During the closing years of the second century, two unusual theological developments came to the fore, both of which received the same designation: Monarchianism. Both of these caused serious strife within the church, and both were ultimately rejected as being heretical. This strife, which continued throughout the greater part of the third century, had a significant influence on the development of the history of dogma. It was in the background when the church gave shape to the doctrine of the Trinity. The views which were rejected at that time have served as prototypes for many similar aberrations and heresies down through the years, e. g., the Unitarian point of view, which has emerged time after time in the history of theology as a rationalistic interpretation of Christianity.
The “monarchical” concept, from which both of these schools took their name, appeared in the writings of Tertullian, who used it with reference to the unity in the Godhead. Monarchianism denied the Trinitarian concept, for it held that this was opposed to faith in the one God. Its adherents repudiated the idea of “economy,” according to which God, who is certainly one, revealed Himself in such a way that He appeared as the Son and as the Holy Spirit.
The Monarchian rejection of the three Persons in the Godhead was influenced by the Greek concept of God, which elevated God over all material considerations, including change and diversity. In the light of this, the Greek point of view was unable to accept the claim that God appeared and acted in this world. Whenever men have repudiated the concept of the divine “economy,” that is, the distinction between the Persons of the Godhead as conditioned by the order of salvation, the presupposition has been provided by a deistic view of God, in which the Biblical teaching of God is replaced by an abstract idea of God.
Monarchianism, therefore, possessed a common presupposition and a common basic idea: the difficulty of combining faith in one God with the Christian faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Because they were not satisfied with the solution provided by the Logos doctrine, nor with the teaching of the three Persons (hypostases), nor with the “economy” concept, they sought for new ways to solve the problem—whereby they eliminated essential elements of the Christian faith and arrived at a rationalistic or Docetic position.
In a sense the term “Monarchianism” is an artificial designation. It does not suggest a uniform point of view; it rather indicates a feature which was held in common by two streams of thought which appeared at approximately the same time. For the most part these two streams of thought were diametrically opposed.
The one form of Monarchianism was called dynamic (or adoptionistic), and the other was called modalistic.
Dynamic Monarchianism
The first representative of this point of view was the tanner Theodotus, who came to Rome from Byzantium in the year 190 as the result of a persecution. He was opposed to the Logos Christology and in general denied the divinity of Christ. He rather believed that Christ was merely a man (the Ebionite position). He was born of a virgin, said Theodotus, but was nevertheless an ordinary man. He was superior to other men only with respect to His righteousness (Tertullian, Adversus omnes haereses, 8). More specifically, Theodotus conceived of the relationship between Christ and the man Jesus in the following manner: Jesus had lived as other men; at the time of His baptism, however, Christ came over Him as a power and was active within Him from that point on. The belief that the divine element in Christ was a power bestowed on Jesus at His baptism gave “dynamic” Monarchianism its name. Jesus was thought of as a prophet who did not become God, even though He was equipped with divine powers at a given time. He was not united with God until after His resurrection. Theodotus was excommunicated by Bishop Victor of Rome.
The foremost proponent of Dynamic Monarchianism was Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch about 260. He carried on in the tradition of the Ebionites and Theodotus, and taught that Christ was only a man equipped with divine powers. He did not reject the Logos idea, but in his thinking the Logos was equated with reason or wisdom, in the sense that these qualities can be ascribed to a man. According to him the Logos was not an independent hypostasis. God’s wisdom dwelt in the man Jesus, but only as a divine power; it did not form an independent person within Him. The personal element involved was that of the man Jesus only. In saying this, Paul repudiated Tertullian’s teaching about the Logos as persona and Origen’s doctrine of the Logos as an independent hypostasis.
Paul of Samosata was declared heretical by a synod in Antioch in the year 268. His point of view was Unitarian in nature: “The Son” was merely a man, he said, and the Holy Spirit was the grace infused into the apostles. This rationalistic interpretation of the Christian faith in God was the first clearly formulated example of a point of view which has appeared in many different forms. In more recent times it has appeared in Socinianism and other Unitarian schools, as well as in neology and in certain branches of liberal theology.
Modalism
The second form of Monarchianism appeared first in Asia Minor, but Noetus and his disciples carried it to Rome. There it was that Praxeas lived, the modalistic representative against whom Tertullian wrote. The major spokesman for this school was Sabellius, who taught in Rome beginning about the year 215.
Noetus did not accept the “economy” concept with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity; neither did he approve the Logos Christology and the subordinationist tendencies implicit therein. To Noetus the Father alone is God, and even though He is hidden to man’s sight, He has come forth and made Himself known according to His own pleasure. God is not subject to suffering and death, but He can suffer and die if He chooses to do so. In saying this, Noetus sought to emphasize God’s oneness. The Father and Son are not only of the same essence; they are also the same God under a different name and form. Noetus refused to differentiate between the three Persons of the Godhead. As he saw it, one could as well say that the Father suffered as to say that Christ suffered. Praxeas mitigated this opinion somewhat; he said that the Father suffered with the Son—but his position was also rejected. Tertullian referred to this as “patripassianism.”
More than any other man, it was Sabellius who gave form to the modalistic point of view. He asserted that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one; they are of one substance, that is, and can be distinguished from one another only by name. He attempted to describe his position in a variety of ways: As man consists of body, soul, and spirit (for example), so are there also three facets to the divine essence; again, the three Persons are related in the way that the sun and its warmth and light are. The Father is the sun, while the Son is the illuminating rays and the Spirit is the warming power which proceeds from the sun. The Son and the Spirit are merely the forms which divinity assumed when it appeared in the world (at the time of its “expansion”). Sabellius is supposed to have said that “God, with respect to hypostasis, is only one, but He has been personified in Scripture in various ways according to the current need” (Basilius, Epistle 214). It was assumed, therefore, that God appeared in different forms at different times, first in a general way in nature, then as the Son, and finally as the Holy Spirit. It is from this pattern of thought that modalism received its name: the three Persons are the different ways (modi) in which the one God revealed Himself. It was characteristic of Sabellius that he not only believed that the divine substance is one; he also believed that the three Persons in the Godhead are one and the same.
What Sabellius said about the different forms of revelation was comparable to the “economy” concept of the Trinity, but it was unlike it in that (according to Sabellius) the Son and the Spirit appear after one another at different times. God is not Father, Son, and Spirit at the same time. Sabellius also refused to distinguish between the Persons; there is no real Trinity. In the “economy” concept it was thought that the three forms of revelation were independent hypostases. In opposition to Dynamic Monarchianism, modalism strongly emphasized the fact that Father and Son are one with respect to their substance. As a result, however, modalism was unable to do justice to Christ’s humanity. We find here, as in Dynamic Monarchianism, a rationalistic tendency in which revelation is replaced by metaphysical speculation. Modalism—or Sabellianism, as it is often called—was rejected as heretical when Sabellius’ teachings were condemned in 261.
The Attitude of the Church
The theology of the church opposed Monarchianism in a particular way at the following points: the doctrine of the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father (contra dynamism), the doctrine of the three Persons in the Godhead (contra modalism), and the doctrine of the Son’s birth in eternity (contra both).
Dynamism either denied the divinity of Christ or interpreted it as a mere power which had been bestowed upon the man Jesus. The Alexandrian theologians (and Tertullian, too) described the divinity of Christ in terms of His consubstantiality with the Father. According to Clement and Origen, the Logos emanated from the Deity and is, therefore, of the same substance as the Father. According to Tertullian, Father, Son, and Spirit are of the same substance.
Modalism rejected the distinction between the Persons and identified the Son with the Father, and the Spirit with the Son and the Father. Tertullian, with the assistance of the Logos doctrine, developed the concept of the three Persons, which are not only forms of revelation but three independent hypostases.
Both kinds of Monarchianism transformed the doctrine of Christ in a rationalistic direction: in the one case, Christ is merely a man; in the other, He is merely a form by which God revealed Himself. The preexistence of the Son is denied by both. The Son did not emerge as an independent entity until the appearance of Christ. And while the subordinationist theology simply taught that the Logos preexisted within the one divine essence, as God’s “reason,” Origen developed his doctrine of the Son’s birth in eternity: the Son proceeded from the Father in eternity and existed as the Son, as an independent hypostasis, before all time.
Among those who opposed Monarchianism and contributed to the theological development within the church at the end of the third century were Novatian and Methodius.
Novatian, who was a presbyter in Rome ca. 250, was closely related to Tertullian’s theological position. He stressed, on the one hand, the divinity of Christ and the fact that He is consubstantial with the Father (contra dynamism), and on the other, Christs true humanity and the distinction between the Persons in the Godhead (contra modalism).
Methodius of Olympus (d. 311) continued in Origen’s theological tradition, but he rejected the latter’s teachings about the eternal creation, the preexistence of the soul, and the restoration of all things.
The “monarchical” concept, from which both of these schools took their name, appeared in the writings of Tertullian, who used it with reference to the unity in the Godhead. Monarchianism denied the Trinitarian concept, for it held that this was opposed to faith in the one God. Its adherents repudiated the idea of “economy,” according to which God, who is certainly one, revealed Himself in such a way that He appeared as the Son and as the Holy Spirit.
The Monarchian rejection of the three Persons in the Godhead was influenced by the Greek concept of God, which elevated God over all material considerations, including change and diversity. In the light of this, the Greek point of view was unable to accept the claim that God appeared and acted in this world. Whenever men have repudiated the concept of the divine “economy,” that is, the distinction between the Persons of the Godhead as conditioned by the order of salvation, the presupposition has been provided by a deistic view of God, in which the Biblical teaching of God is replaced by an abstract idea of God.
Monarchianism, therefore, possessed a common presupposition and a common basic idea: the difficulty of combining faith in one God with the Christian faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Because they were not satisfied with the solution provided by the Logos doctrine, nor with the teaching of the three Persons (hypostases), nor with the “economy” concept, they sought for new ways to solve the problem—whereby they eliminated essential elements of the Christian faith and arrived at a rationalistic or Docetic position.
In a sense the term “Monarchianism” is an artificial designation. It does not suggest a uniform point of view; it rather indicates a feature which was held in common by two streams of thought which appeared at approximately the same time. For the most part these two streams of thought were diametrically opposed.
The one form of Monarchianism was called dynamic (or adoptionistic), and the other was called modalistic.
Dynamic Monarchianism
The first representative of this point of view was the tanner Theodotus, who came to Rome from Byzantium in the year 190 as the result of a persecution. He was opposed to the Logos Christology and in general denied the divinity of Christ. He rather believed that Christ was merely a man (the Ebionite position). He was born of a virgin, said Theodotus, but was nevertheless an ordinary man. He was superior to other men only with respect to His righteousness (Tertullian, Adversus omnes haereses, 8). More specifically, Theodotus conceived of the relationship between Christ and the man Jesus in the following manner: Jesus had lived as other men; at the time of His baptism, however, Christ came over Him as a power and was active within Him from that point on. The belief that the divine element in Christ was a power bestowed on Jesus at His baptism gave “dynamic” Monarchianism its name. Jesus was thought of as a prophet who did not become God, even though He was equipped with divine powers at a given time. He was not united with God until after His resurrection. Theodotus was excommunicated by Bishop Victor of Rome.
The foremost proponent of Dynamic Monarchianism was Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch about 260. He carried on in the tradition of the Ebionites and Theodotus, and taught that Christ was only a man equipped with divine powers. He did not reject the Logos idea, but in his thinking the Logos was equated with reason or wisdom, in the sense that these qualities can be ascribed to a man. According to him the Logos was not an independent hypostasis. God’s wisdom dwelt in the man Jesus, but only as a divine power; it did not form an independent person within Him. The personal element involved was that of the man Jesus only. In saying this, Paul repudiated Tertullian’s teaching about the Logos as persona and Origen’s doctrine of the Logos as an independent hypostasis.
Paul of Samosata was declared heretical by a synod in Antioch in the year 268. His point of view was Unitarian in nature: “The Son” was merely a man, he said, and the Holy Spirit was the grace infused into the apostles. This rationalistic interpretation of the Christian faith in God was the first clearly formulated example of a point of view which has appeared in many different forms. In more recent times it has appeared in Socinianism and other Unitarian schools, as well as in neology and in certain branches of liberal theology.
Modalism
The second form of Monarchianism appeared first in Asia Minor, but Noetus and his disciples carried it to Rome. There it was that Praxeas lived, the modalistic representative against whom Tertullian wrote. The major spokesman for this school was Sabellius, who taught in Rome beginning about the year 215.
Noetus did not accept the “economy” concept with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity; neither did he approve the Logos Christology and the subordinationist tendencies implicit therein. To Noetus the Father alone is God, and even though He is hidden to man’s sight, He has come forth and made Himself known according to His own pleasure. God is not subject to suffering and death, but He can suffer and die if He chooses to do so. In saying this, Noetus sought to emphasize God’s oneness. The Father and Son are not only of the same essence; they are also the same God under a different name and form. Noetus refused to differentiate between the three Persons of the Godhead. As he saw it, one could as well say that the Father suffered as to say that Christ suffered. Praxeas mitigated this opinion somewhat; he said that the Father suffered with the Son—but his position was also rejected. Tertullian referred to this as “patripassianism.”
More than any other man, it was Sabellius who gave form to the modalistic point of view. He asserted that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one; they are of one substance, that is, and can be distinguished from one another only by name. He attempted to describe his position in a variety of ways: As man consists of body, soul, and spirit (for example), so are there also three facets to the divine essence; again, the three Persons are related in the way that the sun and its warmth and light are. The Father is the sun, while the Son is the illuminating rays and the Spirit is the warming power which proceeds from the sun. The Son and the Spirit are merely the forms which divinity assumed when it appeared in the world (at the time of its “expansion”). Sabellius is supposed to have said that “God, with respect to hypostasis, is only one, but He has been personified in Scripture in various ways according to the current need” (Basilius, Epistle 214). It was assumed, therefore, that God appeared in different forms at different times, first in a general way in nature, then as the Son, and finally as the Holy Spirit. It is from this pattern of thought that modalism received its name: the three Persons are the different ways (modi) in which the one God revealed Himself. It was characteristic of Sabellius that he not only believed that the divine substance is one; he also believed that the three Persons in the Godhead are one and the same.
What Sabellius said about the different forms of revelation was comparable to the “economy” concept of the Trinity, but it was unlike it in that (according to Sabellius) the Son and the Spirit appear after one another at different times. God is not Father, Son, and Spirit at the same time. Sabellius also refused to distinguish between the Persons; there is no real Trinity. In the “economy” concept it was thought that the three forms of revelation were independent hypostases. In opposition to Dynamic Monarchianism, modalism strongly emphasized the fact that Father and Son are one with respect to their substance. As a result, however, modalism was unable to do justice to Christ’s humanity. We find here, as in Dynamic Monarchianism, a rationalistic tendency in which revelation is replaced by metaphysical speculation. Modalism—or Sabellianism, as it is often called—was rejected as heretical when Sabellius’ teachings were condemned in 261.
The Attitude of the Church
The theology of the church opposed Monarchianism in a particular way at the following points: the doctrine of the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father (contra dynamism), the doctrine of the three Persons in the Godhead (contra modalism), and the doctrine of the Son’s birth in eternity (contra both).
Dynamism either denied the divinity of Christ or interpreted it as a mere power which had been bestowed upon the man Jesus. The Alexandrian theologians (and Tertullian, too) described the divinity of Christ in terms of His consubstantiality with the Father. According to Clement and Origen, the Logos emanated from the Deity and is, therefore, of the same substance as the Father. According to Tertullian, Father, Son, and Spirit are of the same substance.
Modalism rejected the distinction between the Persons and identified the Son with the Father, and the Spirit with the Son and the Father. Tertullian, with the assistance of the Logos doctrine, developed the concept of the three Persons, which are not only forms of revelation but three independent hypostases.
Both kinds of Monarchianism transformed the doctrine of Christ in a rationalistic direction: in the one case, Christ is merely a man; in the other, He is merely a form by which God revealed Himself. The preexistence of the Son is denied by both. The Son did not emerge as an independent entity until the appearance of Christ. And while the subordinationist theology simply taught that the Logos preexisted within the one divine essence, as God’s “reason,” Origen developed his doctrine of the Son’s birth in eternity: the Son proceeded from the Father in eternity and existed as the Son, as an independent hypostasis, before all time.
Among those who opposed Monarchianism and contributed to the theological development within the church at the end of the third century were Novatian and Methodius.
Novatian, who was a presbyter in Rome ca. 250, was closely related to Tertullian’s theological position. He stressed, on the one hand, the divinity of Christ and the fact that He is consubstantial with the Father (contra dynamism), and on the other, Christs true humanity and the distinction between the Persons in the Godhead (contra modalism).
Methodius of Olympus (d. 311) continued in Origen’s theological tradition, but he rejected the latter’s teachings about the eternal creation, the preexistence of the soul, and the restoration of all things.
No comments:
Post a Comment