What is Sabellianism?

In the third century the Manicheans arose, a sect which held the eternity of matter, as well as denying Christ. In the beginning of this same age the Godhead was declared to be but One Person. The Son and the Holy Ghost were but modifications of the revelation of the Father. About the middle of the century Sabellius openly taught that the Word and the Holy Spirit were only functions of the Deity; that God in heaven was the Father of all; that He condescended to be born of the Virgin, and thus was the Son, the Word; and that He diffused Himself under the appearance of tongues of fire on the apostles, and thus was called the Holy Ghost. Hence though not the originator, this heresy is called after his name, the Sabellian heresy. The distinction of the Persons in the Trinity was thus denied, and the real incarnation, suffering, and death of Christ go with it. And so intimate is the connection between the truth of God and Christ, and the salvation of man, that if part of it be lost or given up, the foundation is destroyed upon which the righteousness and the grace of God can together provide a ransom for man.

Solomon, the wisest of men, wrote, “The thing that has been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is NO NEW THING under the sun” (Ecc. 1:9). Unitarian doctrines are no new thing. They were held in various forms as far back as the 3rd century. Sabellius taught there is only one God, the Father; the titles, Son and Holy Spirit, he said, being different designations of the one God. This heresy was condemned at a council held in Rome in 260 A.D.

As a matter of fact, instead of being new light, it is a very old error, an error which, from time to time, has gained a new Lease of life, so that there is nothing new about it at all. It is really Sabellianism, only perhaps under a new guise. This early teacher, in opposition to Tritheism, maintained there was only one God, but that He sometimes acted "as Father, sometimes as Son, sometimes as Spirit, and sometimes as all three."

The writer, we quote, goes on to say: "It is but Sabellianism exaggerated to maintain that the persons are only notions of ours: and that, except in our perception, they would not exist at all… According to this form of the theory, the difference between the persons only began when there was an intelligent creation to see the difference… It is not therefore the original and eternal condition of God, but only began with the beginning of the world." [or, as some would say, with Incarnation]. The Scriptures would then be "no true revelation of the nature of God: on the contrary they would suggest what is actually false."

That the description here given of a form of Sabellianism does not differ materially from what has recently been claimed, in a certain quarter, to be new truth, may be seen if the following quotations are compared with what has been already stated.

Those who propagate such views have been accused of what is known as Sabellianism. This is a mistake. Sabellius of N. Africa (200 A.D.) taught that God is essentially Uni-personal, and that what we speak of as three Personal Subsistencies in the Unity of the Godhead, were really only threefold in manifestation; that the same Person, as Father, purposed to save; as Son, accomplished redemption, and, as Holy Spirit, came to lead sinners to Christ. Popular illustrations of the "Three in One"—from the nature of light or the mode of existence of certain substances are essentially Sabellian and should be avoided. Such teaching is of course fundamentally unsound. But the special denials combated here lend themselves more to tritheism. Instead of a past eternity and an Old and a New Testament, full of the relations of three Divine Persons in the Unity of the Godhead in intimate relation one to another, as Father, Son and Spirit (and no other possible relation is suggested), we are told to think of three Divine Beings, how related is not revealed, in a cold, colourless, blank eternity as far as Divine affections are concerned. Beings all the replica one of another, and of course without any subordination for mutual purposes, which in their shallow way these errorists declare to be incompatible, "if words mean anything," a favourite phrase of their school, with the equality of the Divine Persons, as they understand the phrase.

It has been said that God has been pleased thus far to reveal Himself in three Persons, but that these are only modal displays of Himself, which could be and will be multiplied far beyond this number. This is the fatal error of Sabellianism, an error which is deadly, because it practically robs us of the sense of our knowledge of God, and indeed destroys any true apprehension of the personality of the Father, Son and Spirit. As a matter of fact, Sabellianism does not hold to personality in any true sense. How could it, if our knowledge of God is not yet rounded out? The Son, and the Father, and the Holy Spirit are but modes of divine revelation and not Persons at all! Sabellianism, therefore, leads to two opposite errors. On the one hand, it gives us a heartless monotheism, in which the divine personality is removed entirely from our knowledge, and we only have Him in some of the many forms in which He is pleased to make Himself known. It is monotheism, without the hope of ever passing into any true knowledge of God. On the other hand, it opens the way for that dreary pantheism which dissipates all thought of divine personality, and makes God an infinite, indeed, and all-pervasive essence, confused however so completely with His creation that, as a matter of fact, we lose both the thought of the creature as well as the Creator.

Sabellianism, which holds that there is but one God under three different names.

As we shall see, we are dependent on the Holy Spirit for all we know of God in His word, but through a misunderstanding or a mistranslation of John 16:13, it has been thought that the Spirit tells us nothing about Himself. Competent authorities tell us it ought to read thus, "He shall not speak from Himself." Compare this with John 5:19, "The Son can do nothing of Himself." Both texts show the mutual activities of Father, Son and Spirit. From the above remarks — which were necessary to guard us from Tritheism on the one hand, which is three gods, or Sabellianism on the other hand, which is one god with three different names — we now proceed to dwell on the office and work of the Holy Spirit.

"The neuter hen, (one) denotes, according to the connection and for the purpose of the argument, unity of will and power; which rests on the unity of essence or nature: for power is one of the divine attributes, which are not outside of the divine essence, but constitute it. Even if we confine hen to dynamic unity, we have here one of the strongest arguments for the strict divinity of Christ. It is implied even more in esmen (we are) than in hen. No creature could possibly thus associate himself in one common plural with God Almighty without shocking blasphemy or downright madness. In this brief sentence we have, as Augustine and Bengel observe, a refutation both of Arianism and Sabellianism: hen refutes the former by asserting the dynamic (and, by implication, the essential) unity of the Father and the Son. 'I and the Father' and 'we are' refute the latter by asserting the personal distinction. Sabellianism would require the masculine eis, instead of the neuter; and this would be inconsistent with 'We are,' and the self-conscious 'I.'"

"We are One," ἕν, neuter. It is not one in will or purpose only, for this in the case of Jesus might still be frustrated, but that will and power coalesce in the person of the Speaker. In these verses the distinction of Persons and unity of Nature alike come out. See, further, John 12:45, John 14:9 f., John 17:21, and cf. Heb. 1:3. The Sabellian and Patripassian (Swedenborgian) theory breaks down when faced with the words: the Father and JESUS are not one "Person", whilst the one nature contradicts Arians (Socinians). The contemporary Jews understood the Lord's statement, whilst their descendants and "Unitarians" miss its meaning.

It was not the Sabellian denial of distinct personality, but the refusal to the Son, and of course to the Spirit, of true, proper, essential, and eternal Deity.