius. He was an isolated extremist. This article quotes the mainstream anti-Nicenes to show how they understood that verse.

The Pro-Nicenes

Authors on the Arian Controversy

Extracts from the writings of scholars who have studied the ancient documents for themselves:

Trinity Doctrine – General

    • Elohim 29Elohim (often translated as God) is plural in form. Does this mean that the Old Testament writers thought of God as a multi-personal Being?
    • The Eternal Generation of the Son 30The Son has been begotten by the Father, meaning that the Son is dependent on the Father. Eternal Generation explains “begotten” in such a way that the Son is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.

All articles on this Site

 

  • 1
    The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God
  • 2
    RH refers to Hanson’s book.
  • 3
    Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy
  • 4
    LA refers to Lewis Ayres’ book.
  • 5
    RH = Bishop RPC Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987
  • 6
    The pre-Nicene fathers described the Son as “our God” but the Father as “the only true God,” implying that the Son is not “true” God. This confusion is caused by the translations.
  • 7
    Sabellius taught that Father, Son, and Spirit are three portions of one single Being.
  • 8
    RPC Hanson states that no ‘orthodoxy’ existed but that is not entirely true. This article shows that subordination was indeed ‘orthodox’ at that time.
  • 9
    The term “Arianism” implies that Arius’ theology dominated the fourth-century church. But Arius was not regarded in his time as a significant writer. He left no school of disciples.
  • 10
    Over the centuries, Arius was always accused of this. This article explains why that is a false accusation.
  • 11
    There are significant differences between Origen and Arius.
  • 12
    Arius wrote that the Son was begotten timelessly by the Father before everything. But Arius also said that the Son did not always exist. Did Arius contradict himself?
  • 13
    New research has shown that Arius is a thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness, and originality.
  • 14
    The word theos, which is translated as “God” in John 1:1 is not equivalent to the modern English word “God.”
  • 15
    Eusebius of Caesarea, the most respected theologian at the Council, immediately afterward wrote to his church in Caesarea to explain why he accepted the Creed and how he understood the controversial phrases.
  • 16
    The Creed not only uses non-Biblical words; the concept of homoousios (that the Son is of the same substance as the Father) is not in the Bible.
  • 17
    The term homoousios was not mentioned by anybody during the first 30 years after Nicaea. It only became part of that controversy in the 350s.
  • 18
    The word is not found in the Bible or in any orthodox Christian confession before Nicaea.
  • 19
    The Trinity doctrine uses two terms that are basically synonyms to describe both what the Father, Son, and Spirit are individually and collectively.
  • 20
    The only reason we today refer to ‘Arians’ is that Athanasius invented the term to falsely label his opponents with a theology that was already formally rejected by the church.
  • 21
    ‘Arians’ described Christ as originating from beyond our universe, the only being ever brought forth directly by the Father, and as the only being able to endure direct contact with God.
  • 22
    In the 350s, Athanasius began to use homoousios to attack the church majority. Homoian theology developed in response.
  • 23
    This was one of the ‘strands’ of ‘Arianism’. It proposed that the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s, but not the same.
  • 24
    Forget about Arius. He was an isolated extremist. This article quotes the mainstream anti-Nicenes to show how they understood that verse.
  • 25
    Eustathius and Marcellus played a major role in the formulation of the Creed but were soon deposed for Sabellianism.
  • 26
    Athanasius presents himself as the preserver of Biblical orthodoxy but this article argues that he was a Sabellian.
  • 27
    A summary of this book, which provides an overview of the fourth-century Arian Controversy. Lewis Ayres is a Catholic theologian and Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology.
  • 28
    A very informative lecture on the Arian Controversy by RPC Hanson, a famous fourth-century scholar
  • 29
    Elohim (often translated as God) is plural in form. Does this mean that the Old Testament writers thought of God as a multi-personal Being?
  • 30
    The Son has been begotten by the Father, meaning that the Son is dependent on the Father. Eternal Generation explains “begotten” in such a way that the Son is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.