Tag: Trinity doctrine

Posted on

Hypostasis and Ousia – how their meanings changed.

Summary

One of the most striking aspects of the Nicene Creed is the terms ousia and hypostasis. These terms were not found in any previous creed. They originate from Greek philosophy, where they more or less had the same meaning and meant ‘the Ultimate Reality’.

In the Trinity doctrine, God is one “ousia who existed as three hypostases.” This article shows that the Nicene Creed uses these terms as synonyms but that their meanings were changed after Nicaea to enable this formulation of the Trinity doctrine.

During the Arian Controversy, although theologians regarded them as synonyms, theologians were divided into two classes:

      • One group said that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases (three distinct Realities), each with his own ousia.
      • The other group, particularly the Sabellians, said that Father, Son, and Spirit are one single hypostases and one ousia, meaning that they are one single Reality or Being.

The first people to make a distinction between hypostasis and ousia were Arians. Through the Cappadocians, this distinction became generally accepted. However, the Cappadocians did not yet understand God as one undivided ousia (substance), as in the Trinity doctrine. They said that the Father, Son, and Spirit have exactly the same type of substance, but each has his own substance.

In conclusion, the Trinity doctrine uses two terms that are basically synonyms to describe both what the Father, Son, and Spirit are individually and collectively.

The Nicene Creed

“One of the most striking aspects of Nicaea in comparison to surviving baptismal creeds from the period, and even in comparison to the creed which survives from the council of Antioch in early 325, is its use of the technical terminology of ousia and hypostasis.” (LA, 92)

The Trinity Doctrine

R.P.C. Hanson described the Trinity doctrine, as developed through the fourth-century Arian Controversy, as follows:

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

Note that Hanson explains hypostases (plural of hypostasis) as ‘realities’, ‘entities’, ‘ways of being’, and ‘modes of existing’ but says that the term “Person” is ‘misleading’. The term ‘person’, as it is used in the English language, where each person is a distinct entity with his or her own mind and will, is not equivalent to the concept of hypostasis in the “doctrine of God as a Trinity” because, in that doctrine, Father, Son, and Spirit share one single mind and will.

But the main point of the definition is that God is one “ousia who existed as three hypostases.”

Purpose

The purpose of this article is to show that the Nicene Creed probably uses these terms as synonyms but that their meanings were changed after Nicaea to enable this formulation of the Trinity doctrine.

Authors

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

Hanson – A 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.

Greek Philosophy

These terms originate from Greek philosophy, where they had pretty much the same meaning and meant the fundamental reality that supports all else. In a Christian context, we perhaps might refer to this concept as ‘God’ or ‘the Ultimate Reality’.

The Bible

“The only strictly theological use (of the word hypostasis) is that of Hebrews 1:3, where the Son is described as ‘the impression of the nature’ [hypostasis] of God.” (RH, 182) “The word also occurs twenty times in the LXX (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament), but only one of them can be regarded as theologically significant.” “At Wisdom 16:21 the writer speaks of God’s hypostasis, meaning his nature; and no doubt this is why Hebrews uses the term ‘impression of his nature’.” (RH, 182)

The Bible never refers to God’s ousia.

Early Church Fathers

In early Christian writings, hypostasis was used to denote “being” or “substantive reality” and was not always distinguished in meaning from ousia (substance’). It was used in this way by Tatian and Origen.1Ramelli, Ilaria (2012). “Origen, Greek Philosophy, and the Birth of the Trinitarian Meaning of Hypostasis”. The Harvard Theological Review. 105 (3): 302–350. doi:10.1017/S0017816012000120. JSTOR 23327679. S2CID 170203381.

“Tertullian at the turn of the second to the third centuries had already used the Latin word substantia (substance) of God … God therefore had a body and indeed was located at the outer boundaries of space. … It was possible for Tertullian to think of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit sharing this substance, so that the relationship of the Three is, in a highly refined sense, corporeal. … He can use the expression Unius substantiae (‘of one substance’). This has led some scholars to see Tertullian as an exponent of Nicene orthodoxy before Nicaea … But this is a far from plausible theory. Tertullian’s materialism is … a totally different thing from any ideas of ousia or homoousios canvassed during the fourth century.” (RH, 184)

When the Arian Controversy began

When the Arian Controversy began, hypostasis and ousia were synonyms:

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

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

Therefore, when dealing with documents from or before the beginning of the Arian Controversy:

“They (these two terms) did not mean, and should not be translated, ‘person’ and ‘substance’, as they were used when at last the confusion was cleared up and these two distinct meanings were permanently attached to these words.” (RH, 181)

Even for Athanasius, some decades after the Controversy began, “hypostasis and ousia were still synonymous.” (RH, 440) 

Alternative Views

Among those who regarded them as synonyms, two classes may be identified:

Three Hypostases

One group said that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases (three distinct Realities), each with his own ousia:

Among the pre-Nicene church fathers, Origen “used hypostasis and ousia freely as interchangeable terms to describe the Son’s distinct reality within the Godhead. … He taught that there were three hypostases within the Godhead.” (RH, 185).

As examples from the fourth century, Hanson includes Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia, two of the main anti-Nicenes.

One Hypostasis

The other group said that Father, Son, and Spirit are one single hypostases and one ousia, meaning that they are one single Reality or Being:

Among the pre-Nicene church fathers, “Dionysius of Rome … said that it is wrong to divide the divine monarchy ‘into three … separated hypostases … people who hold this in effect produce three gods’.” (RH, 185)

In the fourth century, the Sabellians Eustathian and Marcellus were famous for this teaching.

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)

It is argued that Athanasius also fell into this category. The “clear inference from his (Athanasius’) usage” is that “there is only one hypostasis in God.” (LA, 48)

The Nicene Creed

“Considerable confusion existed about the use of the terms hypostasis and ousia at the period when the Arian Controversy broke out.” (RH, 181) “The ambiguous anathema in N (the Nicene Creed) against those who believe that the Son is ‘from another hypostasis or ousia than the Father’ … (is one example) of this unfortunate semantic misunderstanding.” (RH, 181) Hanson says that the Nicene Creed “apparently (but not quite certainly) identifies hypostasis and ousia.” (RH, 188)

Arians made a distinction.

It is often said that the first person to propose a difference in the meanings of hypostasis and ousía, and for using hypostasis as a synonym of Person, was Basil of Caesarea. (e.g., Johannes “Ousía and hypostasis from the philosophers to the councils”) However, R.P.C. Hanson, in his discussion of the two terms, stated that some ‘Arians’ had already made this distinction decades before Basil:

Concerning Arius, Hanson wrote: “It seems likely that he was one of the few during this period who did not confuse the two.” “Arius … spoke readily of the hypostases of Father, Son and Holy Spirit” but “no doubt he believed that the Father and the Son were of unlike substance.” (RH, 187)

Speaking of another prominent ‘Arian’, Hanson says: “Asterius certainly taught that the Father and the Son were distinct and different in their hypostases. … But he also described the Son as ‘the exact image of the ousia and counsel and glory and power’ of the Father. Once again we find a writer who clearly did not confuse ousia and hypostasis.”

Asterius is a so-called Arian but, as indicated by the quote above, “he thought that the resemblance of the Son to the Father was closer than Arius conceived.” (RH, 187)

The Cappadocians

The three ‘Cappadocian theologians’ are Basil of Caesarea (330 to 379), Gregory of Nazianzus (329 to 389), and Gregory of Nyssa (335 to about 395) who was one of Basil’s younger brothers. (RH, 676)

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

“Basil uses hypostasis to mean ‘Person of the Trinity’ as distinguished from ‘substance’ which is usually expressed as either ousia or ‘nature’ (physis) or ‘substratum’.” (RH, 690-691)

Not One Undivided Substance

However, the Cappadocians did not yet understand God as one undivided ousia (substance), as in the Trinity doctrine. They said that the Father, Son, and Spirit have exactly the same type of substance, but each has his own substance. This can be shown as follows:

Unalterably like in respect of ousia

Basil began his career as theologian as a Homoiousian. He, therefore, believed, similar to other Homoiousians, that the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s:

“He (Basil) came from what might be called an ‘Homoiousian’ background.” (RH, 699) Therefore, “the doctrine of ‘like in respect of ousia’ was one which they could accept, or at least take as a startingpoint, and which caused them no uneasiness.” (RH, 678)

This means that Basil believed in two distinct hypostases with similar substances. Later, he replaced the concept of ‘similar substance’ with ‘exactly the same substance’ but retained the idea of two distinct hypostases:

“He says that in his own view ‘like in respect of ousia‘ (the slogan of the party of Basil of Ancyra) was an acceptable formula, provided that the word ‘unalterably‘ was added to it, for then it would be equivalent to homoousios.” “Basil himself prefers homoousios.” “Basil has moved away from but has not completely repudiated his origins.” (RH, 694)

But this also means that Basil understood homoousios in a generic sense of two beings with the same type of substance, rather than two beings sharing one single substance.

The General and the Particular

Basil of Caesarea explains that the distinction between ousia and hypostases is the same as that between the general and the particular; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man.

He wrote: “That relation which the general has to the particular, such a relation has the ousia to the hypostasis.” (RH, 692)

“In the DSS he (Basil) discusses the idea that the distinction between the Godhead and the Persons is that between an abstract essence, such as humanity, and its concrete manifestations, such as man.” (RH, 698)

“Elsewhere he can compare the relation of ousia to hypostasis to that of ‘living being’ to a particular man and apply this distinction directly to the three Persons of the Trinity.” This suggests “that the three are each particular examples of a ‘generic’ Godhead.” (RH, 692)

“He (Basil) … argued that it (homoousios) was preferable because it actually excluded identity of hypostases. This, with the instances which we have already seen in which Basil compared the relation of hypostasis to ousia in the Godhead to that of particular to general, or of a man to ‘living beings’, forms the strongest argument for Harnack’s hypothesis.” (RH, 697) “Harnack … argued that Basil and all the Cappadocians interpreted homoousios only in a ‘generic’ sense … that unity of substance was turned into equality of substance.” (RH, 696)

Person

Since Basil thought of Father, Son, and Spirit as three independent Beings, the term “Person” would be appropriate for them:

“Basil can on occasion use the word prosopon (Person) as an alternative to hypostasis.” (RH, 692)

Conclusions

The Trinity doctrine uses terms that are basically synonyms to describe both what the Father, Son, and Spirit are individually and collectively.

When the Arian Controversy began, hypostasis and ousia were mostly used as synonyms but theologians were divided into ‘one hypostasis’ and ‘three hypostases’ camps. In contrast, the Trinity Doctrine describes God both as One and as Three. For that purpose, a distinction was made between the meanings of hypostasis and ousia.

In modern Trinitarian language, God is one Being existing as three Persons. Therefore, similar to what happened in the fourth century, modern Trinitarians take two words that are essentially synonyms (being, person) and give them contrasting meanings.

Furthermore, in the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, the Nicene Creed uses the term homoousios to say that the Father and Son are one single ousia (substance). But that would be unlikely if the Cappadocians taught two distinct substances.

Other Articles in this Series

Church Fathers

Arian Controversy

Arius

The Nicene Creed

Arianism

    • Athanasius invented Arianism. 16The 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? 17‘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 18In the 350s, Athanasius began to use homoousios to attack the church majority. Homoian theology developed in response.
    • Homoi-ousian theology 19This 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? 20Forget 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 25Elohim (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 26The 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
  • 2
    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.
  • 3
    Sabellius taught that Father, Son, and Spirit are three portions of one single Being.
  • 4
    RPC Hanson states that no ‘orthodoxy’ existed but that is not entirely true. This article shows that subordination was indeed ‘orthodox’ at that time.
  • 5
    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.
  • 6
    Over the centuries, Arius was always accused of this. This article explains why that is a false accusation.
  • 7
    There are significant differences between Origen and Arius.
  • 8
    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?
  • 9
    New research has shown that Arius is a thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness, and originality.
  • 10
    The word theos, which is translated as “God” in John 1:1 is not equivalent to the modern English word “God.”
  • 11
    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.
  • 12
    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.
  • 13
    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.
  • 14
    The word is not found in the Bible or in any orthodox Christian confession before Nicaea.
  • 15
    The Trinity doctrine uses two terms that are basically synonyms to describe both what the Father, Son, and Spirit are individually and collectively.
  • 16
    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.
  • 17
    ‘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.
  • 18
    In the 350s, Athanasius began to use homoousios to attack the church majority. Homoian theology developed in response.
  • 19
    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.
  • 20
    Forget about Arius. He was an isolated extremist. This article quotes the mainstream anti-Nicenes to show how they understood that verse.
  • 21
    Eustathius and Marcellus played a major role in the formulation of the Creed but were soon deposed for Sabellianism.
  • 22
    Athanasius presents himself as the preserver of Biblical orthodoxy but this article argues that he was a Sabellian.
  • 23
    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.
  • 24
    A very informative lecture on the Arian Controversy by RPC Hanson, a famous fourth-century scholar
  • 25
    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?
  • 26
    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

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.