Divinity Atlas

Sacred Correspondences
Doctrines

Sabellianism

Also Known As Modalism, or modalistic monarchianism
Orthodoxy and Dissent

Citation Formats

General Reference

APA Style

BibTeX

Origin from 200

Sabellianism, also called modalism or modalistic monarchianism, is the position, associated with the early third century teacher Sabellius, that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three distinct persons but three successive modes or roles in which the one God has acted in history, as creator, as redeemer and as sanctifier, without any real distinction between them. Its opponents, including Tertullian in the West and later Dionysius of Alexandria and Dionysius of Rome in an exchange of letters around 262, held that scripture presents Father and Son as genuinely distinct persons in relation to one another, and that the position risked implying the Father himself suffered on the cross, a consequence sometimes called patripassianism. Sabellius was excommunicated by Pope Callistus the First in Rome around the year 220. No ecumenical council took the position up by name, since it had already been marginalized by regional censure, but the Nicene Creed confession of the Son as a distinct person of one substance with the Father excludes it as surely as it excludes Arianism, from the opposite direction.

Facts
Origins
Origin Period
from 200 1
Held By
A position, associated with the teacher Sabellius and also called modalism, holding that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are successive modes of the one God action rather than three distinct persons; Sabellius was excommunicated at Rome around the year 220 and the position was answered at length by Tertullian and by Dionysius of Alexandria; not held by any major Christian body today. 1
Defining Moment
Pope Callistus the First excommunicated Sabellius at Rome around the year 220; Dionysius of Alexandria and Dionysius of Rome exchanged letters on the question around 262. 1
Position Profile
Principal Proponent
Sabellius, a teacher active in Rome in the early third century, about whose life very little else is reliably known. 1
Opposing Position
That scripture presents Father and Son as genuinely distinct persons in relation to each other, not one God wearing different masks, and that the position risks implying the Father himself suffered on the cross, a consequence called patripassianism. 1
Status
Status Within the TraditionSourced to the subject's own account
Rejected, or not held, within this tradition 2Tradition: Christianity
Doctrinal Category
God and Divine Nature 1
Attestation
Meaning in the Attesting Source
That Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three distinct persons but three modes or roles of the single God, active successively as creator, redeemer and sanctifier, so that the distinctions named in scripture are functional rather than real. 1
Learn More
One God Wearing Three Masks

This article records tradition as it has been passed down and reported. Its sources are not yet part of the atlas's verified catalogue.

Almost nothing reliable survives from Sabellius himself, and what is known of his teaching comes almost entirely through opponents, which is itself a caution about how confidently the position can be described. The core claim attributed to him is straightforward: the one God appears under three names, Father in creation, Son in redemption, Spirit in sanctification, as a single actor takes different roles, rather than existing eternally as three distinct persons.

Tertullian, writing in Latin North Africa, gave the objection its lasting name, calling the consequence patripassianism, the Father suffering, since if Father and Son are simply one person under two names, then the Father himself must have hung on the cross, a conclusion Tertullian found both absurd and doctrinally intolerable. Pope Callistus the First excommunicated Sabellius at Rome around the year 220, and decades later, around 262, Dionysius of Alexandria wrote against a version of the same teaching circulating in Libya, provoking a sharp exchange of letters with Dionysius of Rome over how strongly to state the distinction between Father and Son without tipping into a different error, treating them as two separate gods.

No ecumenical council ever took the position up by name, since regional censure had already marginalized it well before Nicaea met in 325. But the creed that council produced, confessing the Son as a distinct person, of one substance with the Father, excludes modalism as completely as it excludes the opposite error of Arianism, without needing to say so directly.

Cross-Tradition Connections

Belongs to Tradition

Contrasts With

Trinity, Doctrines
Sources
1. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine
Jaroslav Pelikan, University of Chicago Press, 1971Sabellius and the modalist controversy of the third centuryView the Source
2. The Canons of the First Council of Nicaea
First Council of Nicaea, 325the Nicene confession of the Son as a distinct person excluding modalismthe holders' own account
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share a thought.
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.

View At A Past Year

Choose a year to see this entry's facts and connections as the atlas records them at that moment: what it held then, what it held instead, and what it had not yet adopted. Choose Present for the current record.