Was Tertullian a Sabellian? [closed]

Question

Recently, I stated in an article that Tertullian was a Sabellian. One person objected and quoted a passage that states that Tertullian was “one of the chief critics of Sabellianism.” Consequently, I removed that statement from my article, but I also continued to read and think. My response to this issue is now as follows:

Tertullian’s Enemy

Tertullian did not oppose Sabellius as such. Tertullian (ca. 160–225) wrote slightly before Sabellius. For example:

“Shortly after Tertullian’s day, a theologian named Sabellius gave ...” (Litfin) (Bryan M. Litfin, University of Virginia, Professor of Theology at Moody Bible Institute, Chicago)

Tertullian’s enemies were the Monarchian theologians. For example:

“The treatise Against Praxeas is widely recognized as Tertullian’s greatest work on the Trinity. The view apparently taught by Praxeas has come to be called ‘modalism’, thanks to that designation appearing in Adolf von Harnack’s History of Dogma (1897). Tertullian simply calls his opponent a ‘monarchian’.” (Litfin)

The following quote describes the theology of Tertullian's enemies:

Tertullian's "efforts were directed against a view whose chief error was to conflate the Father and Son, meaning that, among other things, the Father suffered on the Cross—a view known as ‘patripassianism’, which Tertullian found abhorrent.” (Litfin)

The Monarchians were the people who conflated Father and Son. They said that Father and Son are two names for the same Entity. For example:

“This ‘monarchian’ view was ... suggesting the Father and Son were different expressions of the same being, without any personal distinctions between them. In other words, the Father is himself the Son, and therefore experiences the Son’s human frailties.” (Litfin)

“In the words of Noetus: … the Father … Himself became His own Son.” “It was therefore God who was born from a virgin and who confessed himself to humankind as the Son of God. At the cross, God commended his spirit to himself, as he acted to be dead, but he was not dead in reality, although he raised himself on the 3rd day.” (Willem Oliver) (Willem H. Oliver, Department of Christian Spirituality, Church History and Missiology, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa)

“The Latin Fathers … called them 'patripassians' because they have identified the Father and the Son to such an extent that they believed that it was the Father who suffered and died on the cross.” (Willem Oliver)

As already mentioned above:

“Adolph Von Harnack coined the term 'Modalism' for this 2nd-century doctrine, which referred to the Trinity as consisting of 'three modes or aspects of one divine existence'.” (Willem Oliver)

Logos-theologian

Tertullian was not alone in his war against the Monarchians. As from the late second century, following Justin Martyr, non-Jewish Christianity was dominated by Logos-theology. It taught a two-stage existence for the Logos: He always existed inside God but became a separate Being - a distinct Reality - when God decided to create. (See - The Apologists.)

Consequently, in Tertullian's day, in the early third century, the two main competing Christological views were Logos-theology (the Apologists) and Monarchianism. Monarchians objected that:

"The theology of the Apologists involves a division in the being and unity of God that is unacceptable.” (LA, 68)

Logos-theology teaches two creators and two Gods (bi-theism), “inconsistent with monotheism (Tertullian Praxeas, ch. 3)” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Tertullian was a Logos-theologian.

For example, similar to the Logos-theologians:

“For Tertullian, the Son is second in order and comes from the Father in connection with the Father's decision to create, he also insists that the Son was always in the Father: the same two-stage conception ...” (LA, 73-74)

“Tertullian … believed and taught that, though the Son or Logos was eternally within the being of the Father, he only became distinct … at a particular point for the purposes of creation, revelation and redemption” (RH, 872)

Tertullian, therefore, was one of the Logos-theologians:

“When he (Tertullian) is examined against the background of his immediate predecessors, he falls into place as a typical second-century Logos theologian.” (Litfin)

“His ideas were essentially those of the Greek Logos theologians combined with insights from Bishop Irenaeus.” (Litfin)

As a Logos-theologian, he was one of those who opposed Monarchianism:

“Tertullian's targets here are Monarchian theologians for whom the Word does not exist as a distinct existing thing.” (LA, 74)

Ayres here uses the word “thing.” That is not meant to be disrespectful. In the context of the Arian Controversy with its ambiguous terminology, “thing” is a useful word because it is devoid of content. But, perhaps a more neutral word such as ‘entity’ would have been better.

Sabellianism is Monarchianism.

So, Tertullian's enemy was Monarchianism. The purpose of this section, however, is to show that Sabellianism is another name for Monarchianism. Both systems refuse to acknowledge the distinct existence of the Persons. Both claim that Father, Son, and Spirit are simply three names for the same Reality. For example:

Hanson defines Sabellianism as the “refusal to acknowledge the distinct existence of the Persons.” (RH, 844)

Referring to the Dedication creed, Hanson says: “Its chief bête noire [the thing that it particularly dislikes] is SABELLIANISM, the denial of a distinction between the three within the Godhead.” (RH, 287)

Ayres says similarly: “The [Dedication] creed clearly and strongly argues against SABELLIAN emphases and those emphases were associated with Marcellan theology. We see these emphases, for instance, in the insistence that there are three names which ‘signify exactly the particular hypostasis and order and glory of each’.” (LA, 119)

“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. Paulinus' association with the remaining followers of Marcellus and his continuing to favour the expression 'one hypostasis' … rendered him suspect.” (RH, 801)

Basil of Caesarea “goes on to introduce another argument in favour of homoousios: 'this expression (homoousios) also corrects the fault of SABELLIUS for it excludes identity of Person (hypostasis) … for nothing is consubstantial with itself. (RH, 694-5)

Sabellianism, therefore, is another name for Monarchianism. For example:

“This movement called themselves 'Monarchians', the Greek Fathers called them 'Sabellians', as Sabellius was the person who has put this doctrine in its philosophical form, supplying its metaphysical basis.” (Willem Oliver)

Since Tertullian opposed Monarchianism, and since Sabellianism is another name for Monarchianism, Tertullian was a critic of Sabellianism.

Sabellius was not a Monarchian.

Sabellius (fl. ca. 215) lived more or less at the same time in history as Tertullian (ca. 160–225).

Sabellianism was named after Sabellius. It is often stated that Sabellius, as in Monarchianism, taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are simply three names for the same Reality. However, if we believe Von Mosheim, Sabellius also opposed that concept.

None of Sabellius' writings have survived. Everything we know about him comes from the writings of his opponents and we know that one's enemies seldom give a fair reflection of one's views. So, we are not quite sure what he taught. But Von Mosheim made a study and concluded that Sabellius, while maintaining that Father, Son, and Spirit are one Reality, still managed to distinguish between them. Sabellius, namely, argued that Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct forms or portions of the one divine Being. For example:

“While he maintained that there was but one person in God, he yet held that there are three forms, or aspects of the one God. Divers forms of one and the same being involve some real distinction.” (page 218)

“Sabellius …  believed that, as a man in just one person, and yet in his person three things may be discriminated, not in thought only, but as having a real existence, namely, the body, the soul, and the spirit, so, also, although there is but one undivided person in God, yet in that person, the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit can be discriminated, not in thought only, but they must be really discriminated and kept distinct.” (219-220)

“As Sabellius held to the simple unity of the person and nature of God, and yet supposed the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, to differ really from each other, and not to be three names of the one God, acting in different ways; we are obliged to believe, that he considered the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as being three portions of the divine nature.” (220)

Sabellianism teaches one hypostasis.

So, if we are to define Sabellianism to include Sabellius' theology, it would be a wider concept than simply Monarchianism.

Note that, in the descriptions of Sabellianism quoted above, it is twice defined as that only one hypostasis exists in the Godhead. Today, hypostasis is often translated as 'Person'. But the following quote explains the meaning of hypostasis during the fourth century:

“To defend themselves against charges of Sabellianism, the Nicenes developed not just the language of three prosopa, or ‘roles’ within the Trinity, but three hypostaseis, or distinct personalities. This approach proved problematic … for the Greek word hypostasis … meant ‘to stand under or among’, that is, ‘to be existent’. Such language suggested three distinct existences within the Godhead, and this sounded to nervous Christian ears like tritheism.” (Litfin)

A hypostasis, therefore, is a distinct existence. Sabellius believed that "there is but one undivided person in God;" i.e., only one hypostasis.

To believe, like the Monarchians did, that Father = Son = Spirit, means that only one hypostasis exists. However, as the Sabellius example shows, it is possible to believe in one hypostasis but still to distinguish between Father, Son, and Spirit. To define Sabellianism as the belief in one single hypostasis, therefore, is a wider concept. The question then is, if we use this wider definition of Sabellianism, was Tertullian a Sabellian? Did he teach one or more hypostases? 

Tertullian's Theology

Anticipates Nicene Consensus

“Tertullian is often portrayed as a prescient figure who accurately anticipated the Nicene consensus about the Trinity.” For example:

“He also offered a formula that, more than a century later, would assume the status of doctrinal orthodoxy. God is unam substantiam in tribus cohaerentibus, ‘one substance cohering in three’.” (Litfin)

In Tertullians' theology, “while the Son does share the substance of the Father, both are distinct Persons. This is precisely the trinitarian terminology that would eventually win the day.” (Litfin)

Logos Theologist

However, as shown above, Tertullian was a Logos-theologian. That has the following consequences:

SUBORDINATION

The Son and the Spirit are subordinate to the Father:

“He tended toward a profound theological subordination of the Son and the Spirit. ... The Trinity, he believed, possessed a genuine, stepwise ranking according to each Person’s gradus, forma, and species. This is indeed a bold view of the architecture of the Trinity, one that skirts close to Arian subordinationism.” (Litfin)

“The Son and Spirit are emissaries of the Father’s will—not ontologically inferior to him, yet ranked lower.” (Litfin)

THE FATHER WAS NOT ALWAYS FATHER.

In Logos-theology and Tertullian, the Logos always existed inside God and was only begotten to become a distinct entity when He was begotten from the Father:

“But even more problematic from an orthodox point of view was Tertullian’s firm conviction that a relationship of fatherhood and sonship is not intrinsic to the Trinity.” (Litfin)

“The notion that the First Person was not essentially and eternally a Father … became anathema to later generations. Yet this was precisely what Tertullian believed, and for this reason his doctrine of temporal paternity and filiation was closer to the Arian point of view.” (Litfin)

Conclusion

“Tertullian was not really a forward-thinking Nicene trinitarian born a century out of time, but a typical theologian of his day. ... We should not be too quick to anoint Tertullian as the Latin foundation upon which the Greek edifice of Nicaea was going to be built.” (Litfin)

“Historical theologians need to start admitting that Tertullian was a far cry from being fully Nicene.” (Litfin)

Right Words

Tertullian is regarded as important, not because of his theology, but for introducing certain words into the debate that later became 'orthodox', such as 'trinity', 'substance', and 'person'. For example:

“Why such enthusiasm for Tertullian’s trinitarianism? As the above selections demonstrate, the answer is essentially terminological. Historical theologians like to suggest that Tertullian’s use of the term trinitas, and his one substantia/three personae formula, make him a kind of proto-Nicene hero.” (Litfin)

How many hypostases?

But, to determine whether Tertullian was a Sabellian, we need to determine whether he taught one single hypostasis.

Tertullian and his fellow Logos theologians accused the Monarchians "of teaching that the Son and the Spirit do not have real independent existence and are in fact simply modes of the Father's being.” (LA, 68) In contrast:

“Tertullian argues for the true existence of the Son as a distinct reality.” (LA, 74-75).

“In Tertullian’s new trinitarian schema, God is characterized by a single divine ‘substance’ of rulership over the cosmos. Yet he is fundamentally arranged or disposed in three personae.” (Litfin)

But the question is, was that a distinction within one hypostasis, as in Sabellius' theology? What is the nature of the personae in Tertullian?

Part of the Father

Consistent with Logos-theology, “Tertullian … believed and taught that, though the Son or Logos was eternally within the being of the Father, he only became distinct … at a particular point for the purposes of creation, revelation and redemption.” (RH, 872) 

However, to overcome the criticism of the Monarchians, namely that Logos-theology teaches two creators and two Gods, “inconsistent with monotheism (Tertullian Praxeas, ch. 3),” Tertullian adjusted the standard Logos presentation by saying that the Logos did not become distinct from the substance of the Father. He was formed from a portion of the Father's substance but that portion remained part of the Father. So, there is only one substance and only one God, and that is the Father. For example:

“Tertullian believed … (that) at a certain juncture, God, while not ceasing to be what he always was, nonetheless extended himself or projected himself forward, so that the three Persons became more clearly distinguished. By means of these now-more-distinct Persons, the one God creates the world, rules over it, and enters into it for salvation.” (Litfin)

The point is that the Son always was part of the Father and always will remain part of the Father. In the same way, the Holy Spirit is part of the Father. So, it is possible to distinguish between the Father and the Son but, if the Son is part of the Father, then there is only one hypostasis. For example:

"For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole." (Against Praxeas, Chapter 9)

How Tertullian used the term substance, it means one hypostasis. For example:

“The term substantia as Tertullian used it signified the existence of a single, discrete entity (here, the One God).” (Litfin)

"The word in Greek translation of Tertullian's una substantia would not be the word homoousios but mia hypostasis (one hypostasis)." (RH, 193)

Is it, therefore, valid to classify Tertullian as a Sabellian, if one uses the wider definition of Sabellianism as that God is only one single hypostasis?

Answer 1

Was Tertullian a Sabellian?

The short answer is no, but history can be very murky at times in order to understand the nuances of things in the Early Church.

For one thing, Tertullian is not recognized as a saint in either the West or the East, even though he is recognized of one of the Church Fathers due to the amount of ecclesiastical works he wrote.

Although Tertullian was never formally separated from the Church, either by his own initiative or by the Church, he nevertheless maintained Montanist viewpoints. For this reason, neither West or East has ever considered him a candidate for canonization.

Montanism, known by its adherents as the New Prophecy, was an early Christian movement of the late 2nd century, later referred to by the name of its founder, Montanus. Montanism held views about the basic tenets of Christian theology similar to those of the wider Christian Church, but it was labelled a heresy for its belief in new prophetic figures. The prophetic movement called for a reliance on the spontaneity of the Holy Spirit and a more conservative personal ethic.

Montanism originated in Phrygia, a province of Anatolia, and flourished throughout the region, leading to the movement being referred to elsewhere as Cataphrygian (meaning it was "from Phrygia") or simply as Phrygian. They were sometimes also called Pepuzians after the town of Pepuza, which they regarded as the new Jerusalem. Sometimes the Pepuzians were distinguished from other Montanists for despising those not living in the new Jerusalem. The Montanist movement spread rapidly to other regions in the Roman Empire before Christianity was generally tolerated or became legal following the Edict of Serdica in 311. It persisted in some isolated places into the 6th century.

The Montanists did not want to separate themselves from the wider Christian Church, and the Christian theologian Tertullian even recorded an event where a bishop almost declared Montanism as orthodox, however changing his mind later. Some contemporary Christian theologians have drawn parallels between Montanism and modern-day Protestant movements, such as the Charismatic movement, as well as Pentecostalism (including Oneness Pentecostals).

The form of Montanism that Tertullian was into was very different from that was taught in Anatolia. The Montanism of North African and the form of Montanism in Anatolia had many differences, the Montanists in North Africa believed that the New Testament was the supreme rule of Christian life and theology, bishops were successors of the apostles and held much similar theology as the Great church, while Montanus himself had different views. Tertullian was from North Africa.

Now Sabellianism is the Eastern Church equivalent to Patripassianism in the Western Church, which are both forms of theological modalism. Condemned as heresy, Modalism is the belief that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three different modes of God, as opposed to a Trinitarian view of three distinct persons within the Godhead.

Some ecclesiastical writers of Montanism taught that "the Father is the Son", and is counted as a Monarchian of the type of Noetus or Sabellius.

Modalists

The Monarchians properly so-called (Modalists) exaggerated the oneness of the Father and the Son so as to make them but one Person; thus the distinctions in the Holy Trinity are energies or modes, not Persons: God the Father appears on earth as Son; hence it seemed to their opponents that Monarchians made the Father suffer and die. In the West they were called Patripassians, whereas in the East they are usually called Sabellians. The first to visit Rome was probably Praxeas, who went on to Carthage some time before 206-208; but he was apparently not in reality a heresiarch, and the arguments refuted by Tertullian somewhat later in his book "Adversus Praxean" are doubtless those of the Roman Monarchians.

History

Noetus (from whom the Noetians) was a Smyrnaean (Epiphanius, by a slip, says an Ephesian). He called himself Moses, and his brother Aaron. When accused before the presbyterate of teaching that the Father suffered, he denied it; but after having made a few disciples he was again interrogated, and expelled from the Church. He died soon after, and did not receive Christian burial. Hippolytus mockingly declares him to have been a follower of Heraclitus, on account of the union of the opposites which he taught when he called God both visible and invisible, passible and impassible. His pupil Epigonus came to Rome. As he was not mentioned in the "Syntagma" of Hippolytus, which was written in one of the first five years of the third century, he was not then well known in Rome, or had not yet arrived. According to Hippolytus (Philos., IX, 7), Cleomenes, a follower of Epigonus, was allowed by Pope Zephyrinus to establish a school, which flourished under his approbation and that of Callistus. Hagemann urges that we should conclude that Cleomenes was not a Noetian at all, and that he was an orthodox opponent of the incorrect theology of Hippolytus. The same writer gives most ingenious and interesting (though hardly convincing) reasons for identifying Praxeas with Callistus; he proves that the Monarchians attacked in Tertullian's "Contra Praxean" and in the "Philosophumena" had identical tenets which were not necessarily heretical; he denies that Tertullian means us to understand that Praxeas came to Carthage, and he explains the nameless refuter of Praxeas to be, not Tertullian himself, but Hippolytus. It is true that it is easy to suppose Tertullian and Hippolytus to have misrepresented the opinions of their opponents, but it cannot be proved that Cleomenes was not a follower of the heretical Noetus, and that Sabellius did not issue from his school; further, it is not obvious that Tertullian would attack Callistus under a nickname.

Sabellius soon became the leader of the Monarchians in Rome, perhaps even before the death of Zephyrinus (c. 218). He is said by Epiphanius to have founded his views on the Gospel according to the Egyptians, and the fragments of that apocryphon support this statement. Hippolytus hoped to convert Sabellius to his own views, and attributed his failure in this to the influence of Callistus. That pope, however, excommunicated Sabellius c. 220 ("fearing me", says Hippolytus). Hippolytus accuses Callistus of now inventing a new heresy by combining the views of Theodotus and those of Sabellius, although he excommunicated them both.

Hippolytus tells us that Pope Zephyrinus, whom he represents as a stupid old man, declared at the instance of Callistus: "I know one God Christ Jesus, and besides Him no other Who was born and Who suffered"; but he added: "Not the Father died, but the Son". The reporter is an unsympathetic adversary; but we can see why the aged pope was viewing the simple assertions of Sabellius in a favorable light. Hippolytus declares that Callistus said that the Father suffered with the Son, and Tertullian says the same of the Monarchians whom he attacks. Hagemann thinks Callistus-Praxeas especially attacked the doctrine of the Apologists and of Hippolytus and Tertullian, which assigned all such attributes as impassibility and invisibility to the Father and made the Son alone capable of becoming passible and visible, ascribing to Him the work of creation, and all operations ad extra. It is true that the Monarchians opposed this Platonizing in general, but it is not evident that they had grasped the principle that all the works of God ad extra are common to the Three Persons as proceeding form the Divine Nature; and they seem to have said simply that God as Father is invisible and impassible, but becomes visible and passible as Son. This explanation brings them curiously into line with their adversaries. - Monarchians

As one on the fringes of Montanism, the following of Tertullian cannot have been large; but a Tertullianist sect survived him and its remnants were reconciled to the Church by St. Augustine (Hær., lxxxvi).

Answer 2

A short answer: It is not valid to classify Tertullian as a Sabelliian. The OP states:

“In Tertullian’s new trinitarian schema, God is characterized by a single divine ‘substance’ of rulership over the cosmos. Yet he is fundamentally arranged or disposed in three personae.” (Litfin)... But the question is, was that a distinction within one hypostasis, as in Sabellius' theology?

But this is a problem because Tertullian wrote in Latin while Sabellius wrote in Greek. "Ousia" is not nearly as different from "hypostasis" in Greek as "substantia" is from "persona" in Latin. Not only that but the terms were evolving from earlier meanings during the time in question. Johannes Argentus deals with this problem in detail in Ousía and hypostasis from the philosophers to the councils

Conclusion: the question is clouded by differences in language and the fact that the meaning of the Greek terms was evolving during the trinitarian controversies. But since Sabellianism was declared to be a heresy and Tertullian is seen as the pioneer of western orthodox trininatarian, it would be an injustice to classify him as a Sabellian. On the other hand, examining the similarities and differences between the two teachings is a worthwhile endeavor.