Sabellius
For one about whom so little is known, Sabellius is yet listed as one of the arch-heretics in most lists. Sabellius was a follower of the teachings of Praxeas and Noetus, a teacher in Rome in the early third century, around the time of Bishop Victor of Rome, whose teachings were condemned around AD 261, long after he was dead. That’s about all we actually know of Sabellius.
But Sabellianism, at its base, is the crassest form of modalism, that is, the teaching that there is one God (this much is orthodox) who appears in three modes or forms (this is the wacked-out heretical part). In other words, God is the hyiopater (the Father-Son) who also is the Spirit. There are no distinct persons, just different ways for God to manifest Himself. In short, in Sabellius’ system, the Father suffered and died for our sins. This is what we mean by the term patripassianism. It is a philosophical conclusion to the premises that
1. There is only one God, the Father and Creator of all things.
and
2. Jesus is the one God.
The conclusion drawn from these, by Sabellius, and completely logical to these premises, is that Jesus must therefore be the Father and All-Creator. It’s kind of the opposite to what we had happening with the Gnostics, very rigorously monotheistic.
There is one very important thing to note about this whole patripassianism thing, and that is that at its heart, it too is a struggling with the whole question of how Jesus can really be God. And, laudably, it points out the full divinity of Christ. No shadow of doubt on this. Not even a hint of Arianism or adoptionism here. And it does struggle with the whole question of the continuity of the teaching that there is only one God. In general, monarchianism (see, for instance, our buddy Paul of Samosata) does a lot of this struggling. Modalism is different from dynamic monarchianism because the modalists taught the full divinity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit–they simply weren’t able to distinguish the persons of the Trinity, treating them all as the same person wearing different masks, as it were.
Modalism has serious flaws. First, it denies Christ’s true humanity, or else it would make God the Father into a man; that is, make the Creator a creation. Second, modalism is completely incapable of exegeting passages such as the Baptism of Jesus, or Jesus praying to His Father, in any meaningful way. Although the philosophy of modalism was appealing, this was the biggest single hurdle for most who were somewhat enticed by it. Third, and most importantly, it places philosophical concerns (the need for a consistently rational understanding of God) above and beyond the revelation of God to the church. While holding firmly that there is only one God, Sabellius and his followers sadly missed the key to Jesus’ efficacy–that He became incarnate, that is, God took on human flesh to save human flesh. It wasn’t a matter of God just appearing to be a man, then changing form as necessary. There is a certain amount of implicit docetism in Sabellian modalism.
Having said that, Sabellius did get a number of Christian thinkers pondering just what it means that Jesus is true God and true Man. Sabellius drove the church to clearly formulate what had always been implicit–that Jesus was not the Father but that He was yet true God. In the later Christological controversies of the fourth century, all parties agreed that Jesus was distinct from the Father. This much was agreed upon by all, Arian and Orthodox alike. But having determined that there was a difference between the persons of the Father and the Son meant that there was a need to clarify just what that difference was, in order to prevent Jesus’ divinity or His humanity from being denied.
And it’s kind of odd that Sabellius gets all the blame for modalism. As we’ll examine next time, Praxeas and Noetus, both of whom had books written against them, certainly were heading in this same direction. But it’s the man who puts it all together who gets the credit in the history books.
Even today, the modern “Oneness” churches and theologians (such as T. D. Jakes) head in the modalist direction, teaching that God is one God in three “manifestations”. There is a difference between manifestations (ways of appearing and functioning) and persons… a difference which some modern evangelical churches, under the influence of teachers like Jakes, are missing. I’m not saying Jakes is a Sabellian–just saying that his statements as recorded in the above article certainly tend in the modalist direction. And this distinction helps understand why Oneness churches baptize only in the name of Jesus (not in the name of the Holy Trinity as Jesus commands!). Sabellian heresy is sadly alive and well on planet Earth.
Verse for the Commemoration of Sabellius
—
Heretic Sabellius
Though not openly rebellious
Yet, taught of God in his theology,
That He is only Father–no hint of Trinity.
In case you think I was picking on Jakes too much, here’s an excerpt from that article:
–
Jakes: In spite of all the distinctives, God is one in His essence. Though no human illustration perfectly fits the Divine, it is similar to ice, water and steam: three separate forms, yet all H2O. Each element can co-exist, each has distinguishing characteristics and functions, but all have sameness.
–
This is pure modalism–water is ice or water or steam, but it is all water. It doesn’t show the distinction between the persons but rather just points to them being different forms of the same thing.
September 16th, 2005 | #
Other painful things to read in the article:
1) “I’m not a theologian; I just go with what the Bible says.” This statement has ALWAYS driven me crazy– the notion that it’s not about doctrinal “systems” but about the Bible. Sure, but doesn’t he realize that he is reading the Bible, as all of us do, with certain first principles and understandings in mind, rather than with 100% pure objectivity? Or that hundreds of denominations “just look at what the Bible says” and reach vastly different conclusions? That quote is most often used by “Bible churches” and the like, presuming that only they have ever heard of or understood the concept of reading the Bible “inductively” or “in context.” Often it takes on this form: “Theologian A has some good ideas, and Theologian B hits on some okay points, but neither are looking at Scripture with proper totality. Let’s see what the BIBLE says…” (What they mean is, let’s see what they themselves, Theologian C, are reading there.) ARG!!!
2) He avoids talking cogently about doctrine, but “look at what a great job I’m doing talking about moral issues!” ARG!!!
September 16th, 2005 | #
Nice graphic at the top – the new site looks pretty good.
As for TD Jakes, I confess that (being a very ungenerous sort of soul
) it was sufficient to be told he’s a member of the “Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies”. A name like that is never good news. 
Oh, that and being told he was “ordained a Bishop” at Greater Emmanuel Apostolic Church. I know as a good Lutheran I shouldn’t be interested in the whole bishop thing anyway, but really, there are bishops and there are bishops, y’know?
Gosh, I am snarky tonight, aren’t I…?
September 16th, 2005 | #
Interesting thoughts here. In our Wednesday night Bible study of The Holy Spirit, He, not it (as The Holy Spirit) was stressed as the third “person” of the Trinity. For instance, Jesus saying he’ll send another comforter(not God the father, not Himself, but The Holy Spirit.
We also learned about modalism.(the heresy of it) Jakes was also mentioned as a teacher of this belief.:???: How sad that so many people are being deceived into believing this fallacy.:cry:
September 16th, 2005 | #
Today’s Issues, Etc. from KFUO dealt in part with T.D. Jakes. Pastor Wilken was decidedly unenthusiastic about Rev. Jakes’ theology.
- Webcritter
September 19th, 2005 | #
At a recent meeting we were discussing the various positions on our EDLYA board. I think this web site’s affecting me, ’cause I said that we had a Pastoral advisor to help us stay away from heresy.
Keep up these great, thought-provoking posts!
September 21st, 2005 | #
The more I read over my comment, the more I think someone would get the impression that I don’t believe in the Trinity.:shock: I was merely trying to show that I don’t take to modalism. My belief is God in three persons, not modes or auras and that the Holy Spirit is a person, not an it or a phantom.
Hope that clears things up a bit.:smile:
September 23rd, 2005 | #
Mom,
Don’t stress over possible misreadings of comments on this blog. Your original comment seemed perfectly clear to me.
Take care and talk to you soon!
-the Canuck son-in-law
September 23rd, 2005 | #
Unfortunately, Sabellius has been completely misrepresented. A salient historical fact is that Sabellius was a part of the Roman church when it was predeominately “modalistic monarchian” (as later scholars have “dubbed” the doctrine). The Roman bishops (Victor, Zephyrinus, Callistus) were all of the same belief concerning the Godhead as Sabellius. Modalistic monarchian does not deny the humanity of Christ, and correctly exalts His divinity. It teaches no “committee” of “divine persons” in heaven, but merely emphasizes that the incarnation was God the Father manifest in the flesh as Jesus Christ. No “trinity”.
January 31st, 2006 | #
Its very said to say bad things about what people really dont study and search out. what i mean is the doctrine of the trinity, in St. Matt. 28:18 dismisses any such teaching of a trinity. come on lets us be real and such the bible as it is written and not just follow a bunch of antichrist. Satan even knows that thier is not a trinity but men are so ignorant of God’s word. Jesus is the only God there is, for he is Father,Son,Holy Ghost in Modes only God is not a freak with three heads. The Book of Acts Gives us the history of the Apostles under the leadership of the Holy Ghost. No where in Acts did any one Baptize in the trinity titles only in Jesus name because they knew who Jesus was and none of them use the titles Father,Son, and Holy Ghost. Read and Obey Acts 2:38 God bless:smile:
March 17th, 2006 | #
There’s a certain amount of confusion with regards to modalism, to be sure. And yes, at times many of what are now regarded as heresies were main-stream. Still, the weakness of modalism has always struck me as two-fold. How do you explain the scene at Jesus’ baptism where all three persons seem to be present and acting independently? and Just who was Jesus praying to if He were the mode of God in that day?
March 17th, 2006 | #
Deleted by administrator on the basis of this phrase: “WE CAN KNOW THAT THE TRINITY IS SATANIC AND MEN WHO ARE SATANS MINISTERS PREACH IT”
I do not appreciate being called a minister of Satan. Please find another blog.
January 24th, 2007 | #