-2

For an overview of Sabellian theology, see - The Sabellians of the Fourth Century. The main characteristic is that God is only one hypostasis (Reality or Person). Jesus Christ, therefore, is not one of the hypostases in God. Rather, the Logos of God merely worked in the man Jesus Christ as an activity, energy, or inspiration.

This question is based on the books of the following experts in this field:

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

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

With respect to Athanasius, in my reading, I came across statements that claim the following:

Similar to the Sabellians

Athanasius’ theology was similar to the known Sabellians of his time:

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

The Son is part of the Father.

For Athanasius, the Son is intrinsic to the Being – not of God – but of the Father. In other words, the Son is part of the Father:

  • “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)
  • “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)

The Holy Spirit is 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 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)

Only one hypostasis

Athanasius believed that there is only one hypostasis in God:

  • 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)

Opposed three hypostases

Athanasius opposed the concept of “three hypostases.” He regarded the phrase as "unscriptural and therefore suspicious:”

  • Athanasius wrote: "Those whom some were blaming for speaking of three hypostases, on the ground that the phrase is unscriptural and therefore suspicious ... we made enquiry of them, whether they meant ... hypostases foreign and strange, and alien in essence from one another, and that each hypostasis was divided apart by itself." (LA, 174)

The Enemy

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)

Alliance with Marcellus

The similarity of their theologies allowed Athanasius to form an alliance with Marcellus:

  • At the time when both Marcellus and Athanasius were exiled to Rome, “they considered themselves allies.” (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)
  • 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)
  • “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) 

If Athanasius was not a Sabellian, how does one salvage him from it?

Andries
  • 1,698
  • 4
  • 14
  • 6
    This is truly appalling, academically speaking. You are paraphrasing the quotations of a commentator, heavily making your own inferences and you have not one single time quoted Athanasius himself. Please go and read Athanasius himself and then give us some links to the man himself . . . . . . before slandering him. – Nigel J Nov 22 '23 at 13:21
  • 2
    Does this answer your question? What was the 'orthodox' view of God and Christ when the Arian Controversy began? – Anne Nov 22 '23 at 14:11
  • 3
    You answered your own question a while ago, that delved into all of this. You even had a claimed quote of Athanasius, purporting to support your (and Hansons') views. You put your questions in various ways, being careful not to mention Athanasius in them but including him in your copious texts. That is why I have voted to close this Q which is on about the same matters, though worded differently. – Anne Nov 22 '23 at 14:15
  • 2
    Even chatGPT would have given you the correct answer Athanasius, a significant figure in early Christian history, was not a Sabellian. He was a staunch defender of Nicene Christianity, particularly against the teachings of Arius. Sabellianism, on the other hand, was a theological belief that emphasized the unity of God to the extent that it seemingly denied the distinctiveness of the persons within the Trinity. Athanasius upheld the Nicene Creed, which emphasized the distinction of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within the Trinity. – Nigel J Nov 22 '23 at 14:28
  • @Anne Athanasius was not really involved when the Arian Controversy began. So, one will not get his views from that question. – Andries Nov 22 '23 at 15:44
  • 1
    You guys be careful not to make this the Trinitarian site. This is the Christianity site and is supposed to cater to all views. – Andries Nov 22 '23 at 15:45
  • 4
    @Andries I think it is abundantly clear that we examine all the views expressed by self-identifying 'Christians'. That is the purpose of the site. But you have wrongly identified someone's views and I have shown you, by his own words, what he truly believed. I did my research long, long before you asked the question and I was able to go straight to my archives and find his words on the very subject of which you wrote. – Nigel J Nov 22 '23 at 15:49
  • 3
    Andries, then why, in your 5th and 7th paragraphs in your older Q about the Arian controversy, do you cite Hanson and Wedgeworth with regard to Athanasius? No need to answer this query here - you explain it at great length in your 25-paragraph-long question. – Anne Nov 22 '23 at 16:43

2 Answers2

8

No, Athanasius was evidently not a Sabellian. This is demonstrably clear from his own words.

  1. For neither do we hold a Son-Father, as do the Sabellians, calling Him of one but not of the same essence, and thus destroying the existence of the Son. Neither do we ascribe the passible body which He bore for the salvation of the whole world to the Father. Neither can we imagine three Subsistences separated from each other, as results from their bodily nature in the case of men, lest we hold a plurality of gods like the heathen. But just as a river, produced from a well, is not separate, and yet there are in fact two visible objects and two names. For neither is the Father the Son, nor the Son the Father. For the Father is Father of the Son, and the Son, Son of the Father. For like as the well is not a river, nor the river a well, but both are one and the same water which is conveyed in a channel from the well to the river, so the Father’s deity passes into the Son without flow and without division. For the Lord says, ‘I came out from the Father and am come’ (Joh. xvi. 85 28). But He is ever with the Father, for He is in the bosom of the Father, nor was ever the bosom of the Father void of the deity of the Son. For He says, ‘I was by Him as one setting in order’ (Prov. viii. 30). But we do not regard God the Creator of all, the Son of God, as a creature, or thing made, or as made out of nothing, for He is truly existent from Him who exists, alone existing from Him who alone exists, in as much as the like glory and power was eternally and conjointly begotten of the Father. For ‘He that hath seen’ the Son ‘hath seen the Father (Joh. xiv. 9). All things to wit were made through the Son; but He Himself is not a creature, as Paul says of the Lord: ‘In Him were all things created, and He is before all’ (Col. i. 16). Now He says not, ‘was created’ before all things, but ‘is’ before all things. To be created, namely, is applicable to all things, but ‘is before all’ applies to the Son only.

Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Quoted Verbatim from Athanasius' own 'Statement of Faith'

Expositio Fidei p259

NPNF2-04. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters

curiousdannii
  • 20,140
  • 14
  • 58
  • 126
Nigel J
  • 25,017
  • 2
  • 26
  • 63
  • Athanasius was indeed not a Sabellian, though in the Three-in-One discussions he put more emphasis on the One and persuaded the Council of Nicaea to do so with the homoousian formula, as a reaction against Arianism. Recognising this word had already been used by Monarchianists and Sabellians, he then needed to state that his usage was distinct. – Henry Nov 23 '23 at 11:02
  • 1
    @Henry I have read many opinions expressed regarding Athanasius and I have found it best to read his own words, myself. I have found his writings to be edifying and deeply spiritual. – Nigel J Nov 23 '23 at 11:16
  • In this quote, Athanasius defined Sabellianism as that Father = Son. That is not Sabellianism. That is Modalism. In Sabellianism, the Son is part of the Father and in the Father. In your quote, Athanasius identifies himself several times as a Sabellian: 1 (Neither can we imagine three Subsistences), 2 (river, produced from a well). 3 (without division) 4 (He is in the bosom of the Father) 5 (nor was ever the bosom of the Father void of the deity of the Son) 6 (For ‘He that hath seen’ the Son ‘hath seen the Father – which he interprets literally). – Andries Nov 24 '23 at 06:10
  • Loofs wrote: “Athanasius swung between the Sabellian and the anti-Sabellian tendencies in his thought.” Hanson wrote: “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) Hanson also uses your quote, but then says “But this is of course a very inadequate explanation.” (RH, 444-5) Consider not Athanasius' claims but what he really wrote. – Andries Nov 24 '23 at 06:26
  • 3
    @Andries You misquote. What Athanasius actually states is Neither can we imagine three Subsistences separated from each other, You misquote this and and report his words as Neither can we imagine three Subsistences, thus torturing and truncating the meaning. What you continuously refuse and avoid is that the Son is a Person. 'In the bosom of the Father' is not a heartbeat in a body. It is a Person embraced by a Person. This is the Divine Union and the Divine Love which Sabbelianism and Arianism deny. I shall not further comment as I can see no point in further discussion. – Nigel J Nov 24 '23 at 12:38
  • @NigelJ Nigel, you seem to say that Athanasius accepts three subsistences that are somehow one. That seems confused. Let me give you some quotes from the scholars: 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) “Athanasius and Marcellus now seem to have made common cause against those who insisted on distinct hypostases in God.” (LA, 106) – Andries Nov 25 '23 at 14:23
-1

Was Athanasius a Sabellians?

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 is a Sabellian?

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 eternal 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. In other words, Father and Son are one single Person. On page 801, Hanson refers to “a Sabellian, believing in only one Person (hypostasis) in the Godhead.”
  • If the Logos is IN the Father, 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)

Concerning the incarnated Jesus Christ, if the Logos has no real distinct existence, then Jesus Christ would be a mere man. He may be a maximally inspired man, but he remains essentially a man, meaning that:

  • Firstly, Christ did not exist before He was born from Mary.
  • Secondly, the Logos dwells in the man Jesus merely as an energy, an activity, or as inspiration from God.
  • 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.

Terminology

During the Arian Controversy, most people used hypostasis and ousia (substance) as synonyms. So, there were only two basic views, namely that God exists as:

  • One ousia (substance) and one hypostasis (Person), or
  • Three ousiai (substances) and three hypostases (Persons).

The first view was held by Sabellians. They believed "in only one Person (hypostasis) in the Godhead.” (RH, 801) This quote also confirms that hypostasis and 'Person' are synonyms. This article's purpose is to show that Athanasius also regarded Father as Son as being one single hypostasis or Person.

The second view was held by the Eusebians (the so-called Arians).

However, the Trinity doctrine uses ousia and hypostasis as contrasting concepts and adds, therefore, a third view, namely that God exists as:

  • One ousia (substance or Being) and three hypostases (Persons).

In all three options, a hypostasis is a 'Person'. Another term that the sources sometimes use as a synonym for 'Person' is 'Reality'. 

Overview

The Son is part of the Father.

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

  1. “In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius' theology.” (RH, 426)
  2. Athanasius often used the Greek term idios to describe how the Son relates to the Father. Idios was used to indicate that certain qualities and activities are intrinsic to a being.
  3. While the Eusebians (the anti-Nicenes, usually but inappropriately called ‘Arians’) postulated two Logoi in the Godhead - (1) the Logos that became incarnated and (2) the Father's own Logos, Athanasius said that there is only one Logos, namely, the Father's own internal Logos (rational capacity).
  4. For Athanasius, the Holy Spirit is also part of the Father.

Father and Son are only one Hypostasis.

  1. 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)
  2. Athanasius opposed the concept of “three hypostases.” He regarded the phrase as "unscriptural and therefore suspicious.” (LA, 174; RH, 440)
  3. 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).
  4. 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:

  1. The similarity of their theologies allowed Athanasius to ally with Marcellus, who was the main Sabellian of the fourth century. “They considered themselves allies.” (LA, 106)
  2. At the time, their beliefs were regarded 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)
  3. 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 hypostases’ factions. Athanasius was one of the leaders of the ‘one hypostasis’ faction.
  4. In conclusion, “until he (Athanasius) 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 OVERVIEW -**

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.

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.” (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 - (1) the Logos that became incarnated and (2) 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 hypostasisor Person. For example:

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). For example:

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

One Hypostasis (One Reality or Person)

(A) Only one hypothesis in God

Following Origen, the 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 shows 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 of 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 two-stage Logos-theology. In it, God’s Logos always existed inside Him but, when God decided to create, God’s Logos became a separate hypostasis 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 hypostasis:

Athanasius 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)

Now, 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, 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, for Athanasius, 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' 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 are 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

At the time and still today, their beliefs were regarded 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 hypostases’ 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 hypostases’ 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.

Andries
  • 1,698
  • 4
  • 14
  • 2
    This answer, like some of your others, is circular and repetitious. Please, you need to edit your posts before submitting them here! This is 4500 and it should be cut down to <2000. Now as to the actual content of your answer, everyone knows that the terminology of this period was in flux. For the "one hypostasis" argument to be convincing you need to show that the "hypostasis" Athanasius taught was one meant the same hypostasis the Council of Chalcedon asserted was 3. You also really need to provide some counter argument to the clear rejection of Sabellius by Athanasius in Nigel's answer. – curiousdannii Nov 26 '23 at 08:30
  • 2
    Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. What you are trying to claim is that Athanasius, hero of Trinitarian theology, for whom the Athanasian Creed was named in honour, was actually a Sabellian/modalist, meaning that all of Church history (including many of his contemporaries??) misunderstood him, and saw in his teachings the antithesis of what he actually intended. You are so far away at present from any kind of case that overturns Church history, and from what you say it seems your understanding of Trinitarianism is somewhat limited! – curiousdannii Nov 26 '23 at 08:46
  • 2
    For example, the son being in the father and there being a singular logos of God are standard Nicene/Chalcedonian Trinitarian statements. The argument about Christ's mediation is interesting, but I'm not sure that they indicate what you think they do. At least, this is a very solid Trinitarian statement on Christ's mediation: "In other words, apart from the Incarnation, there is no Mediator." The incarnation in the Son's hypostatic union is seen as essential for there to be any mediation and any salvation. – curiousdannii Nov 26 '23 at 08:54
  • 2
    This answer switches between saying "hypostasis (reality)" and "hypostasis (person)" as if you had established those were equivalent, but I can't see anywhere you even attempted to show that. Yes, as I reread this answer, that seems to be the fundamental flaw: nowhere do you provide any justification for this statement: "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)." Not that ousia and hypostasis weren't equated, that's not in doubt, but that it means person. – curiousdannii Nov 26 '23 at 08:55
  • 2
    And if you are going to distinguish Sabellianism and modalism (as you did in a comment on Nigel's answer), well you must have much more clarity than anywhere else, as most other experts think we know too little about what Sabellius himself taught to be certain how he should be distinguished from stereotypical modalism! But I don't think the differences between the original inferred Sabellianism and modalism matter to this question, and I wouldn't want you to further expand this answer to explain. It's just something to keep in mind: most people think they are predominantly the same teachings. – curiousdannii Nov 26 '23 at 08:58
  • @curiousdannii Agreed. I have an article on Sabellius which is based on Von Mosheim's analysis. see Sabellius But you are right. There are different ways in which Father and Son may be described as one Person. Some say they are three parts of the one Person. Tertullian said the Father is the whole and the Son is a part. Nigel's quote says Father = Son. So, Athanasius could claim that his view is technically different from Marcellus. But, for me, the issue is that all these views present Father and Son as one hypostasis (Reality or Person) – Andries Nov 26 '23 at 17:49
  • 1
    @curiousdannii Thanks for reading the answer. I do appreciate that. I am working on responses. – Andries Nov 27 '23 at 03:23
  • 'You need to provide some counter argument to the clear rejection of Sabellius by Athanasius.' – It should be clear that for both Athanasius and Sabellius, Father, Son and Spirit are one single hypostasis. E.g., Nigel’s quote explicitly rejected three hypostases. But there are different ways of saying that God is one hypostasis. While Athanasius said that the Son is part of the Father, Sabellius said that Father, Son and Spirit are three parts of God. This is technically different from Athanasius’ view, but I use the term Sabellian for any view where the Godhead is one single hypostasis. – Andries Nov 30 '23 at 03:58
  • @curiousdannii ‘This answer switches between saying "hypostasis (reality)" and "hypostasis (person)" as if you had established those were equivalent.’ – These are equivalent. E.g., Hanson says that one single hypostasis is "meaning distinct reality" (RH, 190) or "distinct individuality" (RH, 53). "Later theology would not have said ... (one single) Person." (RH, 190) – Andries Nov 30 '23 at 04:12
  • @curiousdannii 'What you are trying to claim is that all of Church history … misunderstood him.’ RPC Hanson wrote - “This conventional account of the Controversy, which stems originally from the version given of it by the victorious party, is now recognised by a large number of scholars to be a complete travesty.” And "The accounts of what happened which have come down to us were mostly written by those who belonged to the school of thought which eventually prevailed and have been deeply coloured by that fact." See : Hanson – Andries Nov 30 '23 at 04:13
  • No, they're not equivalent, you have to demonstrate they are. The equivalency between hypostasis meaning reality and person is the most crucial part of your argument. You need to argue for it with more than a sentence length quote from Hanson. (And doesn't your quote say they wouldn't have said "person"?) And you're not just talking about Sabellians and Arians being poorly preserved and misunderstood, you're talking about Athanasius being fundamentally misunderstood by those apparently on the same side! – curiousdannii Nov 30 '23 at 04:42
  • @curiousdannii I am not basing my conclusion on Athanasius' use of the terms hypostasis, reality or person. I am basing my conclusion on the substance of his theology and then explain his theology by using these terms with the meanings they have today. – Andries Nov 30 '23 at 07:26
  • @curiousdannii Hypostasis was an old pagan philosophical concept, meaning ‘that which exists and which is the foundation of all this that do exist’. In a Christian context, it came to mean a distinct reality. Popular Christianity uses the term "Person" but Hanson avoids that term because the Trinity doctrine does not describe Father, Son, and Spirit as three Persons in the ordinary sense of that word. (Because the Three share one single mind.) Hanson prefers "Reality." But I assume you know all that. – Andries Nov 30 '23 at 07:43
  • So in exactly which period were the concepts of "reality" and "person" equated? Did Anthanasius really use hypostasis in ways which would be accurately translated as both "reality" and "person"? – curiousdannii Nov 30 '23 at 08:10
  • If Athanasius said Jesus didn't have a human mind, that sounds like he was a Apollinarian. Confirming that would be worth its own question. – curiousdannii Nov 30 '23 at 11:31
  • 'Did Athanasius really use hypostasis in ways which would be accurately translated as both "reality" and "person"?' - Hanson says: “What did hypostasis mean to him? We must answer, almost nothing. He avoids using the word as far as he can.” (RH, 444) “The evidence that for Athanasius hypostasis was the same as ousia is unmistakable.” (RH, 445) “That Athanasius had no word for 'Person' at least till 362, and that he avoided using hypostasis is now widely recognized” (RH, 444, note 107) “He did not distinguish between the 'Persons' of the Trinity.” (RH, 444) – Andries Nov 30 '23 at 12:53
  • If he had no word for "person", then he wasn't "really saying that they are one single hypostasis (Person)." – curiousdannii Nov 30 '23 at 13:01
  • @curiousdannii Athanasius had no word for what the Father, Son, and Spirit are individually. He did not call them Persons or Hypostases or anything else. But his entire theology, as explained in my article, describes them as, what we today would call, Persons or Hypostases. That is so abundantly clear. The Western Council of Serdica in 343 is devastating evidence. It explicitly describes the Three as one hypostasis and Athanasius approved and supported this creed. The reason people struggle with this conclusion is that it shows that Athanasius was a Sabellian; not a Trinitarian. – Andries Nov 30 '23 at 15:11
  • But your answer also says that he thought hypostasis meant reality and was equivalent to ousia. If that's the case then he can say one hypostasis while being non Sabellian. – curiousdannii Nov 30 '23 at 22:25
  • @curiousdannii Your point seems to be that Athanasius said that the Father and Son are one hypostasis, reality, and ousia but two different persons. But Athanasius explicitly described the Son as part of the Person of the Father. So, they are not two different Persons. We cannot resolve our little dispute by considering the ancient meaning of terms. Different people understood these terms differently. We need to consider the substance of Athanasius' teachings. – Andries Dec 01 '23 at 05:49
  • Yes, please show what Athanasius himself taught, rather than asserting things he did not. Did he say the Father and Son are not different persons with the intent that later (or modern) Trinitarians would understand as a rejection of the position that they are two relational somethings (whatever the term) that can truly, for example, both love each other, and mediate for each other? Everyone knows the terminology was in flux, so you need to show his actual concepts were Sabellian/modalist. – curiousdannii Dec 01 '23 at 06:01
  • "But Athanasius explicitly described the Son as part of the Person of the Father." You haven't given any evidence of this. The closest you got was the section on idios, but from what I can see, that doesn't mean "part". Also this statement is fallacious: "Alexander and Athanasius used the terms "Son" and "Logos" as synonyms." Co-referential does not mean synonymous. – curiousdannii Dec 01 '23 at 06:09
  • @curiousdannii You say I haven't given any evidence for the statement that Athanasius explicitly described the Son as part of the Person of the Father." But that is what the entire article does. Hanson wrote, “In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius' theology.” If He is in the Father, then He is part of the Father. – Andries Dec 02 '23 at 03:23
  • @curiousdannii I came across a quote that relates to our disagreement: about hypostasis, person, and reality: “In the place of this old but inadequate Trinitarian tradition 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 – Andries Dec 02 '23 at 03:26
  • @curiousdannii Just another thought about terminology - There was no confusion during the Arian Controversy. Ousia and hypostasis were synonyms. So, if somebody said that Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct substances, then they are also three distinct hypostases (individuals). That is also how Athanasius and Basil of Caesarea understood these words. The confusion is caused by the later Trinity doctrine which uses synonyms to describe contrasting concepts. Ousia and hypostasis; Being and Substance. I will revise my article to use ousia (substance) because it is a less confusing term. – Andries Dec 08 '23 at 08:27
  • Please use the words Athanasius himself used (by showing direct quotes of him)! If he used them synonymously, then everyone can deal with that easily enough. – curiousdannii Dec 08 '23 at 08:38