Sabellius
Sabellius
Main page
S

Sabellius

logo
Community Hub0 subscribers
Read side by side
Sabellius
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Sabellius (fl. ca. 215) was a third-century priest and theologian who most likely taught in Rome, but may have been a North African from Libya. Basil and others call him a Libyan from Pentapolis, but this seems to rest on the fact that Pentapolis was a place where the teachings of Sabellius thrived, according to Dionysius of Alexandria, c. 260.[1] What is known of Sabellius is drawn mostly from the polemical writings of his opponents.

History

[edit]

The Catholic Encyclopedia writes:

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.[1]

Sabellius' opposition to the idea of the Trinity led to his excommunication as a heretic by Callixtus in AD 220. Wace and Bunsen have both suggested that Calixtus' action was motivated more by a desire for unity rather than by conviction.[2]

Theology

[edit]

Sabellius taught that God was single and indivisible, with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being three modes or manifestations of one divine Person.

Modalism

[edit]

This understanding has been called Sabellianism or modalistic monarchianism.[3] A Sabellian modalist would say that the One God successively revealed Himself to man throughout time as the Father in Creation; the Son in Redemption; and the Spirit in Sanctification and Regeneration. (Because of this focus on God's revelation of himself to man, Modalism is often confused with economic Trinitarianism).

  • The suggestion of development and change within the Godhead was seen as contradicting the concept of impassibility.
  • It also stood in contrast to the position of distinct persons existing within a single godhead by representing Father, Son and Spirit as different “modes” (hence the term "modalism"), “aspects” or “faces”, “roles”, "masks" (persona in Latin)[4] that God presented successively to the world.
  • More importantly it stood against the Trinitarian teaching that "God was one God in Father" rather than One in the Father's essence only.[5]

It has been noted also that the Greek term "homoousios", which Athanasius of Alexandria favored, was actually a term that was reported to be put forth and favored also by Sabellius, and was a term that many followers of Athanasius took issue with and were uneasy about. Their objection to the term "homoousios" was that it was considered to be "un-Scriptural, suspicious, and of a Sabellian tendency."[6] Athanasius, however, used the term differently than Sabellius, affirming oneness of the Divine Essence while maintaining the distinctions between the Divine Persons.

The term "homoousios" was accepted, however, at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., using the Athanasian formula and doctrine, of the Father and Son being distinct persons, though co-eternal, co-equal, and con-substantial. The objections to using the term were addressed by clarifying that it was not being used in the Sabellian sense of oneness of Person, but rather to denote oneness of Essence while affirming the distinctions of the Persons or "hypostases".

Persona

[edit]

According to Epiphanius of Salamis, Sabellius used the sun's characteristics as an analogy of God's nature. Just as the sun has "three powers" (warmth, light, and circular form), so God has three aspects: the warming power answers to the Holy Spirit; the illuminating power, to the Son; and the form or figure, to the Father.[7] Sabellius used the term "prosopa" which is Greek for "faces" to describe how the person of God has three faces, this idea is found in 2 Corinthians 4:6 "...God’s glory displayed in the face (prosopon - singular form of prosopa) of Christ.

God in essence

[edit]

Johann Lorenz von Mosheim described Sabellius' views:

"But while Sabellius maintained that there was but one divine person, he still believed the distinction of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, described in the Scriptures, to be a real distinction, and not a mere appellative or nominal one. That is, he believed the one divine person whom he recognized, to have three distinct forms, which are really different, and which should not be confounded".[8]

Non-Trinitarian

[edit]

The Teachings of Sabellius were most vigorously opposed by Tertullian in North Africa and Hippolytus in Rome, who both proposed a hierarchical trinity of subordinate persons.[9] Tertullian is reported to have given Sabellius' doctrine the name Patripassianism, meaning ‘the father suffered’, since Sabellius made no true distinction of persons between the Father and the Son. The term is from the Latin words pater for "father", and passus from the verb "to suffer", because it implied that the Father suffered on the cross. Tertullian coined the term in his work Adversus Praxeas, Chapter I: "By this Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome: he drove away prophecy, and he brought in heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete, and he crucified the Father." This charge he applied to Sabellius as well.[10] This is a distortion of Sabellius' teaching according to Clissold, who quotes scholars who have appealed to Epiphanius' writings.[11] Epiphanius (died 403) says that in his time Sabellians were still numerous in Mesopotamia and Rome - a fact confirmed by an inscription discovered at Rome in 1742, evidently erected by Sabellian Christians.[12]

Modern movements

[edit]

Although there are some doctrinal characteristics shared by a modern group called Oneness Pentecostals with those of Sabellius, the former do not teach the exact doctrine of Dispensational Modalism as purportedly taught by Sabellius. Some consider this, however, an unfounded assertion, as we have no writings of Sabellius to definitively prove for one way or another.

So it cannot be certain whether Sabellius taught a dispensational Modalism or taught what is known today as the Oneness Pentecostal theology since all we have of his teaching comes through the writing of his enemies. All of his original works were destroyed. For example, the doctrines that were purportedly believed by the Templars have recently been shown to be falsifications. The following excerpts demonstrate some of the known doctrinal characteristics of ancient Sabellians which may compare with the doctrines in the modern Oneness movement. Both movements hold that the Biblical God is one Person, not Three. And that Father, Son, and Spirit are different aspects or manifestations of that one Person, and not three distinct persons.

Sabellianism was doctrine adhered to by a sect of the Montanists. The Montanists are the same sect that Tertullian himself was a member of when he wrote (the anti-Sabellian) Against Praxeas.[13] Apparently then, there were both Trinitarian and modalist participants in the Montanism which was later condemned. Cyprian wrote of Sabellians "How, when God the Father is not known-nay, is even blasphemed-can they who among the heretics are said to be baptized in the name of Christ only, be judged to have obtained the remission of sins?"[14] In 225 AD Hippolytus spoke of them saying "Some of them assent to the heresy of the Noetians, affirming the Father Himself is the Son." Victorinus had this to say of them "Some had doubts about the baptism of those who appeared to recognize the same Father with the Son with us, yet who received the new prophets."

It is reported that some Sabellians experienced glossolalia (speaking in tongues) and baptized in the "shorter formula" because of their denial of the Trinity.[15] Sabellians were referred to by the following Church fathers: Dionysius (c.200-265 AD) wrote "Those baptized in the name of three persons...though baptized by heretics...shall not be rebaptized. But those converted from other heresies shall be perfected by the baptism of the Holy Church."[16] "Sabellius...blasphemes in saying that the Son Himself is the Father and vice versa."[17] "Jesus commands them to baptize into the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-not into a unipersonal God."[18]

Sabellianism teaching of Modalism and singular name baptism was also accompanied by glossolalia and prophecy among the above-mentioned sect of Montanists.[citation needed] In 225 AD Tertullian speaks of "those who would deserve the excellent gifts of the spirit-and who...by means of the Holy Spirit would obtain the gift of language, wisdom, and knowledge." However, none of these practices were the source of controversy concerning the Sabellians - - it was simply their Christology which proved most offensive. In any case, unlike many others deemed as heretics, the Sabellians were never excommunicated from the Church at large.[citation needed] One hundred years later, the Deacon Arius would compare Bishop Alexander to Sabellius, in effect accusing Alexander and Athanasius of reviving an old heresy, that at the very least had Sabellian leanings.[19]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Sabellius

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Sabellius (fl. c. 215) was a third-century Christian presbyter and theologian active in Rome, best known for developing Sabellianism, a form of modalistic Monarchianism that interpreted the Trinity as successive manifestations or modes of a single divine person rather than three distinct hypostases.[1] His teachings emphasized the unity of God (the "Monarchy") by positing that God reveals himself temporally as Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in sanctification, using terms like hyiopátōr (Son-Father) to describe this singular entity.[2] Excommunicated by Pope Callistus I around 220 for these views, Sabellius' doctrine was condemned as heretical by early Church authorities, including Hippolytus of Rome, who accused him of conflating the divine persons into one indivisible spirit with varying titles based on roles.[2] Dionysius of Alexandria also critiqued Sabellian ideas in letters preserved by Eusebius, arguing against the notion that the Father suffers (Patripassianism) or that the Son is identical to the Father, while affirming the eternal generation of the Son.[3] Though little is known of Sabellius' personal life or writings—none of which survive directly—his name became synonymous in the Eastern Church with modalistic tendencies, influencing later debates on Trinitarian orthodoxy, such as those involving Marcellus of Ancyra.[1] The scarcity of primary sources has led modern scholars to question traditional accounts, including unverified claims of a Libyan origin, highlighting the enigmatic nature of his historical role.[4]

Biography

Origins and Early Influences

Sabellius, a prominent third-century Christian theologian, is traditionally associated with Ptolemais in the Pentapolis region of Libya (modern-day eastern Libya), based on later accounts linking his doctrinal innovations to that North African city, as noted by Dionysius of Alexandria in his correspondence preserved by Eusebius, who describes the "doctrine now agitated in Ptolemais of Pentapolis" as a blasphemous teaching against the distinctions within the Godhead.[5] Later historians, such as Socrates Scholasticus, explicitly refer to him as "Sabellius the Libyan," reinforcing a traditional view of his roots in the Libyan Christian milieu, though modern scholars question this attribution as unverified or unlikely, and whether he was born there or served as a presbyter before relocating—if at all—remains debated.[6][4] Given the scarcity of primary sources, little is known of Sabellius's early life or influences. Within the vibrant Christian communities of Roman North Africa, if he originated there, he would have been immersed in an intellectual environment shaped by emerging debates over the nature of God. These communities, influenced by broader Hellenistic and Jewish traditions, exposed thinkers to early monarchianist ideas that emphasized God's absolute unity, originating with figures like Noetus of Smyrna in the late second century. Hippolytus of Rome, in his critique, traces the monarchianist ideas Sabellius promoted back to Noetus, portraying the latter as a pioneer who "confounded the Son with the Father" and whose views contributed to the doctrinal developments Sabellius advanced.[2] This connection highlights how Sabellius's thought developed amid a network of like-minded thinkers resisting perceived divisions in the divine essence. The socio-political landscape of North Africa under the Severan dynasty provides possible context for such ideas, if applicable to his background. Emperor Septimius Severus, himself born in Leptis Magna near the Pentapolis, issued edicts around 202 AD prohibiting conversions to Christianity and Judaism, sparking intense persecutions across the region, including documented martyrdoms in nearby Carthage. This era of imperial pressure and regional instability, amid the Roman Empire's efforts to consolidate unity, may have amplified emphases on monotheistic cohesion in local Christian circles. Sabellius's scriptural engagements, drawing heavily from Old Testament declarations of God's oneness—such as Deuteronomy 6:4—reflected this broader context, providing a foundational lens for interpreting divine singularity that resonated with communities under doctrinal and external pressures.[2]

Theological Activity in Rome

Sabellius, traditionally of Libyan origin, arrived in Rome in the early third century and quickly associated with the presbyters of the Roman church under Bishop Zephyrinus, who served from 198 to 217 AD.[7] His presence in the city positioned him within a diverse Christian community grappling with theological debates, where his background may have contributed to the resonance of his ideas among varied groups. In Rome, Sabellius emerged as a prominent teacher and preacher, focusing on the absolute oneness of God as a bulwark against what he viewed as speculative Trinitarian developments that risked dividing the divine essence.[2] He engaged actively with local Christians through instruction and discourse, drawing a significant following who regarded him as a steadfast guardian of apostolic teachings on God's unity, particularly amid tensions with adoptionist and ditheist factions. This role allowed him to influence presbyters and lay believers, fostering a network that emphasized scriptural fidelity over philosophical elaborations. Sabellius's prominence in Roman theological circles reached its height before 220 AD, coinciding with the transition from Zephyrinus to Callistus as bishop in 217 AD, during which his teachings gained traction but also sparked early divisions.[2] Interactions within the community revealed growing rifts, as his emphasis on divine unity prompted debates and resistance from figures like Hippolytus, who sought to counter what they saw as overcorrections in monarchian thought, leading to initial schisms among Roman Christians.

Core Theological Concepts

Modalistic Monarchianism

Modalistic Monarchianism, the central doctrine associated with Sabellius, posits that God exists as a single, indivisible person—emphasizing the absolute monarchy or unity of the divine essence—rather than as three distinct, co-eternal persons. In this view, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit represent successive modes or manifestations of this one God, adapting to different relational roles in salvation history without implying separate hypostases or personalities. This theology rejects any division within the Godhead, portraying the divine as a unified subject who reveals himself progressively: as Father in creation, Son in incarnation and redemption, and Holy Spirit in sanctification.[8][9] Sabellius and his adherents grounded this doctrine in scriptural interpretations that underscore divine unity over distinction. For instance, they appealed to John 14:9, where Jesus states, "He who has seen me has seen the Father," to argue that the Son is not a separate person but a visible mode of the invisible Father, manifesting the same divine essence. Similarly, passages like John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one") and Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema, affirming God's oneness) were cited to support the idea of temporary, non-eternal modes rather than co-existing hypostases, viewing these texts as evidence against any plurality that might suggest polytheism.[10][8][9] This modalistic form differs sharply from dynamic Monarchianism, such as Adoptionism, which portrays Jesus as a human figure empowered or adopted by God at baptism, denying his inherent divinity. Sabellius, by contrast, affirmed the Son's eternal pre-existence as an intrinsic aspect of the Father's mode, maintaining full divinity across all manifestations while insisting on a singular divine personhood.[8][11] Modalistic Monarchianism arose in the second and third centuries as a response to emerging Trinitarian formulations, which some perceived as introducing polytheistic elements through distinctions in the Godhead. Proponents like Sabellius, active in Rome around the early third century, sought to safeguard strict monotheism amid debates in Asia Minor and the West, where earlier Logos theologies risked diluting God's unity.[9][8]

Divine Modes and Unity

Sabellius conceptualized the divine nature as a single, indivisible essence (ousia) manifesting through three sequential modes or "faces" (prosopa), which represent temporary roles assumed by the one God in relation to creation and salvation.[2] The Father mode corresponds to God as creator and lawgiver in the Old Testament era, the Son mode to the incarnate redeemer during the time of Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit mode to the sanctifier and giver of grace in the church age, ensuring no eternal coexistence of distinct persons but rather a unified divine subject acting successively.[12] This framework upholds monarchian unity by rejecting any division into three separate hypostases or substances, insisting instead that the prosopa are mere titles or aspects of the one God, adapted to historical circumstances without compromising the underlying ousia.[2] To illustrate this unity without multiplicity, Sabellius employed the analogy of the sun, which possesses a single substance yet emits distinct powers: the orb as the Father, the light as the Son, and the heat as the Holy Spirit, all inseparable from the solar essence.[12] These modes are not concurrent but unfold temporally, with the divine ousia remaining unaltered and indivisible throughout.[13] In Christological terms, this doctrine portrays Jesus as the visible expression of the Son mode, within which the Father operates invisibly, implying that the sufferings of the Son on the cross were concurrently the Father's, though not in a corporeal sense—a position known as patripassianism.[2] Thus, Sabellius's modalism preserves divine monarchianism by subordinating all prosopa to the singular divine subject, avoiding tritheism while accommodating scriptural references to Father, Son, and Spirit as economic revelations of the one God.[13]

Controversies and Opposition

Conflicts with Church Leaders

Sabellius's primary antagonist was Hippolytus of Rome, a theologian and antipope who vehemently opposed his modalistic teachings in the work Refutation of All Heresies, composed around 222 AD. Hippolytus accused Sabellius of heresy for asserting that the Father and Son were identical, implying that the Father Himself suffered on the cross—a doctrine derisively termed "Patripassianism" by critics. In Book IX of the Refutation, Hippolytus described Sabellius's views as a blasphemous extension of earlier Noetian ideas, charging that they reduced the divine persons to mere modes of a single entity, thereby undermining the distinct roles within the Godhead.[14] Sabellius also clashed with Pope Callixtus I, whose papacy (217–222 AD) initially showed tolerance toward modalistic monarchianism but ultimately turned against it. According to Hippolytus, Callixtus initially aligned with Sabellius and the presbyter Cleomenes in promoting a form of unity that blurred distinctions between Father and Son, even while managing the church under Pope Zephyrinus. However, around 220 AD, Callixtus rejected and excommunicated Sabellius for deviating into unorthodox extremes, a move that Hippolytus portrayed as opportunistic to consolidate his own authority rather than a pure defense of orthodoxy. This rejection marked a pivotal interpersonal rift, as Callixtus sought to balance monarchian emphases on divine unity with emerging trinitarian distinctions.[14] Earlier critiques of modalist ideas by Tertullian in Against Praxeas (c. 213 AD) laid foundational influence on the anti-Sabellian opposition, predating Sabellius's prominence in Rome but targeting similar conceptions of God's singular person manifesting in different roles. Tertullian lambasted Praxeas for conflating the Father with the Son, arguing that such views fabricated a heresy from an overzealous defense of monotheism, and his vigorous Trinitarian framework—emphasizing three distinct persons in one substance—shaped the rhetorical arsenal used against Sabellius by later figures like Hippolytus. These disputes centered on scriptural exegesis, with Sabellius defending divine unity through passages like Isaiah 9:6, interpreting the Messiah as the "Everlasting Father" to affirm a singular divine identity.[15][16]

Condemnation and Excommunication

Sabellius was excommunicated by Pope Callixtus I around 220 AD, marking the first formal papal condemnation of modalistic monarchianism as heretical. This action followed intense theological disputes in Rome, where Sabellius had gained prominence among a group of monarchians, and served to distinguish the Roman church's position from his views on the indivisibility of the divine essence. Callixtus, facing accusations from figures like Hippolytus, expelled Sabellius to safeguard ecclesiastical unity while avoiding charges of heresy himself.[2][9] Callixtus affirmed a doctrinal formula that balanced the unity of God with distinctions among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—often described as a proto-Trinitarian stance. This position rejected Sabellius's modalism, which conflated the divine persons into successive modes, and emphasized their real, though unified, existence. The decision reinforced the church's opposition to teachings that blurred personal distinctions within the Godhead.[9] Subsequent ecclesiastical actions further solidified the condemnation of Sabellianism. Around 262 AD, Pope Dionysius of Rome issued a letter refuting Sabellian doctrines, stressing the distinct persons of the Trinity while upholding divine unity, in response to reports from Dionysius of Alexandria about modalist influences in Egypt. Later, the Council of Antioch in 268 AD anathematized similar views during its deposition of Paul of Samosata, whose adoptionist Monarchian views represented another non-Trinitarian challenge, extending the formal rejection across the Eastern church.[17][18] The immediate aftermath saw Sabellius's followers disperse, with the movement losing significant traction in the West following the excommunication. No writings attributed directly to Sabellius survive, as they were suppressed amid the broader ecclesiastical efforts to combat monarchianism, leaving his theology known primarily through the critiques of opponents like Hippolytus.[9]

Historical and Theological Impact

Relation to Broader Non-Trinitarian Thought

Sabellius's theology aligned closely with that of earlier modalists such as Noetus of Smyrna and Praxeas, who emphasized the absolute unity of God by viewing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as successive manifestations or modes of a single divine person rather than distinct hypostases.[19][7] This shared commitment to modalistic monarchianism distinguished their views from emerging Trinitarian frameworks, which sought to balance divine unity with personal distinctions within the Godhead.[20] In contrast to Arius's subordinationism, which portrayed the Son as a created being inferior to the Father and thus compromised strict monotheism, Sabellius rejected any notion of the Son's derivation or subordination, insisting instead on the full identity of the divine persons in essence and operation.[20] This fundamental difference highlighted modalism's prioritization of God's indivisible oneness over hierarchical distinctions, positioning Sabellianism as a more rigorous defense of monotheism amid early Christian theological diversification.[21] Within the broader spectrum of monarchianism, Sabellius represented the "strict" or modalistic variant, which maintained the eternal unity of God through modal revelations, whereas "dynamic" or adoptionist forms, exemplified by Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, emphasized the indwelling of the divine Logos in a human Jesus elevated at baptism without implying full modal identity.[22] This distinction underscored Sabellius's more radical insistence on the non-distinctness of divine persons, influencing later patristic critiques that grouped modalists together while differentiating them from adoptionists.[23] Sabellius's ideas also influenced figures like Marcellus of Ancyra in the fourth century, whose theology was criticized as Sabellian for emphasizing divine unity, contributing to ongoing Trinitarian controversies. Sabellius's ideas exerted influence on fourth-century debates by serving as a foil for orthodox formulations, particularly at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, where concerns about modalism served as a foil for orthodox formulations, influencing the creed to affirm the coeternal distinctness of the Son from the Father and ensuring the homoousios clause avoided both Arian subordination and Sabellian conflation.[24] Church fathers like Athanasius later referenced Sabellianism in defending Nicene orthodoxy against accusations of modalistic tendencies, solidifying its role as a benchmark for what Trinitarian doctrine was not.[25] Non-Trinitarian thinkers like Sabellius underscored monotheism as a bulwark against perceived pagan triadic influences in Christianity, arguing that modal unity preserved the Jewish Shema's declaration of God's oneness without introducing multiplicity akin to Hellenistic polytheism.[23] This emphasis resonated in early contexts where Christian apologists sought to differentiate their faith from Greco-Roman religious pluralism, framing modalism as a return to scriptural purity over speculative tri-personality.[26]

Influence on Later Movements

Sabellian ideas, emphasizing the unity of God through successive modes rather than distinct persons, experienced suppression during the Middle Ages but left latent echoes in certain Eastern Orthodox mystical traditions that stressed divine simplicity as an indivisible unity without composition.[27] This emphasis on God's non-composite nature, as articulated by theologians like Gregory of Nyssa, paralleled modalistic concerns for monotheistic integrity, though direct transmission remains obscure.[28] During the Reformation era, parallels emerged in the anti-Trinitarianism of Michael Servetus, executed in 1553, whose theology has been characterized as a form of pantheistic Sabellianism, viewing the Son and Holy Spirit as manifestations of the one God rather than eternal persons.[29] Servetus rejected Trinitarian distinctions as unbiblical, echoing Sabellius's modalistic framework by interpreting divine revelations as sequential expressions of a single divine essence, though without establishing a direct doctrinal lineage.[30] In modern movements, Sabellius's non-Trinitarian emphasis on divine unity served as core inspiration for Oneness Pentecostalism, which emerged in the early 1900s and teaches that God is a single person manifesting as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with baptism required solely in Jesus's name to reflect this modalistic oneness.[31] This theology, while distinct from strict sequential Sabellianism by allowing simultaneous modes post-incarnation, aligns closely with historical modalism in denying personal distinctions within the Godhead.[32] Similar modalistic elements appear in Swedenborgianism, where Emanuel Swedenborg described the divine as one essence appearing in relational aspects rather than separate persons, and in certain Unitarian groups that adopted frankly Sabellian views to affirm God's absolute unity over Trinitarian plurality.[33] Post-2000 scholarship has highlighted Sabellius's enduring role in ecumenical dialogues on the Trinity, particularly through analyses of Oneness Pentecostal connections, fostering discussions on apostolic faith diversity and modalistic critiques of Nicene orthodoxy.[31] These studies, including examinations of early 20th-century revivals, underscore how Sabellian ideas persist in addressing Trinitarian formulations amid broader interdenominational engagements.[34]

References

  1. Sabellius, Sabellianism - Brill Reference Works
  2. Refutation of All Heresies, Book IX (Hippolytus) - New Advent
  3. De Sententia Dionysii - CHURCH FATHERS - New Advent
  4. Sabellius libyen, Libye sabellienne? - Xavier Morales - PhilPapers
  5. CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book VII (Eusebius)
  6. Church History, Book I (Socrates Scholasticus) - New Advent
  7. Philip Schaff: NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life ...
  8. [PDF] Monarchianism and Origen's Early Trinitarian Theology
  9. Adolf Harnack: History of Dogma - Volume III
  10. CHURCH FATHERS: Against Praxeas (Tertullian)
  11. (PDF) What Happened to Monarchianism? - Academia.edu
  12. Epiphanius on Sabellius and Sabellianism - Early Church Texts
  13. Sabellianism - ResearchGate
  14. Hippolytus of Rome - Early Christian Writings
  15. Against Praxeas - Tertullian - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
  16. [PDF] That God May Be All in All - Boyce Digital Repository Home
  17. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/dionysius/sabellians/anf07.vii.i.html
  18. Philip Schaff: NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life ...
  19. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.viii.ii.html
  20. The Development of Modalism in Early Church History - Academia.edu
  21. https://doi.org/10.1080/2222582X.2019.1660905
  22. Monarchianism and Photinus of Sirmium as the Persistent Heretical ...
  23. [PDF] Examination of Christological conflicts, and their outcomes, in the ...
  24. The Theology of the Council of Nicaea
  25. Philip Schaff: NPNF2-04. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters
  26. The Origins of the Christian Idea of Trinity: Answering Jewish ... - MDPI
  27. Divine Simplicity and the Boundaries of Orthodoxy - MDPI
  28. Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Transformation of ...
  29. [PDF] THE CASE OF MICHEL SERVETUS1 The background and the ...
  30. (PDF) The Trinity in the Theology of Michael Servetus - Academia.edu
  31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S001781601000013X
  32. [PDF] the oneness theology of the united pentecostal church
  33. UNITARIANISM - The University of Chicago Press: Journals
  34. [PDF] early oneness pentecostalism, garfield thomas haywood ... - CORE
User Avatar
No comments yet.