Monarchianism, said to have developed in the 2nd century, is said to have affirmed the absolute, sole unity of God (in contrast to and against other concepts of God such as binitarianism or trinitarianism; and in contrast to bi- or tri- theism). The term Monarchianism derives from the Greek word monarkhia meaning ''a single principle of authority' or 'ruling of [or by] one' (hence the related, well-known concept: monarchy).
Terminology related to or developing from these concepts about God includes modes, aspects, hypostasis, persona, substance, etc.
Two types of monarchianism are described:
- 'dynamic monarchianism' (or Dynamism) which holds that God is one being, above all else, wholly indivisible, and of one nature: the Son was and is not co-eternal with the Father: essentially Jesus Christ was adopted to the godhood by God for His works, ie. Adoptionism.
There are different versions of Dynamism, eg. whether Jesus was adopted at his baptism or at his ascension (rather confusingly, some assert that the name "Monarchian" properly does not strictly apply to Adoptionists or to Dynamists (eg., according to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, Dynamists "did not start from the monarchy of God, and their doctrine is strictly Christological").
Notable adherents are said to have included Theodotus of Byzantium; Paul of Samosata; and Beryllus of Bostra, a third-century bishop who debated with Origen.
- 'modalistic monarchianism' (or Modalism) considers God to be one while working (+/- appearing) through different "modes" eg., Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
(modalism is a designation coined in the late 19th century by Adolf von Harnack in 'History of Dogma,' 1897.)
The terms "Father" and "Son" were said to be different expressions of the same being: "the Father is himself the Son." The terms were used or perhaps elaborated to describe the distinction between the transcendence of God and the incarnation with all of the Godhead said to 'dwell' in the person of Jesus from the incarnation.
Here, the Holy Spirit should be understood as a descriptor of God's action (John 4:24 may be important here(?): "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.").
Notable adherents are said to include Noetus, Praxeas and Sabellius (this view is commonly called Sabellianism; see below).
Monarchianism and Monarchians are said to have been opposed by 'Logos theologians' such as Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, the author of Refutation of All Heresies (+/- Hyppolytus) and Origen.
Following Tertullian, “The Latin Fathers…called them 'patripassians' (from the Latin words pater for 'father,' and passus, 'to suffer') because they have [co-]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.” (Someone has said, “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.”)
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."
Logos-theology
Logos-theology is said to have held from the late second century a two-stage existence for 'the Logos': that the Logos always existed inside God but became a separate Being - a distinct 'Reality - when God decided to create; and that the Son of God was as the instrument used by the supreme God, the Father, to bring the creation into existence.
Monarchians are said to have claimed that, “the theology of 'the Apologists' involves a division in the being and unity of God that is unacceptable” and that Logos-theology teaches two creators and two Gods (bi-theism), “inconsistent with monotheism.”Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Hippolytus of Rome and Tertullian in particular state that the internal Logos of God (Gr. Logos endiathetos, Lat. ratio)—his impersonal divine reason—was begotten as Logos uttered (Gr. Logos prophorikos, Lat. sermo, verbum), the Word personified, becoming an actual person to be used for the purpose of creation.[8]
Encyclopædia Britannica (11th edition) states: "to some Christians the doctrine of the Trinity appeared inconsistent with the unity of God ... they therefore denied it, and accepted Jesus Christ, not as incarnate God, but as God's highest creature by whom all else was created ... [this] view in the early Church long contended with the orthodox doctrine." ... the Trinitarian view became the orthodox doctrine in mainstream Christianity ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism#Beliefs
8. Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Present Day, Prince Press, 1984, Vol. 1, pp.159–61. • Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, The University of Chicago Press, 1971, Vol. 1, pp.181–99.
Sabellianism
This terms is said to have come about when 'the Greek Fathers' called Monarchians, 'Sabellians', after Sabellius (fl. c.215) who is said to have been the person who had put this doctrine, which he is said to have got from Noetus and Praxaes, in 'its philosophical form.'
Sabellius is said to have stated that God took numerous forms in both the Hebrew and the Christian Greek Scriptures, and that God has manifested himself in three primary modes regarding the salvation of mankind.
John L. Von Mosheim, a German Lutheran theologian who founded the pragmatic school of church historians, argued that Sabellius described God as three in one sense, but one in another [homoousion (ὁμοούσιον, literally same being]. Mosheim said Sabellius "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," and maintained that, just like a man is one person (with a body, a soul, and a spirit), God is also one Person, one Unity; yet, in that Person, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit can be discerned separately.
The author of Refutation of All Heresies admonished Sabellius for opposing Trinitarian theology, but he called Modal Monarchism the heresy of Noetus, not that of Sabellius.
Arianism
It is variably said that Arianism held that the pre-existent Son of God was directly created by the Father, before all ages; that the Son is distinct and subordinate to God the Father; and that, after the Son was brought forth as the very first of God's creations (and therefor the most perfect creation), the Father then created all things through the Son
- in other words: the Son of God was begotten/made before time* by God the Father; therefore, Jesus was not coeternal with God the Father, but nonetheless Jesus began to exist outside time.
Furthermore, it is said that Arians still held to the Logos but only as an inner attribute of God that is wisdom; and that Jesus can also be called Logos, but only because of resemblance with the inner Logos of God.
- Pre-Arian Fathers like Justin Martyr are also said to have held the Son as begotten 'in time,' ie. not before time: they denied the 'eternal generation' of the Son
- Origen was accused of Arianism for using terms like "second God"
Arius is said to have been a pupil of Lucian of Antioch (at Lucian's private academy in Antioch) and inherited from him a modified form of the teachings of Paul of Samosata.Arianism became the dominant view in some regions in the time of the Roman Empire, notably the Visigoths until 589. The Third Council of Sirmium in 357 was the high point of Arianism. The Seventh Arian Confession (Second Sirmium Confession) held that both homoousios* ('same being,' of one substance) and homoiousios (of similar substance) were unbiblical and that the Father is greater than the Son in all things, and that the Father alone is infinite and eternal, and that the Logos is God's true firstborn and subservient Son who was made perfect flesh for our sakes and for the glory of the Father (this confession was later known as the Blasphemy of Sirmium): "But since many persons are disturbed by questions concerning what is called in Latin substantia, but in Greek ousia, that is, to make it understood more exactly, as to 'coessential,' or what is called, 'like-in-essence,' there ought to be no mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in divine Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they are above men's knowledge and above men's understanding" [Translation from Athanasius, De Synodis 28 (NPNF2 vol. 4, p.466)] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism#Beliefs
* homoousion (ὁμοούσιον, literally same being) was, somewhat ironically, later adopted by both the first Ecumenical Council, the Trinitarian Nicene Council, and the second Ecumenical council for its anti-Arian creed.
Arian trinitarian theology, later given an extreme form by Aetius and his disciple Eunomius and called anomoean ("dissimilar"), asserts a total dissimilarity between the Son and the Father.
Arianism is also applied to other nontrinitarian theological systems of the 4th century which regarded Jesus Christ—the Son of God, the Logos—as either a begotten creature (of a similar or different substance to that of the Father), but not identical; or as neither uncreated nor created in the sense other beings might have been thought to have been created.
In the end, the difference between Arians and their detractors was really quite small, essentially just whether
- the Son had always existed eternally (as with the Father), or whether the Son was considered to have been begotten at a certain time (in the past)
- the Son was considered to be equal to the Father or to be subordinate to the Father