Talk:Sabellianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
The story of Sabellianism is much more complicated. But just how much detail can even a wikipedia tolerate?
Sabellianism, it appears, is named after Sabellios mostly by accident. Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch in Syria was deposed in 268 CE after four years of controversy over his Christology. Paul, apparently, was an Adoptionist, meaning that he felt Jesus was a normal human being whom God "adopted" as his son. Sometime during this long argument the name of Sabellios came up. No one in Antioch had ever heard of him, but his name was associated with Rome. So they wrote to Rome about him. Bishop Dionysios replied in a letter of which only a small fragment has been preserved. This was enough to make Sabellios famous among the Greek theologians.
In Rome, fifty or so years earlier, Hippolytos knew Sabellios personally and mentions him in the Philosophumena. He knows Sabellios disliked Trinitarian theology, but he calls Modal Monarchism the heresy of Noetos, not that of Sabellios. He thought he had very nearly recounciled Sabellios to the mainline church.
At approximately the same time Tertullian wrote a tract Against Praxeas. He blamed Praxeas for Monarchism. Maybe Praxeas and Noetos are the same man. He describes Praxeas as rejoining the mainline church in the end and them adds that his heresy had sprung up again. It was Tertullian who coined the nickname Patripassionism for Monarchism, intending it as an insult.
Monarchism simply denies the idea of persons in the godhead. But then a monarchist must take a christological position. That is, who was Christ? A modal monarchist says Christ was God, that he was the Father himself in the flesh. An adoptionist monarchist says Christ was an ordinary, but gifted, man whom God adopted and took into heaven. The adoptionist idea has recurred many times in the history of Christianity. Adoptionist monarchism is very similar to the even older idea called Ebionism which holds that Jesus was an ordinary man and a prophet. Islam takes an Ebionist view concerning Jesus.
Overt modal monarchism is quite rare. The idea that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are simply three names for the same being seems to contradict a number of passages in the Bible where the Father and the Son converse. Even people who believe that nothing is impossible for God are reluctant to believe he can be in two places at the same time. It appears that Tertullian's ancient tract Against Praxeas is still the only refutation of modal monarchism ever written.
Nevertheless it is easy to fall into a modal monarchistic manner of speaking when one is trying to explain the trinity. Hence there is a constant danger that a careless theologian will express a Sabellian idea. So the idea of modal monarchism lives on, not as an actual heresy, but as a heretical position to be avoided.
I hesitate to put this into the wikipedia. If someone else thinks it is worth saving they can move it over. - Kleinecke
- I've added a few paragraphs from Kleinecke's account to the article. More probably could be incorporated (after all, Wikipedia is not printed on paper & thus must limit the length of its articles). -- llywrch 23:28, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Probably needs a little tidying and tightening up for the article (though it's fine for talk page in its present form), but it is useful and informative, and should be incorporated.—Copey 2 14:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Kaden
-
- (What's the significance of this heading?—Copey 2 14:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC))
I'll work on moving it over. The article as it stands doesn't make sense, at least in the case of the first paragraph.
--Finog 01:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I added the quote from Tertullian and reworked the text to be a little more efficent. New articles need to be added on Praxeus and Tertuliian's work adversus praxeus. Rethinker 20:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Modalism
Kudos on the article, well done. Accurate, and well written. If I could make a criticism, maybe could do with footnotes. All in all, a good explanation.
Cialovesyou 12:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New Church view
The New Church could have what is called a modal monarchistic view. The Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg provide a very detailed and rational explantion of how the One God, YHWH, was born into the soul of the man, Jesus Christ, who through a process of making His human nature Divine became one with His Father. Jesus is the One Person who is God. Trinitarians have been trying to preserve the divinity of Jesus, but have split God into three beings in the process. God can be seen as one Divine Human Being. See the section on the New Church.
[edit] Unverified claim
Great article, however this statement:
"It is reported that followers of Sabellianism baptized in the shorter formula of the name Jesus Christ as opposed to the Trinitarian formula of the day and spoke "in other tongues" and prophesied."
violates Wikipedia's POV policy on Weaseling in that it makes a claim with an anonymous unverified reference "it is reported"... by whom? As a former Oneness Pentecostal, I have never historically found any evidence that they were practicing tongues in Sabellianism and in addition, the only group who did practice glossalia were the Montanists,who were Trinitarians. --Zaphnathpaaneah 17:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Contemporary modalism
I don't have the scholarly credentials to add to the existing article (which I appreciate). However, in the conservative Christian circles where I move, those who understand the issue usually agree that popular inclusive language formulas for the Trinity (e.g. as Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer) are a form of modalism. If this is correct, it would seem like it should be included in the article on Sabellianism, since this article is the link when you search "modalism." Thanks!
- This is a formula I have heard in my own Baptist church, which is trinitarian. I think that most of the sort of feminist theology it attempts to accommodate is in fact trinitarian as well. I suspect the modalist interpretation is a construct of those who oppose it rather than the intent of those who use it, though I think I see your point; isn't the whole Godhead involved in creation, redemption and sustaining, after all? The Jews lost God's revealed name (YHWH) through reverence; Christians look like losing God's revealed name (Father) through well-meant inclusiveness. Copey 2 01:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comparative Religion
two points: 1) Sabellianism is only the Christian name for Modalism as a heresy, in Hinduism modalism is essentially orthodoxy. Sabellianism is therefore only a subset of modalism from a strictly broad, encyclopedic view. 2) the difficulty of articulating what the Trinity IS (as opposed to what it is not) makes it difficult to avoid modalist articulations in the christian context and it would be worth further clarifying why precisely Modalism/Sabellianism do not fall within the set of beliefs agreed on by most Christians to be correct.
To what extent might the term modalism be more appropriate as the primary heading of this article? Sabellianism, strictly speaking is the term used among orthodox Christians to describe a kind of modalism within the context of Christian theology. This however would only be a subset of the potential application of the idea of modalism which might better be the primary heading with Sabellianism as a subset of the idea for the context of Chrisitianity.
Within a broader understanding of modalism, the term might also be applied for example to the Hindu conception of the One God as revealed in multiple and infinite forms. An orthodox Hindu would have no trouble accepting the full complete and unique divinity of any of the devas, (Siva, Vishnu, (or His various forms: Ram, Krishna) Shakti (Or Durga, Kali, Laxmi etc. ) as being all equally aspects of God for the believer and yet only aspects or manifestations of God, as He is, in absolute unity. While violating, from an Abrahamic, particularly from a Jewish (see the Shema) or Islamic standpoint (see Tawhid), the idea of the fundamental and indivisible unity of God, this conception of God's unity is no less compromised than that of orthodox Christianity's Trinity and indeed uses the modal concept to preserve a degree of unity not present in orthodox Christianity which accounts Father, Son and Holy Spirit as separate persons sharing an essence.
Before the instant objection that the Hindu and Christian beliefs are not comparable it is importatn to mke some observations. It might be responded that Hindus are often regarded by outsiders as polytheists but this is not their own conception, (indeed it bears note that among Muslims particularly, orthodox Christians are also thought of as having strayed into polytheism.) Hindus should more properly be thought of as modal monotheists, While the various Devas may interact in a mythological sense with each other or the historical world this is not formally different in application than for example the Father and the Son (as incarnate in the Christ) interacting through the means of prayer (as in the Lord's Prayer addressed to the Father or Christ's prayers at Gethsemane) and in other ways within the Gospels. The role of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the father (or amongst western Filioque Christians from Father and Son) is not in substance radically different in concept from some traditional understandings of the Hindu devas' relationships to each-other. They are all just God, not gods. Hence in Hinduism, the form of worship is immaterial and determined by local traditions and the needs of the believer who uses the conception of the Deva to draw closer to God much as an Eastern Orthodox Christian might use an ikon as a focus for increased reminder of and devotion to God. This is all by way of explaining that modalism is not an idea unique to what are commonly accounted the heretical fringes of Christian Theology.
Chrisitians are asked as a mystery of faith to accept the Trinity as beyond rational comprehension and as part of the historic teaching of the church. (since the Bible is not strictly clear on this point and tends rather to emphasize Gods Unity) It is also part of this historic teaching, for concrete historical reasons (preserving the divinity of Christ and the unique role of the suffering of the Son among the three persons) that the division of the Godhead into threeness is more than simply the perception of the believer or an artifact of the encounter of God with His creation. God's existence in three persons is a fundamental and definitive reality of God's existence in God's self in orthodox belief, yet, in keeping with the traditions of Scripture He is also One God eternally. Sabellian Modalism represents a rational solution to the "three yet one paradox" indeed it often seems to be the simplest and easiest way to reconcile the paradox of the trinity logically.
I would weigh in here with Kleinecke that modal descriptions of the Trinity persist widely even among orthodox Christians, even as in the next sentence Sabellianism and modalism are denounced, precisely because of the very difficulty of this mystery of the orthodox faith. Indeed the level of precision required to preclude modalism is part of what makes creedal statements and prayers difficult to formulate. Quite aside from the more modern formulas mentioned by the conservative Christian commmenter previous to me, it is my experience that even amongst very traditional Christians, when they try to explain the Trinity as part of evangelism, they often explain it in modal terms. It is worth perhaps including in the article on Sabellianism precisely why it is unorthodox so that it is more than simply a heresy to be avoided but rather the absence of a truth to be affirmed within the set of consensus Christian doctrines. ~~CharlusIngus.
[edit] Heresy
Is inclusion in this category a violation of neutrality policies? Thuban541 05:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
