“I and My Father are one.”[1]

The Father and the Son are both divine/God/theos (and so is the Holy Spirit)—meaning that they are one in nature (substance, essence or class); there is also one will, one power, and one rule, but Jesus is not the Father! Those who believe that Jesus is the Father have lapsed into a heresy called Sabellianism.[2] It is also referred to as Modalism, Modalistic Monarchianism, or Patripassianism[3] (which means “Father-suffering”). This belief says that we have one eternal God who reveals Himself in three different modes, like one actor with three different masks.[4] This idea was recognized very early as an unscriptural and erroneous teaching that was not part of ‘the faith’. Samples of early Christian writings[5] on this subject are given below.[6]

 

Justin Martyr [c. 160 A.D]—”Those persons who declare that the Son is the Father are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son.” (Vol. 1, pg 184)

Hippolytus [c. 205 A.D.]—”And some of these assent to the heresy of the Noetians, and affirm that the Father Himself is the Son, and that this (one) came under generation, and suffering and death.” (Vol. 5, pg 124)

“For they [the successors of Noetus] advance statements after this manner—that one and the same God is the Creator and Father of all things; and that when it pleased Him [the Father], He nevertheless appeared, (though invisible,) to just men of old.” (Vol. 5, pg 127)

“Now that Noetus affirms that the Son and the Father are the same [Person], no one is ignorant. But he [Noetus] makes his statement in this manner: ‘When indeed, then, the Father had not been born, He was justly called Father. And when it pleased Him to undergo generation, He Himself became His own Son, not another’s, having been begotten.’ For in this way, Noetus thinks he establishes the sovereignty of God, alleging that the Father and the Son are one and the same Person—not one individual produced from a different individual. Rather, He is from Himself. And He is called by the name ‘Father’ or ‘Son,’ depending on the circumstances of the time…He [the Father/Son] is one who has appeared (among us), both having submitted to generation from a virgin, and as a man having held converse among men. And, on account of the birth that had taken place, He confessed Himself to those beholding Him ‘a Son’, no doubt; yet He made no secret to those who could comprehend Him of His being a Father. This person suffered by being fastened to the tree, and…He commended His spirit to Himself, having died, yet not being dead. And he raised Himself up on the third day.” (Vol. 5, pg 127-128)

“Callistus[7] alleges that the Logos Himself is both the Son and also the Father Himself. Callistus says that although called by a different title, in reality He is one indivisible spirit. He says that the Father is not one Person and the Son another, but that they are one and the same Person….And he affirms that the Spirit[8], which became incarnate in the virgin, is not different from the Father, but one and the same. And he adds, that this is what has been declared by the Savior: ‘Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?’[9]” (Vol. 5, pg 130)

“But others of them, being attached to the heresy of the Noetians…are guilty of blasphemy, because they assert that He [the Son/Father] is Son and Father, visible and invisible, begotten and unbegotten, mortal and immortal. These have taken occasion from a certain Noetus to put forward their heresy.” (Vol. 5, pg 148)

“Noetus maintained that the Father then appeared when He wished; and He is invisible when He is not seen, but visible when He is seen. And this heretic also alleges that the Father is unbegotten when He is not generated, but begotten when He is born of a virgin; as also that He is not subject to suffering, and is immortal when He does not suffer or die. When, however, His passion came upon Him, Noetus allows that the Father suffers and dies. And the Noetians suppose that this Father Himself is called Son, (and vice versa,) in reference to the events which at their own proper periods happen to them severally.” (Vol. 5, pg 148)

“Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine and have become disciples of one Noetus who was a native of Smyrna and lived not very long ago….He alleged that Christ was the Father Himself and that the Father Himself was born, suffered, and died.” (Vol. 5, pg 223)

[After citing O.T. passages to prove that God is one, the heretics…] “…answer in this manner: ‘If, therefore, I acknowledge Christ to be God, He must be the Father Himself—if indeed He is God. Now Christ—being Himself God—suffered. Therefore, the Father suffered, for He was the Father Himself.’ However, the case does not stand through that logic. For the Scriptures do not set forth the matter in this manner.” (Vol. 5, pg 224)

“…’I am under necessity,’ he [Noetus] says, ‘since one [God] is acknowledged [in Scripture], to make this One the subject of suffering [on the cross]. For Christ was God, and suffered on account of us, being Himself the Father, that He might be able also to save us. And we cannot express ourselves otherwise,’ he [Noetus] says, ‘for the apostle also acknowledges one God, when he says Whose are the fathers, (and) of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.‘[10] In this way, then, they choose to set forth these things, and they make use only of one class of passages;[11] just as Theodotus[12] employed when he sought to prove that Christ was a mere man. But neither has one party nor the other understood the matter rightly, as the Scriptures themselves confute their senselessness, and attest the truth. See, brethren, what a rash and audacious dogma they have introduced, when they say without shame, the Father is Himself Christ, Himself the Son, Himself was born, Himself suffered, Himself raised Himself. But it is not so.” (Vol. 5, pg 224)

“For He [Jesus] speaks thus: ‘I go to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.’[13] If, then, Noetus ventures to say that He [Christ] is the Father Himself, to what father will he say Christ goes away according to the word of the Gospel? But if he will have us abandon the Gospel and give credence to his senselessness, he expends his labor in vain; for ‘we ought to obey God rather than men.’[14] If, again, he [Noetus] alleges Christ’s own words when He said, ‘I and the Father are one,’[15] let him attend to the fact and understand that He did not say, ‘I and the Father am one, but are one.’ For the word ‘are’ is not said of one person. Rather, it refers to two persons, but one power. Christ has Himself made this clear, when He spoke to His Father concerning the disciples: ‘The glory which you gave me I have given them, that they may be one.’[16]….What have the Noetians to say to these things? Are we all one body in respect of person—or is it that we become one in the power and disposition of unity of mind? (Vol. 5, pg 226)

“‘He who has seen me has seen the Father.’[17] By which he means, ‘If you have seen me, you may know the Father through me.’ For the Father is made readily known through the image, which is like [the original]… And that this is the case is made clear by the rest of the chapter, which signifies that the Son who has been set forth was sent from the Father and goeth to the Father. Many other passages, or rather all of them, attest the truth. A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God (who being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted), and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one. As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the economy there is a threefold manifestation…” (Vol. 5, pg 226)

“But let us also look at the subject in hand,—namely, the question, brethren, that in reality the Father’s Power, which is the Word, came down from heaven, and not the Father Himself. For thus He [Jesus] speaks: ‘I came forth from the Father, and am come.'”[18] (Vol. 5, pg 229)

Tertullian [c. 213 A.D.]—”In various ways has the devil rivaled and resisted the truth. Sometimes his aim has been to destroy the truth by defending it. He maintains that there is one only Lord, the Almighty Creator of the world, in order that out of this doctrine of the unity he may fabricate a heresy. He [the devil] says that the Father Himself came down into the virgin, was Himself born of her, Himself suffered, indeed was Himself Jesus Christ. Here the old serpent has fallen out with himself [because the devil himself intimated] that God had a Son [when he said]…’If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence; for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning thee’[19]—referring, no doubt, to the Father…. However, he [the devil] is himself a liar from the beginning, and whatever man he instigates in his own way; as for instance, Praxeas. For he [Praxeas] was the first to import into Rome from Asia this kind of heretical pravity…” (Vol. 3, pg 597)

“This heresy supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in only one God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the very selfsame Person.” (Vol. 3, pg 598)

“As for myself, however, if I have gleaned any knowledge of either language [Latin or Greek], I am sure that Monarchy has no other meaning than single and individual rule; but for all that, this monarchy does not, because it is the government of one, preclude him whose government it is, either from having a son…or from ministering his own monarchy by whatever agents he will….If, moreover, there be a son belonging to him whose monarchy it is, it does not forthwith become divided and cease to be a monarchy, if the son also be taken as a sharer in it; but it is as to its origin equally his, by whom it is communicated to the son; and being his, it is quite as much a monarchy (or sole empire), since it  is held together by two who are so inseparable. Therefore…how comes it to pass that God should be thought to suffer division and severance in the Son and in the Holy Ghost, who have the second and the third places assigned to them, and who are so closely joined with the Father in His substance…? Do you really suppose that Those who are naturally members of the Father’s own substance, pledges of His love, instruments of His might,…and the entire system of His monarchy, are the overthrow and destruction thereof? You are not right in so thinking.” (Vol. 3, pf 599)

“But as for me, who derive the Son from no other source but from the substance of the Father, and (represent Him) as doing nothing without the Father’s will, and as having received all power from the Father, how can I be possibly destroying the Monarchy from the faith, when I preserve it in the Son just as it was committed to Him by the Father? The same remark (I wish to be formally) made by me with respect to the third degree in the Godhead, because I believe the Spirit to proceed from no other source than from the Father through the Son.” (Vol. 3, pg 599)

“Now, from this one passage[20] of the epistle of the inspired apostle, we have been already able to show that the Father and the Son are two—not only by the mention of their individual names as Father and Son, but also by the fact that He who delivered up the kingdom, and He to whom it is delivered up…must necessarily be two…. But since they [the Monarchians] will have the two to be but one (so that the Father is deemed to be the same as the Son), it is only right that the whole question respecting the Son should be examined, as to whether He exists, and who He is and the mode of His existence.” (Vol. 3, pg 600)

“Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another. Likewise, He who sends is one, and He who is sent is another. He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another. Happily the Lord [Jesus] Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete [the Holy Spirit], so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He [Jesus] says, ‘I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter…even the Spirit of truth,’[21] thus making the Paraclete [the Holy Spirit] distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He [Jesus] showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy. Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality? For, of course, all things will be what their names represent them to be; and what they are and ever will be, that will they be called….So it is either ‘the Father’ or ‘the Son’, and ‘the day’ is not the same as ‘the night’; nor is the Father the same as the Son…an opinion which the most conceited ‘Monarchians’ maintain. He Himself, they say, made Himself a Son to Himself.” (Vol. 3, pg 604)

“If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely one and singular to speak in plural phrase, saying ‘Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness’?[22] … And ‘Behold, the man is become as one of us.’[23] ….it was because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person…and a third person also, the Spirit….With these did He then speak, in the Unity of the Trinity, as with His ministers and witnesses.” (Vol. 3, pg 606, 607)

[after quoting the many passages that teach that the Father is invisible and cannot be seen, Tertullian says] “….it is evident that He was always seen from the beginning who became visible in the end; and that He, (on the contrary,) was not seen in the end who had never been visible from the beginning; and that accordingly there are two—the Visible and the Invisible. It was the Son, therefore who was always seen, and the Son who always conversed with men, and the Son who has always worked by the authority and will of the Father;….It is the Son, therefore, who has been from the beginning administering judgment, throwing down the haughty tower, and dividing the tongues, punishing the whole world by the violence of waters, raining upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone, as the Lord from the Lord. For He it was who at all times came down to hold converse with men, from Adam on to the patriarchs and the prophets, in vision, in dream, in mirror, in dark saying….But the heretics, you may be sure, will not allow that those things are suitable even to the Son of God, which you are imputing to the very Father Himself, when you pretend that He made Himself less (than the angels) on our account; whereas the Scripture informs us that He who was made less was so affected by another, and not Himself by Himself. What, again, if He was One who was ‘crowned with glory and honor,’[24] and He Another by whom He was so crowned,—the Son, in fact, by the Father? Moreover, how comes it to pass, that the Almighty Invisible God….should yet have walked in paradise towards the cool of the evening, in quest of Adam; and should have shut up the ark after Noah had entered it; and at Abraham’s tent should have refreshed Himself under an oak; and have called to Moses out of the burning bush; and have appeared as ‘the fourth’ in the furnace of the Babylonian monarch….? ….these men [the heretics] bring Him [the Father] down into Mary’s womb, and set Him before Pilate’s judgment-seat, and bury Him in the sepulcher of Joseph. Hence, therefore, their error becomes manifest; for, being ignorant that the entire order of the divine administration has from the very first had its course through the agency of the Son, they believe that the Father Himself was actually seen, and held converse with men. and worked, and was athirst, and suffered hunger,….and therefore that it was uniformly one God, even the Father, who at all times did Himself the things which were really done by Him through the agency of the Son. They more readily supposed that the Father acted in the Son’s name, than that the Son acted in the Father’s….” (Vol. 3, pg 611-612)

“By thus attaching the Son to Himself, He [God] becomes His own interpreter in what sense He stretched out the heavens alone,[25] meaning alone with His Son, even as He is one with His Son. The utterance, therefore, will be in like manner the Son’s, ‘I have stretched out the heavens alone,’ because by the Word were the heavens established.[26]….It must also be He [the Son] who says, ‘I am the First, and to all futurity I AM.’[27] The Word, no doubt, was before all things. ‘In the beginning was the Word;’[28] and in that beginning He was sent forth by the Father. The Father, however, has no beginning, as proceeding from none; nor can He be seen, since He was not begotten. He who has always been alone could never have had order or rank. Therefore, if they [the heretics] have determined that the Father and the Son must be regarded as one and the same, for the express purpose of vindicating the unity of God, that unity of His is preserved intact; for He is one, and yet He has a Son, who is equally with Himself comprehended in the same Scriptures. Since they are unwilling to allow that the Son is a distinct Person, second from the Father, lest, being thus second, He [the Son] should cause two Gods to be spoken of, we have shown above that Two are actually described in Scripture as God and Lord. And to prevent their being offended at this fact, we give a reason why they are not said to be two Gods and two Lords, but that they are two as Father and Son; and this not by severance of their substance, but from the dispensation wherein we declare the Son to be undivided and inseparable from the Father,—distinct in degree, not in state. And although, when named apart, He [the Son] is called God, He does not thereby constitute two Gods, but one; and that from the very circumstance that He is entitled to be called God, from His union with the Father.” (Vol. 3, 614-615)

“But I must take some further pains to rebut their [the heretics’] arguments, when they make selections from the Scriptures in support of their opinion, and refuse to consider the other points which obviously maintain the rule of faith without any infraction of the unity of the Godhead, and with the full admission of the Monarchy. For as in the Old Testament Scriptures they lay hold of nothing else than, ‘I am God, and beside Me there is no God;’[29] so in the Gospel they simply keep in view the Lord’s answer to Philip, ‘I and my Father are one;’[30] and, ‘He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.’[31] They would have the entire revelation of both Testaments yield to these three passages, whereas the only proper course is to understand the few statements in the light of the many. But in their contention they only act on the principle of all heretics. For, inasmuch as only a few testimonies [that support their case] are to be found in the general mass [of Scriptures], they pertinaciously [obstinately] set off the few against the many, and assume the later [teachings] against the earlier [teachings]. The rule, however, which has been from the beginning established for every case, gives its prescription against the later assumptions, as indeed it also does against the fewer [proof texts].” (Vol. 3, pg 615)

“He [Jesus] adds at once: ‘I am one who am bearing witness of myself; and the Father (is another,) who hath sent me, and beareth witness of me.’[32] Now, if He were one—being at once both the Son and the Father—He certainly would not have quoted the sanction of the law, which requires not the testimony of one, but of two….Granted that if they [the Pharisees] had known Him [Jesus], they would have known the Father also[33], [but] this certainly does not imply that He was Himself both Father and Son; but [rather] that, by reason of the inseparability of the Two, it was impossible for one of them to be either acknowledged or unknown without the other.” (Vol. 3, pg 617)

“Jesus says, ‘My Father who gave them to me, is greater than all,’[34] adding immediately, ‘I and my Father are one.’[35] …This is an indication of two Beings—I and my Father. Furthermore, there is the plural verb, ‘are,’ which is inapplicable to only one person…. Two beings are still the subject in the masculine gender. He accordingly says ‘are unum,’ [one—{neuter} a unity; or, one essence] a neuter term, which does not imply singularity of number. Rather, it implies unity of essence, likeness, conjunction, and affection on the Father’s part. For the Father loves the Son. It also indicates submission on the Son’s part, who obeys the Father’s will.” (Vol. 3, pg 618)

[after quoting many passages that show the Son either speaking to or about the Father, Tertullian says…] “Accordingly, the Son’s voice was indeed alone sufficient, (when addressed) to the Father. But, behold, with an abundance (of evidence) the Father from heaven replies, for the purpose of testifying to the Son: ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him.’[36]….how many Persons do you discover, obstinate Praxeas? Are there not as many [Persons] as there are voices?” (Vol. 3, pg 619)

“The Son offers His request from earth, the Father gives His promise from heaven. Why, then, do you make liars of both the Father and the Son? If either the Father spake from heaven to the Son when He Himself was the Son on earth, or the Son prayed to the Father when He was Himself the Son in heaven, how happens it that the Son made a request of His own very self, by asking it of the Father, since the Son was the Father? Or, on the other hand, how is it that the Father made a promise to Himself, by making it to the Son, since the Father was the Son? Were we even to maintain that they are two separate gods[37], as you are so fond of throwing out against us, it would be a more tolerable assertion than the maintenance of so versatile and changeful a God as yours!” (Vol. 3, pg 619)

“Now in what way these things [that the Father gave to the Son] were said to Him [Jesus], the evangelist and beloved disciple John knew better than Praxeas; and therefore he adds concerning his own meaning: ‘Now before the feast of the Passover, Jesus knew that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come from God, and was going to God.’[38] Praxeas, however, would have it that it was the Father who proceeded forth from Himself, and had returned to Himself…” (Vol. 3, pg 619)

“And now we come to Philip, who, roused with the expectation of seeing the Father, and not understanding in what sense he was to take ‘seeing the Father,’ says: ‘Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.’[39] Then the Lord answered him: ‘Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?’[40] Now whom does He say that they ought to have known?—for this is the sole point of discussion. Was it as the Father that they ought to have known Him, or as the Son? If it was as the Father, Praxeas must tell us how Christ, who had been so long time with them, could have possibly ever been (I will not say understood, but even) supposed to have been the Father. He is clearly defined to us in all Scriptures—in the Old Testament as the Christ of God, in the New Testament as the Son of God. In this character was He anciently predicted, in this was He also declared even by Christ Himself; nay, by the very Father also, who openly confesses Him from heaven as His Son, and as His Son glorifies Him….In this character, too, was He believed on by His disciples, and rejected by the Jews. It was, moreover, in this character that He wished to be accepted by them whenever He named the Father, and gave preference to the Father, and honored the Father.” (Vol. 3, pg 620)

“In what sense was it said, ‘He that has seen me has seen the Father’[41]? Even in the same sense in which it was said in a previous passage, ‘I and my Father are one.’[42] … [and after quoting many other relevant Scripture verses Tertullian says] For in all these passages, He had shown Himself to be the Father’s agent, through whose agency even the Father could be seen in His works, heard in His words, and recognized in the Son’s administration of the Father’s words and deeds. The Father indeed was invisible…” (Vol. 3, pg 620)

“What follows Philip’s question, and the Lord’s whole treatment of it, to the end of John’s Gospel, continues to furnish us with statements of the same kind, distinguishing the Father and the Son, with the properties of each. Then there is the Paraclete or Comforter, also, which He promises to pray for to the Father, and to send from heaven after He had ascended to the Father. He is called ‘another Comforter,’[43] indeed; but in what way He is another we have already shown. ‘He shall receive of mine,’[44] says Christ, just as Christ Himself received of the Father’s. Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are One,’[45] in respect of unity of substance, not singularity of number. Run through the whole Gospel, and you will find that He whom you believe to be the Father (described as acting for the Father, although you, for your part, forsooth, suppose that ‘the Father, being the husbandman,’[46] must surely have been on earth) is once more recognized by the Son as in heaven, when, ‘lifting up His eyes thereto,’[47] He commended His disciples to the safe-keeping of the Father….Whenever, therefore, you take any of the statements of this Gospel, and apply them to demonstrate the identity of the Father and the Son, supposing that they serve your views therein, you are contending against the definite purpose of the Gospel. For these things certainly are not written that you may believe that Jesus Christ is the Father, but the Son.[48]” (Vol. 3, pg 621)

“For just as the Word of God is not actually He whose Word He is, so also the Spirit (although He is called God) is not actually He whose Spirit He is said to be. Nothing which belongs to something else is actually the very same thing as that to which it belongs. Clearly, when anything proceeds from a personal subject, and so belongs to him, since it comes from him, it may possibly be such in quality exactly as the personal subject himself is from whom it proceeds, and to whom it belongs. And thus the Spirit is God, and the Word is God, because proceeding from God, but yet is not actually the very same as He from whom He proceeds. Now that which is God of God…cannot be God Himself (exclusively), but so far God as He is of the same substance as God Himself, and as being an actually existing thing…” (Vol. 3, pg 622)

“Jesus commands them to baptize into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—not into a unipersonal God.” (Vol. 3, pg 623)

“And so, most foolish heretic, you make Christ to be the Father, without once considering the actual force of this name…for it signifies ‘Anointed.’….Now then, concerning Christ, if Christ is the Father, the Father is an Anointed One, and receives the unction of course from another. Else if it is from Himself that He receives it, then you must prove it to us. But we learn no such fact from the Acts of the Apostles in that ejaculation of the Church to God, ‘Of a truth, Lord, against Thy Holy Child Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together.’[49]” (Vol. 3, pg 624-625)

“You blaspheme, for you allege not only that the Father died, but that He died the death of the cross….Since you convert Christ into the Father, you are guilty of blasphemy against the Father.” (Vol. 3, pg 626)

“The Son, then, both dies and rises again, according to the Scriptures[50]….’He sitteth at the Father’s right hand’[51]—not the Father at His own….Meanwhile He has received from the Father the promised gift[52], and has shed it forth, even the Holy Spirit—the Third Name in the Godhead, and the Third Degree of the Divine Majesty…” (Vol. 3, pg 627)

“God was pleased to renew His covenant with man in such a way as that His Unity might be believed in after a new manner, through the Son and the Spirit, in order that God might now be known openly, in His proper Names and Persons, who in ancient times was not plainly understood, though declared through the Son and the Spirit. Away, then, with those ‘Antichrists who deny the Father and the Son.’ For they deny the Father, when they say that He is the same as the Son; and they deny the Son, when they suppose Him to be the same as the Father, by assigning to Them things which are not Theirs, and taking away from Them things which are Theirs. But ‘whosoever shall confess that (Jesus) Christ is the Son of God’ (not the Father), ‘God dwelleth in him, and he in God.’[53] [And] ‘He that hath not the Son, hath not life.’[54] And that man has not the Son, who believes Him to be any other than the Son. (Vol. 3, pg 627)

Origen [c. 228 A.D.]: “There are some who fall into confusion on this matter of the Father and the Son….they say that both are one—not only in the matter of substance but also of person. They say that the Father and the Son are said to be different in some of their aspects, but not in their persons. Against such views, we must in the first place produce the leading texts that prove the Son to be another person than the Father…Then we may very properly refer to Christ’s declaration that He cannot do anything except what He sees the Father doing and saying.” (Vol. 9, pg 402)

“For Jesus said ‘My Father is in Me, and I in Him.’[55] And if any should from these words be afraid of our going over to the side of those who deny that the Father and the Son are two persons, let him weigh that passage, ‘And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and one soul,’[56] that he may understand the meaning of the saying, ‘I and My Father are one.'”[57] (c.248 A.D., Vol. 4, pg 643)

“We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two (considered as persons)…are one in unity of thought, in harmony, and in identity of will.” (Vol. 4, pg 643-644)

“…He is the Son who has been most highly exalted by the Father. Grant that there may be some individuals among the multitudes of believers who are not in entire agreement with us, and who incautiously assert that the Saviour is the Most High God [The Father]; however, we do not hold with them, but rather believe Him [Jesus] when He says, ‘The Father who sent Me is greater than I.’[58] We would not therefore make Him whom we call ‘Father’ inferior (as Celsus[59] accuses us of doing) to the Son of God.” (Vol. 4, pg 644)

“For we who say that the visible world is under the government of Him who created all things, do thereby declare that the Son is not mightier than the Father…. And this belief we ground on the saying of Jesus Himself, ‘The Father who sent Me is greater than I.’[60] And none of us is so insane as to affirm that the Son of man is Lord over God [the Father]. But when we regard the Savior as God the Word…we certainly do say that He [the Son] has dominion over all things which have been subjected to Him…but not that His dominion extends over the God and Father who is Ruler over all.” (Vol. 4, pg 645)

Novatian [c. 235 A.D.]: “Why do they shrink from being associated with the boldness of Sabellius, who says that Christ is the Father?” (Vol. 5, pg 622)

“And nevertheless He [Jesus] refuted the calumny of blasphemy in a fitting manner with lawful tact. For He wishes that He should be thus understood to be God, as the Son of God, and He would not wish to be understood to be the Father Himself. Thus He said that He was sent, and showed them that He had manifested many good works from the Father; whence He desired that He should not be understood to be the Father, but the Son. And in the latter portion of His defense He made mention of the Son, not the Father, when He said, ‘Ye say, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God.’[61] Thus, as far as pertains to the guilt of blasphemy, He calls Himself the Son, not the Father; but as pertaining to His divinity, by saying, ‘I and the Father are one,’[62] He proved that He was the Son of God. He is God, therefore, but God in such a manner as to be the Son, not the Father.” (Vol. 5, pg 625)

“It was not the Father, then, who was a guest with Abraham, but Christ….Rightly, therefore, Christ is both Lord and God, who was not otherwise seen by Abraham, except that as God the Word He was begotten of God the Father before Abraham himself.” (Vol. 5, pg 629)

“…there must be a distinction between Him who is called God only [i.e. the Father], and Him who is declared to be not God simply, but Angel also [referring to the Son].” (Vol. 5, pg 630)

“He [Christ] then, although He was in the form of God, thought it not robbery that He should be equal with God. [But] although He remembered that He was God from God the Father, He….yielded all obedience to the Father, and still yields it as ever. Whence it is proved that He thought that the claim of a certain divinity would be robbery, to wit, that of equaling Himself with God the Father [as in Christ’s making Himself to be exactly the same Person as the Father or in not submitting to Him]; but, on the other hand, obedient and subject to all His rule and will, He even was contented to take on Him the form of a servant…” (Vol. 5, pg 633)

“Because it is so very clear that Christ is declared in the Scriptures to be God, many heretics—moved by the magnitude and truth of this divinity—exaggerate His honors above measure. And they have dared to declare or to think that He is not the Son, but God the Father Himself. And this, although it is contrary to the truth of the Scriptures, is still a great and excellent argument for the divinity of Christ, who is so far God, except as Son of God, born of God, that very many heretics—as we have said—have so accepted Him as God, as to think that He must be pronounced not the Son, but the Father….when reason and the proportion of the heavenly Scriptures show Christ to be God, but as the Son of God…” (Vol. 5, pg 634)

“But from this occasion of Christ being proved from the sacred authority of the divine writings not man only, but God also, other heretics…by this very fact wishing to show that Christ is God the Father, in that He is asserted to be not man only, but also is declared to be God.” (Vol. 5, pg 636)

“The [heretics] say that if it is accepted that God is one and that Christ is God, then…the Father and Christ are one God, and Christ can be called the Father. But in this they are proved to be in error…For they are not willing that He should be the second Person after the Father, but the Father Himself. Since these things are easily answered, only a few words will be said. For who does not acknowledge that the Person of the Son is second after the Father?” [and then, after Novatian quotes sixteen different Scripture passages that clearly demonstrate this fact, he says] “And I should have enough to do were I to endeavor to gather together all the passages whatever on this side[63]; since the divine Scripture, not so much of the Old as also of the New Testament, everywhere shows Him to be born of the Father, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made, who always has obeyed and obeys the Father; that He always has power over all things, but as delivered, as granted, as by the Father Himself permitted to Him. And what can be so evident proof that this is not the Father, but the Son; as that He is set forth as being obedient to God the Father, unless, if He be believed to be the Father, Christ may be said to be subjected to another ‘God the Father’?” (Vol. 5, pg 636)

“The [heretics] frequently urge upon us the passage where it is said, ‘I and the Father are one.’[64] But in this we all also overcome them just as easily….Let the heretics understand that he did not say ‘one person.’ For the word ‘one,’ used in the neuter gender refers to social unity, not personal unity. Note that ‘one’ is neuter, not masculine….So this ‘one’ has reference to agreement, to identity of judgment, and to the loving association itself….For He would not have said ‘are‘ if He had meant that He, the one and only Father, had become the Son….[Scripture has many examples of] this unity of agreement….For in writing to the Corinthians, Paul said, ‘I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase….Now he that plants and he that waters are one.’[65] Now who does not realize that Apollos is one person and Paul another?….Futhermore, the offices mentioned of each one of them are different. For he who plants is one, and he who waters is another….Yet as far as respects their agreement, both are one.” (Vol. 5, pg 637, 638)

“And still after this He [Jesus] added what might dissolve all ambiguity, and quench all the controversy of error: for He says in the last portion of His discourse, ‘Ye say, Thou blasphemest, because I said I am the Son of God.’[66] Therefore if He plainly testifies that He is the Son of God, and not the Father, it is an instance of great temerity and excessive madness to stir up a controversy of divinity and religion, contrary to the testimony of the Lord Christ Himself, and to say that Christ Jesus is the Father, when it is observed that He has proved Himself to be, not the Father, but the Son.” (Vol. 5, pg 638)

“For what the Lord said, ‘If ye have known me, ye have known my Father also: and henceforth ye have known Him, and have seen Him,’[67] He said not as wishing to be understood Himself to be the Father, but implying that he who thoroughly, and fully, and with all faith and all religiousness, drew near to the Son of God, by all means shall attain, through the Son Himself, in whom he thus believes, to the Father, and shall see Him.” (Vol. 5, pg 638)

“…the Lord, in the present passage said, ‘Henceforth ye have known and have seen Him [the Father].’[68] …For He [Christ] also is the image of God the Father; so that it is added…that ‘as the Father worketh, so also the Son worketh.’[69] And the Son is an imitator of all the Father’s works, so that every one may regard it just as if he saw the Father, when he sees Him who always imitates the invisible Father in all His works. But if Christ is the Father Himself, in what manner does He immediately add, and say, ‘Whosoever believeth in me, the works that I do he shall do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go to my Father.’[70] [then after quoting eight more passages in consecutive order out of the same Gospel that make the same point, Novatian says] These things then (after the former, evidently attesting Him to be not the Father but the Son) the Lord would never have added, if He had had it in mind, either that He was the Father, or wished Himself to be understood as the Father…” (Vol. 5, pg 639)

“But because heretics, ever struggling against the truth, are accustomed to prolong the controversy of pure tradition and catholic [the universal] faith, being offended against Christ; because He is, moreover, asserted to be God by the Scriptures also, and this is believed to be so by us; we must rightly—that every heretical calumny may be removed from our faith—contend, concerning the fact that Christ is God also, in such a way as that it may not militate against the truth of Scripture; nor yet against our faith, how there is declared to be one God by the Scriptures, and how it is held and believed by us. For…they who say that Jesus Christ Himself is God the Father have gathered thence [from Scripture] the sources and reasons of their error and perversity; because when they perceived that it was written that ‘God is one,’[71] they thought that they could not otherwise hold such an opinion than by supposing that it must be believed…that Christ was…really God the Father. And they were accustomed in such a way to connect their sophistries as to endeavor to justify their own error. And thus they who say that Jesus Christ is the Father argue as follows:—If God is one, and Christ is God, Christ is the Father, since God is one. If Christ be not the Father, because Christ is God the Son, there appear to be two Gods introduced, contrary to the Scriptures.” (Vol. 5, pg 642)

Cyprian [c. 250 A.D.]: “There cannot be a hope of salvation except by knowing the two together. 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? For the case of the Jews under the apostles was one thing, but the condition of the Gentiles is another. The Jews—because they had already gained the most ancient baptism of the law and Moses—were to be baptized also in the name of Jesus Christ…[he then quotes Acts 2:38-39]. Peter [specifically] makes mention of Jesus Christ, not as though the Father should be omitted, but that the Son also might be joined to the Father. Finally, when…the apostles are sent by the Lord to the heathens, they are bidden to baptize the Gentiles ‘in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ How then do some say, that a Gentile baptized…only in the name of Jesus Christ…can obtain remission of sin when Christ Himself commands the pagans to be baptized in the full and united Trinity? Are we to believe that someone who denies Christ is denied by Christ, but that he who denies His Father…is not denied? Are we to believe that he who blasphemes against Him whom Christ called His Lord and His God is rewarded by Christ? Are we to believe that such a person obtains remission of sins and the sanctification of baptism?…Do you think that Christ grants impunity to the ungodly and profane, and the blasphemers of His Father?” (Vol. 5, pg 383-384)

Firmillian [c. 256 A.D.]: “In summary, those who do not hold the true Lord, the Father, cannot hold the truth either of the Son or of the Holy Spirit.” (Vol. 5, pg 392)

Dionysius of Alexandra [fl. 232-265]: [after making it very clear that he believes the Son to be eternal, of the same nature as the Father, inseparable from the Father, and ‘begotten, not made,’ he says] “In the beginning was the Word[72], but that was not the Word which produced the Word. For ‘the Word was with God.’[73] The Lord is Wisdom; it was not therefore Wisdom that produced Wisdom; for ‘I was that,’ says He, ‘wherein He delighted.’[74] Christ is truth; but ‘blessed,’ says He, ‘is the God of truth.'” (Vol. 6, pg 93)

Dionysius of Rome [c. 259-269 A.D.]: “Sabellius…blasphemes in saying that the Son Himself is the Father and vice versa.” (Vol. 7, pg 365)

Methodius [c. 290 A.D.]: “They have gone astray with regard to one of the three Persons of the Trinity. For example, some say, like Sabellius, that the Almighty Person of the Father Himself suffered.” (Vol. 6, pg 338)

Alexander of Alexandria [c. 321 A.D.]: “…’I and My Father are one,’[75] which indeed the Lord says, not as proclaiming Himself to be the Father, nor to demonstrate that two persons are one; but that the Son of the Father most exactly preserves the expressed likeness of the Father, inasmuch as He has by nature impressed upon Him His similitude in every respect, and is the image of the Father in no way discrepant, and the expressed figure of the primitive exemplar. Whence, also, to Phillip…when he said, ‘Show us the Father,’[76] He [Jesus] answered: ‘He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father,’ since the Father was Himself seen through the spotless and living mirror of the divine image.” (Vol. 6, pg 294)

Apostolic Constitutions [compiled c. 390 A.D.]—”But others of them [the heretics] suppose that Jesus Himself is the God over all [the Father], and glorify Him as His own Father, and suppose Him to be both the Son and the Comforter; than which doctrines what can be more detestable? (Vol. 7, pg 462)

Conclusion

By my agreeing with the early Christians that this erroneous belief is rightly called a “heresy,” I myself am not dogmatically stating that all those who are still holding to it at the time of their death (or upon Jesus’ return) have no chance of going to heaven. If I were to make that judgment, I would be endangering my own chance at going to heaven! Although I am a conservative Christian, that is, a Christian who believes in conserving the very faith that was passed down to the early church from the Apostles (as opposed to holding to strange interpretations that some just come up with out of their own heads), I am liberal enough to allow for the possibility that Jesus is able to extend mercy to those who have honestly sought to honor Him and His Father, but who have, nonetheless, made some honest mistakes in their understanding on a number of theological issues—now, I am not absolutely certain that He will do this, but for their sakes (and mine) I hope so.

Although I believe that doctrine is important, I know that we will not be saved due our having a right understanding on all doctrinal issues. There are some things we see in Scripture (like Trinitarian and Christological issues) that our human minds simply cannot comprehend—we only apprehend them. The words “apprehend” and “comprehend” refer to varying degrees of mental perception. The word “comprehend” stresses attainment of full understanding, while the word “apprehend” is often limited to mere perception. To “apprehend” is to merely take notice of, to observe, to become aware of in one’s mind—it does not imply full and complete understanding. Therefore, even those zealous Christians who lived so closely in time to the Apostles did not fully comprehend all Christological and Trinitarian issues (and most of them readily admit it)—they were simply doing their best to pass on what they had been taught, and trying to describe what they could apprehend or see going on in the Scriptures. And, of course, their language failed them; the human words they had at their disposal could only get them so close to the actual truth. The language that fallible, finite humans use to describe an infallible, infinite God has never been and never will be completely adequate to describe the actual truth about God. That is to say, our language and the statements we make about God, at best, will only have a likeness or a similarity to what the actual truth is. But I think it is a cop-out for us to say nothing at all. We can do our best to describe what we see going on in the Scriptures—and sometimes we may end up using some language that is less than orthodox. But I do not think that God automatically condemns us for it. However, I do believe that there is a point where a person’s so-called Christian faith is so far out in left field that it turns into a faith that is no longer Christian, and this is what we need to beware of—creating our own faith because we do not like the one that has been handed down to us.

Concerning some early so-called “Christian heresies,” the movement called “Gnosticism” was so unlike Christianity that, although the Gnostics used Christian sounding terms and had some similar practices, the Gnostic sects were not Christians—they definitely had a religion all their own. Therefore, I do not believe we will see any Gnostics in heaven. But I cannot help feeling differently about monarchians and those who hold similar beliefs. Harold O.J. Brown writes this about the monarchian movement:

It is not until the movement known as monarchianism that we find those who clearly deserve to be called Christians taking a stand the rest of the church will plainly identify as an intolerable heresy. The tragedy of monarchianism lies in the fact that its adherents really were trying to understand Christ correctly. The name “monarchian” is applied to groups that sought to stress a fundamental biblical and Christian truth, namely, the conviction that God is one, the sole monarch of the universe. The monarchians rejected the duality or plurality of gods taught by Marcion and the gnostics. Unfortunately, the term “monarchians” is applied to two quite different approaches to God’s monarchy.[77]

One type of Monarchianism—the type that is being dealt with in this paper—affirms that Jesus is God but then goes on to say that the one God merely reveals Himself in three different “modes.” As was stated in the introduction, this type of Monarchianism is commonly referred to as “Modalism,” “Modalistic Monarchianism” or “Sabellianism.” Many Christians unknowingly stray into this erroneous belief when they try to explain the Trinity by comparing it to the three states that water can take on—vapor, liquid or solid; or when they compare it to one man being three things at once—a husband, a son and a father.

Another early type of Monarchianism was termed “Dynamic Monarchianism” or “Adoptionism.” Although I have no intention of dealing with this form of Monarchianism in this paper (a subject for another time), I feel like I should say a few words about it here, because if Modalistic Monarchianism is one side of the “doctrinal horse” people tend to fall off on when we lose our biblical balance, then Dynamic Monarchianism is the opposite side of the horse. This heresy (Dynamic Monarchianism, Adoptionism, and others like it) denied the essential deity of Christ. The Adoptionists said that Jesus was a mere man who was “adopted” as the Son of God and given special power by the Holy Spirit at His baptism.

Paul of Samosata (c. 200-275 A.D.) was a type of Adoptionist. He was the bishop of Antioch and he seems to have “…influenced later figures who denied the deity of the Son, such as Lucian of Antioch and his pupil Arius.”[78] The chief concern of these adoptionists was “the conviction that the Father alone is monarch and that no one like him may stand beside him.”[79]

Paul of Samosata was condemned as a heretic and excommunicated in 268/269 A.D. [cf. Vol.6, pg 294]. Lucian of Antioch, however, ran a school in Antioch and he continued teaching along the lines of Paul of Samosata. Lucian and his school were implicated with Paul of Samosata and were therefore excommunicated and lay outside the church during the “reigns” of the next three successive bishops of Antioch. Lucian taught that the Logos was a created being. His Jesus was neither fully God nor fully man. Brown states that:

Lucian appears to have exercised tremendous influence because of his gifts as a teacher, his exemplary self-discipline, and finally his martyrdom in the last great wave of persecution. This martyrdom came soon after Lucian’s formal rapprochement with the church, and eradicated the memory of his long years as a deliberate outsider. Because he was a martyr, it was easy for people to follow his doctrines without suspecting the difficulties inherent in them. In addition to the famous Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia (d. ca. 342) was among Lucian’s pupils.[80]

Arius [c. 250-336 A.D.] was a product of Lucian’s school and ended up becoming a presbyter in the church at Alexandria, Egypt. He was popular and socially smooth. He formed friendships with wealthy powerful people (mostly women, especially widows) and spread his doctrines by setting them to catchy tunes and then teaching them to the common people—he was a good marketer and politician. He won more and more people over to him who liked him and tended to be sympathetic to his views. He ended up disputing with his bishop (Alexander) over the nature of Christ. Arius taught that Jesus was of a different nature than the Father and that Jesus was created out of nothing. His views were condemned at the Council of Nicea.

But regardless of what Arius, and those who have been called Arians down through the years actually believed, it seems to me that a couple things they hold in common is that they deny that the Father & the Son are of the same divine nature and also assert that the Son was the first creature made by God the Father. The major group that teaches this today is the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

So, on one side we have the common heresy of people denying that Jesus is God in essence, and on the other side, we have the common heresy of people believing that Jesus is actually the Father (and/or the Holy Spirit as well). And like Arianism, Sabellianism may be a type of faith[81], but it is not what the leaders of the early church acknowledged—through a universal consensus (or at least a nearly universal consensus, because if it had been absolutely universal then a controversy about the matter never would have arisen)—as what “the faith” consists of on this issue.

I have no desire to cultivate a climate in a congregation that consists of a cold, dead, unloving orthodoxy, but neither are churches to be mere social clubs in which every theological opinion and Scripture interpretation is equally valid. Believe it or not, there is such a thing as “wrong” teaching and “wrong” belief. And such things as truth, right belief, correct teaching and doctrinal facts do exist. In my own search for truth, I painfully discovered that a fact is a very stubborn thing—two plus two will always equal four, no matter how much we wish it to be otherwise. What we want to believe does not change the truth about what the ancient faith actually consists of—the faith is what it is. Shouldn’t we simply try, as much as possible (without becoming a bunch of “jangling legalists”), to accept the ancient faith that was passed down to the early church by the Apostles, instead of trying to improve upon what they passed down by making up our own version of it that is easier for us to swallow?

JUDE 3

[1] John 10:30

[2] Sabellius was a man who spread his views in the early 200’s; other early teachers of this belief were Noetus and Praxeas. In the East, people who held to this erroneous belief were often referred to as being Sabellians, or sometimes Noetians.

[3] In the West, people who held to this erroneous belief were often referred to as being Patripassians.

[4] Adherents of this belief include the United Pentecostal Church and maybe some lesser known “Jesus only” or “oneness” groups who baptize in the name of Jesus only. Some theologically uneducated Christians may also hold to this belief.

[5] The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; 1885-1887; repr. 10 vols. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994.

[6] In their writings, the early Christians bring forth an absolutely overwhelming number of irrefutable Scriptural proof-texts to support their beliefs. But the Scriptures are not the issue here—therefore it is not my goal to overwhelm the reader with Scripture passages that he or she should already be familiar with. The issue before us is the correct interpretation of the Scriptures that we all hold so dear.

[7] Callistus was a conniving, power hungry man who ended up becoming bishop in Rome—he wasn’t much of a theologian.

[8] The early Christians occasionally refer to the Son, in His pre-incarnate state, as “the Spirit”. In the case of Luke 1:35, they equated the “Holy Spirit” and “the Power of the Most High” (1 Cor 1:24) which were to come upon Mary, not with the third person of the Trinity, but with the Christ who, pre-existing as Spirit or Word, was to incarnate Himself in her womb. That being so, they still recognized that there was a third divine Person (the Holy Spirit proper) that was distinct from both the Father and the Son

[9] John 14:11

[10] Rom 9:5

[11] Meaning that, in explaining the words of Scripture concerning Christ, the Noetians looked only to one side of the question—namely to the divine nature of Christ; just as Theodotus went to the opposite extreme—looking only to Christ’s human nature, making Him out to be a mere man.

[12] Theodotus held to a different type of Monarchianism called Dynamic Monarchianism—he was an ‘Adoptionist’.

[13] John 20:17

[14] Acts 5:29, 4:19

[15] John 10:30

[16] John 17:22, 23

[17] John 14:9

[18] John 16:28

[19] Matt 4:6

[20] 1 Cor 15:24-25, 27-28

[21] John 14:16

[22] Gen 1:26

[23] Gen 3:22

[24] Ps 8:6

[25] Is 44:24

[26] Ps 33:6

[27] Is 41:4 LXX

[28] John 1:1

[29] Is 45:5

[30] John 10:30

[31] John 14:9-10

[32] John 8:18

[33] John 8:19

[34] John 10:29

[35] John 10:30

[36] Matt 17:5

[37] The early Christians consistently taught that the members of the Trinity cannot be separated, severed or divided from one another.

[38] John 13:1, 3

[39] John 14:5-7

[40] John 14:8

[41] John 14:9

[42] John 10:30

[43] John 14:16

[44] John 16:14

[45] John 10:30

[46] John 15:1

[47] John 17:1

[48] John 20:31

[49] Acts 4:27

[50] 1 Cor 15:3-4

[51] Mark 16:19; Rev 3:21

[52] Lk 24:49

[53] 1 John 4:15

[54] 1 John 5:12

[55] John 14:11 and 17:21

[56] Acts 4:32

[57] John 10:30

[58] John 14:28

[59] A pagan critic

[60] John 14:28

[61] John 10:36

[62] John 10:30

[63] i.e., one side of the two most common Christological/Trinitarian heresies.  One side is denying that Christ is God/divine/theos; the other side is believing that Christ is the Father.

[64] John 10:30

[65] 1 Cor 3:6-8

[66] John 10:36

[67] John 14:7

[68] John 14:7

[69] John 5:17

[70] John 14:12

[71] Gal 3:20; Deut 6:4

[72] John 1:1

[73] John 1:1

[74] Prov 8:30

[75] John 10:30

[76] John 14:8-9

[77] Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the Present (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 95.

[78] Ibid., 98.

[79] Ibid., 111.

[80] Ibid., 111

[81] If I had to make a judgment call between the two heresies being discussed as to which one was the more spiritually detrimental to a persons salvation, I would have to say that, although Arianism is the more logical of the two, I believe that Arianism is the more dangerous—due to the implications of what I understand Jesus to be saying in John 8:24 concerning the expression “I AM”.