Timeline for Was Athanasius a Sabellian?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 26, 2023 at 8:35 | history | edited | curiousdannii♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 15 characters in body
|
| Nov 25, 2023 at 14:23 | comment | added | Andries | @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) | |
| Nov 24, 2023 at 12:38 | comment | added | Nigel J | @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. | |
| Nov 24, 2023 at 6:26 | comment | added | Andries | 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. | |
| Nov 24, 2023 at 6:10 | comment | added | Andries | 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). | |
| Nov 23, 2023 at 11:16 | comment | added | Nigel J | @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. | |
| Nov 23, 2023 at 11:02 | comment | added | Henry | 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. | |
| Nov 22, 2023 at 14:30 | history | edited | Nigel J | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 97 characters in body
|
| Nov 22, 2023 at 13:47 | history | answered | Nigel J | CC BY-SA 4.0 |