Sabellians taught a single divine mind in God.

OVERVIEW

The Sabellians taught that only a single divine mind or ‘Wisdom’ exists. The Word (the Logos) exists ‘in’ the Father and does not have a distinct existence. The Word is a mere Word spoken by the single ‘Person’ (hypostasis) of God.

Since they taught that the Word is not a divine Person with a distinct mind, He cannot become a human person. Therefore, Jesus Christ was born a complete human person with a human mind, with the Word dwelling in the man Jesus as an Energy or Inspiration. 

Furthermore, since the Word is part or an aspect of God, He cannot suffer or die. It was only a human being who suffered, died, was resurrected, and who now sits at God’s right hand. 

In the fourth century, the Council of Nicaea was attended almost exclusively by Easterners, teaching two divine minds – God and His Son. In opposition to them, the Sabellians joined forces with Alexander, who also taught a single divine mind. Through their alliance with Alexander, the Sabellians significantly influenced the Nicene Creed.

However, after Nicaea, while the anti-Nicene Eastern church deposed all leading Sabellians, the pro-Nicene Western Church accepted the Sabellians as orthodox. The Western Church, like the Sabellians, taught that the Father and Son are a single Person (hypostasis).

INTRODUCTION

Authors quoted

Scholars today explain the Arian Controversy very differently from how they explained it in the 19th century.

Due to ancient documents discovered and research since the 20th century, modern scholars conclude that the traditional account of the fourth-century Arian Controversy is history written by the winner and in some respects a complete travesty.

Show more

Older books and ‘elementary textbooks’ – written by authors who do not specialize in the history of the Arian Controversy – often still offer the traditional account.

Show more

This article series quotes from primary scholars in this field of the last 100 years, reflecting the revised account.

This specific article quotes mainly from:

Hanson RPC,
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381 (1988)

Williams, Rowan,
Arius: Heresy and Tradition (2002/1987)

Ayres, Lewis,
Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (2004)

Lienhard Joseph T, The “Arian” Controversy: Some Categories Reconsidered, a 1987 article

Three prominent Sabellians

The three leading Sabellians in the fourth century were Eustathius, Marcellus, and Photinus. 

In chapter 8 of his book, RPC Hanson discusses the three Sabellian bishops who were prominent during the fourth-century Arian Controversy:

      • Eustathius of Antioch
      • Marcellus of Ancyra, and
      • Photinus of Sirmium. 

Ayres, in chapter 3.1 of his book, discusses one of the three (Marcellus) as one of the four “trajectories” in the church when the Arian Controversy began. The current article summarizes these two sections of these two books, with comments from Lienhard added.

The theologies of the three Sabellians were similar. Marcellus learned his theology from Eustathius and Photinus was a devoted disciple of Marcellus.

Show more

HISTORY

The Nicene Council

At Nicaea, the Sabellians joined forces with Alexander and significantly influenced the Nicene Creed. 

Eustathius and Marcellus attended Nicaea, allied with Alexander, and were some of Arius’ most vocal critics.

Show more

Since the emperor had taken Alexander’s part in his dispute with Arius, their alliance with Alexander allowed the Sabellians to significantly influence the wording of the Nicene Creed:

Show more

After Nicaea

Deposed for Sabellianism

However, the church deposed all leading Sabellians within about ten years after Nicaea. 

Eustathius and Marcellus were deposed in the decade 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.” (Hanson, p. 209)

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

Show more

Accepted in the West

Initially, the Western Church was not part of the Arian Controversy. 

For example, almost all delegates came from the East:

The delegates were “drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire” (Ayres, p. 19).

“The Council was overwhelmingly Eastern, and only represented the Western Church in a meagre way.” (Hanson, p. 156)

But after the Eastern Church deposed the Sabellian Marcellus, the Western Church accepted him as orthodox. 

“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.” (Hanson, p. 218)

“Julius, however, persisted in holding a synod, which upheld the orthodoxy and innocence of Athanasius, Marcellus, and others; and Julius received them into communion.” (Lienhard, p417)

THEOLOGY

The Son is in the Father.

The Sabellians believed that the Logos is specifically in the Father. 

For example, Marcellus taught:

“The Word … eternally is in the Father.” (Ayres, p. 63) “Before the world existed the Word was in the Father.” (Ayres, p. 63) “The Word was in the Father as a power.” (Ayres, p. 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. (Ayres, p. 62)

A Single Hypostasis

Consequently, the Father and His Logos are a single Person (hypostasis). 

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.” (Hanson, p. 216)

“One point about Marcellus which is unequivocally clear is that he believed that God constituted only one hypostasis.” (Hanson, p. 229-230)

Show more

The Logos

It follows that the Logos does not have a real distinct existence. He is not a distinct Person (a hypostasis).

For example:

Hanson defines Sabellianism as “a failure to distinguish Father and Son.” (Hanson, p. 224) 

“’The Logos for Eustathius,’ says Loofs, … ‘has or is no proper hypostasis’.” (Hanson, p. 215) 

Eusebius of Caesarea “accuses Marcellus of Ancyra of rejecting the hypostasis i.e. the distinct individuality, of the Son.” (Hanson, p. 53)

The Logos was and is a mere word spoken by God. 

For example:

For Marcellus,  “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.” (Hanson, p. 224)

“Like Marcellus, he (Photinus) favoured the analogy of a man and his thought for the relation of the Father to the Son.” (Hanson, p. 237)

Show more

Only one Divine Mind

While ‘Arians’ taught two divine minds – God and His Son, Sabellians taught only a single divine mind. 

The Eusebians taught that God’s Son always existed with His own mind, distinct from the Father. For example, both Alexander and Athanasius recorded that Arius, one of the Eusebians, taught that the Son has a distinct ‘Wisdom’:

Athanasius wrote that, for Arius, “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; cf. Williams, p. 100)

Alexander similarly noted that Arius stated of the Son: “Nor is he the Father’s true Logos … nor his true Wisdom” (RH, 16). “He came into existence himself through the proper Logos of God and the Wisdom which was in God.” (Hanson, p. 16)

Hanson explained:

In Arius’ theology, “there are two Logoi and two Wisdoms (Sophiae) … Arius distinguished between an original Reason (Logos) or Wisdom immanent from eternity in the Godhead and the Son who was not immanent in the Godhead but created.” (RH, 20)

Note that these quotes use the terms ‘Logos’, ‘Word’, ‘Reason’, and ‘Wisdom’ as synonyms. For the Eusebians, there are two ‘Wisdoms’ or minds. 

The Sabellians, in contrast, consistent with Jewish monotheism, denied the existence of two divine minds. Since they argued that the Logos is ‘in’ the Father, the Father and Son are a single Existence (a single hypostasis). It follows that they also have a single mind. There is only one ‘Wisdom’ or mind in God. For example:

In response to the Eusebian claim of two Wisdoms, Marcellus denied the existence of “another Logos and another Wisdom and Power.” He described the Logos as “the proper and true Logos of God.” (Hanson, p. 230).

“Marcellus of Ancyra held … God is one ousia, one hypostasis, and one prosôpon. … God had to be one prosôpon, because Marcellus could not conceive of two “I”s in the Godhead.” (Lienhard, p426)

WHO IS JESUS?

The above discusses the nature of God apart from the incarnation. A further important issue is what ‘one hypostasis’ theology means for who Jesus Christ was and is. After all, that was perhaps the most fundamental question in the Arian Controversy.

Since the Logos is not a divine Person with a distinct mind, He cannot become a human person. Therefore, Jesus Christ was born as a complete human person with a human mind. 

The Eusebians (the so-called Arians) argued that Christ does not have a human soul (mind) but that God gave Him a body without a human mind. The Logos functions as Christ’s mind. In that way, the Logos suffered all the pain and insult of the Cross. The Eusebians described the Son as God (read more) but with a lower divinity that could suffer and even die. They claimed that the Bible teaches that God had to suffer and die. 

In contrast, in Sabellian theology, the Logos is as divine as the Father and, therefore, cannot become a human being and cannot suffer or die. Consequently, they argued, the birth of Jesus Christ brought into existence a new and complete human being with a human body and soul (mind). For example: 

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

“Marcellus also sees the need for a human soul or mind in Christ. … Marcellus points out that Mt 26:39 (“not as I will, but as you will”) demonstrates that their wills were not always in harmony; hence Christ had a distinct center of consciousness (a human mind).” (Lienhard, p427)

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

Show more

The Logos dwells in the man Jesus as an Energy or Inspiration. 

A critical question is, in what sense was God in this man? 

“It would seem that Eustathius … holds that the Logos is … dwelling as an ‘energy’ in Jesus.” (Hanson, p. 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.” (Hanson, p. 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” (Hanson, p. 237)

God’s only begotten Son is not the Logos but the man Jesus. 

Marcellus said: 

“The only title that is proper to the Preincarnate is “Word”; all other titles are titles of the incarnate Christ. The Word ‘goes forth’ from the Father; ‘begetting’ is better reserved for the Virgin’s  conceiving. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and receives His mission through the Son.” (Lienhard, p426)

Christ, God’s Son, did not exist before He was born from Mary. 

For Marcellus, the term “begotten” refers to the event, 2000 years ago, when the Logos assumed flesh. “It was not the Logos that was begotten, but the Son.” (Hanson, p. 224)

Photinus wrote: “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.” (Hanson, p. 237)

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

Since the Logos is part or an aspect of God, He cannot suffer or die. It was only a human being who suffered, died, was resurrected, and who now sits at God’s right hand. 

It was the human person who suffered and died. The human body and soul absorbed all human experiences:

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

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

Only a human being rose from death, was resurrected, and sits at God’s right hand.

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

Initially, Marcellus taught that Jesus Christ would cease to exist. 

If the Logos is only an activity or energy of God in the man Jesus, then that activity should end when the goal is accomplished. For example:

“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.” (Hanson, p. 226-7)

“He is most concerned to uphold God’s rule as complete and unmediated, and thus the kingdom of Christ must end.” (Ayres, p. 66)

Marcellus seemed to have later changed his view on this:

“He played down his more eccentric earlier ideas” (Hanson, p. 238)

THE HOLY SPIRIT

The Holy Spirit is not a Person but an Activity or Energy. 

In the same way as the Logos in Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit is merely an activity of or an energy from God. For example, for Marcellus:

“The Spirit remains inseparably in God, but goes forth as activity from the Father and the Logos.” (Hanson, p. 229) “The same language of going forth in energy is used for the Spirit as was used in the case of the Son.” (Ayres, p. 67)

CONCLUSIONS

Sabellian Antecedents

Sabellianism, formulated by Sabellius in the third century, continued but revised second-century Monarchianism. 

“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.” (Ayres, p. 69)

The Western Church

The Western Church, like the Sabellians, taught that the Father and Son are a single Person. 

As stated above, in 340, the Western church accepted Marcellus as orthodox. The question is why. As is also stated above, at first, the West was not involved in the Arian Controversy. The West became involved only after the exiled Athanasius and Marcellus appealed to the bishop of Rome. Hanson proposes that the West accepted Marcellus because it did not 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.” (Hanson, p. 231)

An alternative answer is that the West and the Sabellians had a shared Monarchian heritage, believing that the Father and Son are a single Person with a single mind (a single hypostasis):

Hanson refers to the Western bishops’ “traditional Monarchianism.” (Hanson, p. 272) 

At Serdica in 343, the Western delegates formulated a manifesto confessing explicitly one hypostasis, which is a Sabellian statement. Read More

“Athanasius, Marcellus, and the Westerners insisted … that the divine hypostasis, the reality of God, is singular.” (Lienhard, p. 421)

“Westerners, especially Romans, are probably rightly said to have held on to the spirit of the monarchian theology of the late second and early third centuries and thereby virtually to have ignored Tertullian.” (429) (Lienhard, p. 429)

Show more

The second-century Monarchians, also known as Modalism, had a primitive Sabellian theology in which Father and Son are two names for the same one Entity.

Athanasius’ Theology

Athanasius’ theology was similar to the Sabellians.

As stated above, both Athanasius and Marcellus were exiled by the Eastern Church; Marcellus for Sabellianism and Athanasius for violence. However, they joined forces and appealed to the Western Church together. Athanasius claimed that he was in fact exiled for his opposition to Arianism and that his eastern judges were Arians (followers of Arius).

Alexander and Athanasius were similar enough in their theology to the Sabellians to join forces with them, both at Nicaea and during the decades after Nicaea. Read more

Show more

They were not Sabellians.

Sabellians claimed they were not Sabellians and could point to differences, but they all taught one hypostasis. 

Marcellus insists “that he is not a Sabellian.” (Ayres, p. 63) Technically, this may be true. Sabellius taught that the Father and Son are parts of the one God. (Read more) In contrast, as stated, for Marcellus, the Son is “in the Father.” (Ayres, p. 63, 64) Nevertheless, in both views, the Father and Son are one single hypostasis (Reality) and the Son is not a distinct Person. This site uses the term “Sabellian” for any view in which God is only one hypostasis (a single Existence).

Low view of Christ

Sabellians had a low view of Christ. 

One surprising conclusion is that the Arian (Eusebian) view of Jesus Christ is infinitely higher than the Sabellian view. In the Eusebian view, Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God. In the Sabellian view, he is merely an exceptionally inspired man. 

Biblical Unitarians

Biblical Unitarians are Sabellians. 

Another surprising conclusion is that the Socianians or so-called Biblical Unitarians continue the theology of the ancient Sabellians. On the Internet one finds heated debates between the Biblical Unitarians and Trinitarians but, in fact, the two systems are very close:

Both teach that the Son of God, eternally, does not have a distinct existence.

Both teach that Jesus Christ is a mere man.

SUMMARY

Scholars today explain the Arian Controversy very differently from how they explained it in the 19th century. This article series quotes from primary scholars in this field of the last 100 years, reflecting the revised account.

The three leading Sabellians in the fourth century were Eustathius, Marcellus, and Photinus. 

At Nicaea, the Sabellians joined forces with Alexander and significantly influenced the Nicene Creed. However, the church deposed all leading Sabellians within about ten years after Nicaea. 

Initially, the Western Church was not part of the Arian Controversy. But after the Eastern Church deposed the Sabellian Marcellus, the Western Church accepted him as orthodox.

The Sabellians believed that the Logos is specifically in the Father. Consequently, the Father and His Logos are a single Person (hypostasis). 

It follows that the Logos does not have a real distinct existence. He is not a distinct Person (a hypostasis). The Logos was and is a mere word spoken by God. 

While ‘Arians’ taught two divine minds – God and His Son, Sabellians taught only a single divine mind. 

Since the Logos is not a divine Person with a distinct mind, He cannot become a human person. Therefore, Jesus Christ was born as a complete human person with a human mind. The Logos dwells in the man Jesus as an Energy or Inspiration. 

God’s only begotten Son is not the Logos but the man Jesus, who did not exist before He was born from Mary.

Since the Logos is part or an aspect of God, He cannot suffer or die. It was only a human being who suffered, died, was resurrected, and who now sits at God’s right hand. 

Final Observations

Sabellianism, formulated by Sabellius in the third century, continued but revised second-century Monarchianism.

The Western Church, like the Sabellians, taught that the Father and Son are a single Person.

Athanasius’ theology was similar to the Sabellians.

Sabellians claimed they were not Sabellians and could point to differences, but they all taught one hypostasis. 

Sabellians had a low view of Christ. 

Biblical Unitarians are Sabellians. 


OTHER ARTICLES

Athanasius was not a Trinitarian. He was a Unitarian.

The church adopted the Trinity doctrine at the conclusion of the fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy. However, over the last 100 years, scholars have discovered that the traditional account of how and why the church accepted this doctrine is grossly inaccurate. Several articles in this series discuss different critical errors in the traditional account.

During the Arian Controversy, Athanasius was the main defender of the Nicene Creed and the term homoousios. He claimed to present the orthodox view. The present article shows that this was a false claim. It shows that he was a Unitarian and not a Trinitarian. He believed that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis, a single Person with a single mind, similar to Sabellianism, a theology which had already been rejected as heresy in the preceding century.

The Arian Controversy began with a dispute between Arius and his bishop, Alexander of Alexandria. Much less of Alexander’s writings survived, but this article shows that his theology was similar to Athanasius. He was also a one-hypostasis theologian

Introduction

Authors

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

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

Hanson, Bishop RPC
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God –

The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1988

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

Ayres, Lewis
Nicaea and its legacy, 2004

Ayres is a Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology

Sabellians

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christ did not exist before He was born from Mary.

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

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

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

Eusebians

The Eusebians believed in three distinct Persons with three distinct Minds

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See here for a discussion of the Trinity doctrine.

The Core Issue

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

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

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

Athanasius’ Theology

Athanasius claimed to defend the orthodox view.

[Show More]

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

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

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

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

Athanasius often described the Son as idios to the Father.

For example:

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

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

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

He described the Son as the Father’s only Wisdom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Holy Spirit is also a part of the Father. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, Athanasius opposed the concept of “three hypostases. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Mediator is the man Jesus

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

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

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

Athanasius was a Unitarian, not a Trinitarian

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

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

But he also describes Marcellus’ theology as ‘Unitarian’. He refers to “supporters of Nicaea whose theology had strongly unitarian tendencies. Chief among these was Marcellus of Ancyra.” (Ayres, p. 431)

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

Athanasius and Marcellus

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

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

For example:

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

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

Athanasius and Marcellus were allies

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

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

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

They supported and defended each other:

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

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

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

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

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

The Meletian Schism

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

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

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

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

Athanasius never abandoned the Sabellians

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

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

See here for a detailed discussion of the Meletian Schism.

Alexander

Alexander believed similar to Athanasius.

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

Athanasius received his theology from Alexander:

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

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

Similar to Athanasius and the Sabellians, Alexander:

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

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

      • Described the Son as idios to the Father:

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

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

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

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

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

      • Explained Father and Son as a single hypostasis, similar to the Sabellians.

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

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

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

THE INCARNATION

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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


Other Articles