Christianity , SABELLIANISM in the Eastern church or
Patripassianism in the Western church (also known as MODALISM,
MODALISTIC MONARCHIANISM, or MODAL MONARCHISM) is the nontrinitarian
Trinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father , Resurrected Son
, and Holy Spirit are three different modes or aspects of one monadic
God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons
within the Godhead —that there are no real or substantial
differences among the three, such that there is no substantial
identity for the Spirit or the Son. Modalistic monarchianism has been
generally understood to have arisen during the second and third
centuries, and to have been regarded as heresy after the fourth,
although this is disputed by some. The term
Sabellianism comes from
Sabellius , who was a theologian and priest from the 3rd century.
Sabellianism taught that
God the Father
God the Father was the only true
existence of the Godhead, a belief known as
Monarchianism . One author
has described Sabellius' teaching thus: "The true question, therefore,
turns on this, viz., what is it which constitutes what we name
‘person’ in the Godhead? Is it original, substantial, essential to
divinity itself? Or does it belong to and arise from the exhibitions
and developments which the divine Being has made of himself to his
creatures? The former
Sabellius denied; the latter he fully admitted."
Sabellianism has been rejected by the majority of Christian churches
in favour of
Trinitarianism , which was eventually defined as three
distinct, co-equal, co-eternal Persons of One Substance by the
Athanasian Creed , probably dating from the late 5th or early 6th
century. The Greek term homoousian or "con-substantial"
(ὁμοούσιος) had been used before its adoption by the First
Council of Nicaea. The Gnostics were the first to use the word
ὁμοούσιος, while before the Gnostics there is no trace at
all of its existence. The early church theologians were
probably made aware of this concept, and thus of the doctrine of
emanation , taught by the Gnostics. In Gnostic texts the word
ὁμοούσιος is used with the following meanings:
* Identity of substance between generator and generated.
* Identity of substance between things generated of the same
* Identity of substance between the partners of a syzygy .
It has been noted that this Greek term "homoousian " or
Athanasius of Alexandria
Athanasius of Alexandria favoured, was also a
term reportedly used by Sabellius— a term that many who held with
Athanasius were uneasy about. Their objection to the term "homoousian"
was that it was considered to be un-Scriptural, suspicious, and "of a
Sabellian tendency." This was because
Sabellius also considered the
Father and the Son to be "one substance," meaning that, to Sabellius,
the Father and Son were one essential person, though operating as
different manifestations or modes. Athanasius' use of the word is
intended to affirm that while the Father and Son are eternally
distinct in a truly personal manner (i.e. with mutual love John 3:35,
14:31 ), both are nevertheless One Being, Essence, Nature, or
Substance, having One personal Spirit.
* 1 History and Development
* 3 Eastern Orthodox view
* 4 Current adherents
* 5 Current opposition
* 6 See also
* 7 References
* 8 External links
HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT
Modalism has been mainly associated with
Sabellius , who taught a
form of it in Rome in the 3rd century. This had come to him via the
Noetus was excommunicated from the
Church after being examined by council, and
Praxeas is said to have
recanted his modalistic views in writing, teaching again his former
Sabellius likewise was excommunicated by council in
Alexandria, and after complaint of this was made to Rome, a second
council then assembled in Rome and also ruled against not only
Sabellianism, but against Arianism, and against Tritheism, while
affirming a Divine Triad as the catholic understanding of the Divine
Hippolytus of Rome
Hippolytus of Rome knew
Sabellius personally, writing how
he and others had admonished
Philosophumena . He knew
Trinitarian theology, yet he called Modal Monarchism
the heresy of Noetus, not that of Sabellius.
Sabellianism was embraced
by Christians in
Cyrenaica , to whom Dionysius , Patriarch of
Alexandria (who was instrumental in the excommunication of Sabellius
in Alexandria), wrote letters arguing against this belief. Hippolytus
himself perceived modalism as a new and peculiar idea which was
covertly gaining a following:
Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine, who have
become disciples of one Noetus, who was a native of Smyrna, (and)
lived not very long ago. This person was greatly puffed up and
inflated with pride, being inspired by the conceit of a strange
spirit. There has appeared one,
Noetus by name, and by birth a
native of Smyrna. This person introduced a heresy from the tenets of
Heraclitus. Now a certain man called Epigonus becomes his minister and
pupil, and this person during his sojourn at Rome disseminated his
godless opinion. But Cleomenes, who had become his disciple, an alien
both in way of life and habits from the Church, was wont to
corroborate the (Noetian) doctrine. But in like manner, also,
Noetus, being by birth a native of Smyrna, and a fellow addicted to
reckless babbling, as well as crafty withal, introduced (among us)
this heresy which originated from one Epigonus. It reached Rome, and
was adopted by Cleomenes, and so has continued to this day among his
Tertullian also perceived modalism as entering into the Church from
without as a new idea, and opposing the doctrine which had been
received through succession. After setting forth his understanding of
the manner of faith which had been received by the Church, he then
describes how "simple" people are often startled at the idea that the
One God exists as union of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. While he does
certainly state that the majority of believers are "simple," and that
both Latins and Greeks were among his opponents, he does not
explicitly say the majority of believers were opposed to what himself
understood to be "the rule of faith," as some modern modalists have
attempted to show by his statements. Rather, when read in full
Tertullian presents his objectors as "simple" persons,
putting forth ideas of their own which had not been taught to them by
their elders, regardless of how many or how few their number:
We, however, as we indeed always have done (and more especially since
we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed
into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the
following DISPENSATION, or οἰκονομία , as it is called, that
this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from
Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was
made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin,
and to have been born of her—being both Man and God, the Son of Man
and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus
Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried,
according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by
the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand
of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead;
who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own
promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of
those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy
Ghost. That this RULE OF FAITH has come down to us FROM THE BEGINNING
OF THE GOSPEL, even before any of the older heretics, much more before
Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the
lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the
absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas. In this
principle also we must henceforth find a presumption of equal force
against all heresies whatsoever—that whatever is first is true,
whereas that is spurious which is later in date.
The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who
always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the
DISPENSATION (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very RULE
OF FAITH withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the
one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only
God, He must yet be believed in with His own οἰκονομία . The
numerical order and distribution of the
Trinity they assume to be a
division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the
of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually
supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we
are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to
themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One
God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not
produce heresy, and the
Trinity rationally considered constitute the
According to modalism, God is said to be only one being who reveals
himself in different ways called modes, faces, aspects, roles or masks
(Greek πρόσωπα prosopa ; Latin personae ) of the One God , as
perceived by the believer, rather than three co-eternal persons within
the Godhead, or a "co-equal Trinity". Modalists note that the only
number expressly (and in many instances) ascribed to God in the Old
Testament is One, do not accept interpreting this number as denoting
union (i.e. Gen 2:24) when it is applied to God, and dispute the
meaning or validity of related New Testament passages cited by
Trinitarians for their understanding of scripture. The Comma
Johanneum , which some regard as a spurious text in
First John (1 John
5:7) known primarily from the
King James Version
King James Version and some versions of
Textus Receptus , but not included in modern critical texts, is an
instance (the only one expressly stated) of the word Three describing
God. Many modalists point out the lack of the word "Trinity" in any
Passages such as Deut 6:4-5; Deut 32:12; 2Kings 19:15-19; Job 6:10;
Job 31:13-15; Psalm 71:22; Psalm 83:16,18; Is 42:8; Is 45:5-7; Is
48:2,9,11-13; Mal 2:8,10; Matt 19:17; Romans 3:30; 2Cor 11:2-3; Gal
3:20; and Jude 1:25 are referenced by modalists as affirming that the
Being of the One God is solidly single, and although known in several
modes, precludes any concept of divine co-existence. Hippolytus
described similar reasoning by
Noetus and his followers saying:
Now they seek to exhibit the foundation for their dogma by citing the
word in the law, “I am the God of your fathers: ye shall have no
other gods beside me;” and again in another passage, “I am the
first,” He saith, “and the last; and beside me there is none
other.” Thus they say they prove that God is one.... And we cannot
express ourselves otherwise, he 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
Oneness Pentecostals , an identifier used by some modern modalists,
claim that Colossians 1:12-20 refers to Christ's relationship with the
Father in the sense of different roles of God:
giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the
inheritance of the saints in light. He has delivered us from the
domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved
Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the
image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him
all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and
invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities; all
things were created through him and for him. And he is before all
things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the
body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead,
that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness
of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself
all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood
of his cross.
Oneness Pentecostals also cite Christ's response to Philip 's query
on who the Father was in John 14:10 to support this assertion:
Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been
among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the
Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
Trinitarian Christians hold that verses such as Colossians 1:12-20
remove all reasonable doubt that scripture teaches the Son, Who IS the
Word of God (i.e. John 1:1-3), is literally "living," and literally
Creator of everything together with
God the Father
God the Father and the Spirit of
God. In the
Trinitarian view, the above usage not only takes John
14:10 out of its immediate context, but is also resolutely contrary to
the congruence of the Gospel of John as a whole, and strongly
suspected of begging the question in interpretation. Trinitarians
understand John 14:10 as informed by parallel verses such as John 1:14
and John 1:18, and as affirming the eternal union of the Son with His
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory,
glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and
truth... No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is
in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
Many doctrinal exchanges between modalists and Trinitarians are
similar to the above. Passages such as Gen 1:26-27; Gen 16:11-13; Gen
32:24,30; Judg 6:11-16; Is 48:16; Zech 2:8-9; Matt 3:16-17; Mark
13:32; Luke 12:10; John 5:18-27; John 14:26-28; John 15:26; John
16:13-16; John 17:5,20-24; Acts 1:6-9; and Heb 1:1-3,8-10 are
referenced by Trinitarians as affirming that the Being of the One God
is an eternal, personal, and mutually indwelling COMMUNION of Father ,
Son , and Holy Spirit . Addressing the fact that the word
not occur in scripture, Trinitarians attest that extra-biblical
doctrinal language often summarizes our understanding scripture in a
clear and concise manner—other examples being even the words
modalism, mode, and role—and that use of such language does not of
itself demonstrate accuracy or inaccuracy. Further, the accusative
implication that the word
Trinity gained common use apart from careful
and pious fidelity to scripture may be associated with ad hominem
argumentation. Hippolytus described his own response to Noetus'
doctrine, claiming the truth to be more evident than either of the two
mutually opposed views of
In this way, then, they choose to set forth these things, and they
make use only of one class of passages; just in the same one-sided
manner that Theodotus employed when he sought to prove that Christ was
a mere man. But neither has the 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... For who will not say that
there is one God? Yet he will not on that account deny the economy .
The proper way, therefore, to deal with the question is first of all
to refute the interpretation put upon these passages by these men, and
then to explain their real meaning.
Tertullian said of Praxeas' followers:
For, confuted on all sides on the distinction between the Father and
the Son, which we maintain without destroying their inseparable
union... they endeavour to interpret this distinction in a way which
shall nevertheless tally with their own opinions: so that, all in one
Person, they distinguish two, Father and Son, understanding the Son to
be flesh, that is man, that is Jesus; and the Father to be spirit,
that is God, that is Christ. Thus they, while contending that the
Father and the Son are one and the same, do in fact begin by dividing
them rather than uniting them.”
A comparison of the above statement by
Tertullian with the following
example statement made by
Oneness Pentecostals today is striking:
"Jesus is the Son of God according to the flesh... and the very God
Himself according to the Spirit...."
The form of the LORD's Name appearing in verse nineteen of the Great
Commission , Matthew 28:16-20, has also historically been spoken
during Christian baptism,
Trinitarian Christians believing the three
distinct, albeit co-inherent, persons of the Holy
witness by Jesus' baptism. Many modalists do not use this form as the
LORD's Name. It is also suggested by some modern Oneness Pentecostal
critics, that Matthew 28:19 is not part of the original text, because
Eusebius of Caesarea quoted it by saying "In my name", and in that
source there was no mention of baptism in the verse.
however, quote the "trinitarian" formula in his later writings.
(Conybeare (Hibbert Journal i (1902-3), page 102). Matthew 28:19 is
quoted also in the
Didache 7:1), which dates to the late 1st
Century or early 2nd Century) and in the
55:5-7), which dates to the mid 2nd Century harmony of the Synoptic
Gospels. The Shem-Tob's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (George Howard),
written during the 14th century, also has no reference of baptism or a
"trinitarian" formula in Matthew 28:19. However, it is also true that
no Greek manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew has ever been found which
does not contain Matthew 28:19. The earliest extant copies of
Matthew's Gospel date to the 3rd Century, and they contain Matthew
28:19. Therefore, scholars generally agree that Matthew 28:19 is
likely part of the original Gospel of Matthew, though a minority
In passages of scripture such as Matthew 3:16-17 where the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit are separated in the text and witness, modalists
view this phenomenon as confirming God's omnipresence , and His
ability to manifest himself as he pleases .
Oneness Pentecostals and
Modalists attempt to dispute the traditional doctrine of eternal
co-existent union, while affirming the Christian doctrine of God
taking on flesh as Jesus Christ. Like Trinitarians, Oneness adherents
attest that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. However,
Trinitarians believe that the "Word of God," the eternal second Person
of the Trinity, was manifest as the Son of God by taking humanity to
Himself and by glorifying that Humanity to equality with God through
His resurrection, in eternal union with His own Divinity. In
contrast, Oneness adherents hold that the One and Only true God—Who
manifests Himself in any way He chooses, including as Father, Son and
Holy Spirit (though not choosing to do so in an eternally simultaneous
manner)—became man in the temporary role of Son. Many Oneness
Pentecostals have also placed a strongly Nestorian distinction between
Jesus' humanity and Divinity as in the example compared with
Tertullian's statement above.
Oneness Pentecostals and other modalists are regarded by Roman
Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and most other mainstream Christians as
heretical for denying the literal existence of God's Beloved Son from
Heaven, including His eternal Being and personal communion with the
Father as High Priest, Mediator, Intercessor and Advocate; rejecting
the direct succession of apostolic gifts and authority through the
ordination of the Christian bishops; rejecting the identity of
mainstream Christians as the God-begotten Body and Church which Christ
founded; and rejecting the affirmations of the ecumenical councils
such as the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople , including the Holy
Trinity. These rejections are for mainstream Christendom similar to
Unitarianism , in that they primarily result from Christological
heresy. While many Unitarians are Arians, modalists differentiate
Arian or Semi-
Arian Unitarians by affirming Christ's
full Godhead , whereas both the
Arian and Semi-
Arian views assert
Christ as not of one substance (Greek: οὐσία ) with, and
therefore also not equal with, God the Father. Dionysius, bishop of
Rome, set forth the understanding of traditional Christianity
Sabellianism in Against the Sabellians,
ca. AD 262. He, in similarity to Hippolytus, explained that the two
errors are at opposite extremes in seeking to understand the Son of
Arianism misusing that the Son is distinct respecting the Father,
Sabellianism misusing that the Son is equal respecting the Father.
In fact, he also repudiated the idea of three Gods as error as well.
Sabellianism may appear to be diametrically
opposed, the former claiming Christ to be created and the latter
claiming Christ is God, both in common deny the
that Christ is God Eternal IN HIS HUMANITY, and that this is the very
basis of man's hope of salvation. "One, not by conversion of the
Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God."
Hippolytus' account of the excommunication of
Noetus is as follows:
When the blessed presbyters heard this, they summoned him before the
Church, and examined him. But he denied at first that he held such
opinions. Afterwards, however, taking shelter among some, and having
gathered round him some others who had embraced the same error, he
wished thereafter to uphold his dogma openly as correct. And the
blessed presbyters called him again before them, and examined him. But
he stood out against them, saying, “What evil, then, am I doing in
glorifying Christ?” And the presbyters replied to him, “We too
know in truth one God; we know Christ; we know that the Son suffered
even as He suffered, and died even as He died, and rose again on the
third day, and is at the right hand of the Father, and cometh to judge
the living and the dead. And these things which we have learned we
allege.” Then, after examining him, they expelled him from the
Church. And he was carried to such a pitch of pride, that he
established a school.
Today's Oneness Pentecostal sects were also forced out of their
original organization when a council of Pentecostal leaders officially
repudiated their doctrines, and have since established schools .
Epiphanius (Haeres 62) about 375 notes that the adherents of
Sabellius were still to be found in great numbers, both in Mesopotamia
and at Rome. The first general council at Constantinople in 381 in
canon VII and the third general council at Constantinople in 680 in
canon XCV declared the baptism of
Sabellius to be invalid, which
Sabellianism was still extant.
The chief critics of
Tertullian and Hippolytus . In
his work Adversus Praxeas, Chapter I,
Tertullian wrote "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
and he crucified the Father." Likewise Hippolytus wrote, "Do you see,
he says, how the Scriptures proclaim one God? And as this is clearly
exhibited, and these passages are testimonies to it, I am under
necessity, he says, since one is acknowledged, to make this One the
subject of suffering. For Christ was God, and suffered on account of
us, being Himself the Father, that He might be able also to save
us.... 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." From these notions came the term
Patripassianism " for the movement, from the Latin words pater for
"father", and passus from the verb "to suffer" because it implied that
the Father suffered on the Cross.
It is important to note that our only sources extant for our
Sabellianism are from their detractors. Scholars
today are not in agreement as to what exactly
Sabellius or Praxeas
taught. It is easy to suppose that
Tertullian and Hippolytus
misrepresented the opinions of their opponents.
EASTERN ORTHODOX VIEW
Greek Orthodox teach that God is not of a substance that is
God the Father
God the Father has no origin and is eternal and
infinite. Thus it is improper to speak of things as "physical" and
"metaphysical"; rather it is correct to speak of things as "created"
God the Father
God the Father is the origin and source of the
Trinity of Whom the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeding, all
Three being Uncreated. Therefore, the consciousness of God is not
obtainable to created beings either in this life or the next (see
apophatism ). Through co-operation with the Holy Spirit (called
theosis ), Mankind can become good (God-like), not becoming uncreated,
but partaker of His divine energies (2 Peter 1:4). From such a
perspective Mankind can be reconciled from the Knowledge of Good and
the Knowledge of Evil he obtained in the
Garden of Eden (see the Fall
of Man ), his created substance thus partaking of Uncreated God
through the indwelling Presence of the eternally incarnate (Phil 3:21)
Son of God and His Father by the Spirit (John 17:22-24, Rom
At the Arroyo Seco World Wide Camp Meeting, near Los Angeles, in
1913, Canadian evangelist
R.E. McAlister stated at a baptismal service
that the apostles had baptized in the name of Jesus only and not in
the triune Name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Later that night,
John G. Schaeppe, a German immigrant, had a vision of Jesus and woke
up the camp shouting that the name of Jesus needed to be glorified.
From that point, Frank J. Ewart began requiring that anyone baptized
Trinitarian formula needed to be rebaptized in the name of
Jesus “only.” Support for this position began to spread, along
with a belief in one
Person in the Godhead, acting in different modes
The General Council of the Assemblies of God convened in St. Louis,
Missouri in October 1916, to confirm their belief in Trinitarian
orthodoxy. The Oneness camp was faced by a majority who required
acceptance of the
Trinitarian baptismal formula and the orthodox
doctrine of the
Trinity or remove themselves from the denomination. In
the end, about a quarter of the ministers withdrew.
Oneness Pentecostalism teaches that God is one Person, and that the
Father (a spirit) is united with Jesus (a man) as the Son of God.
Oneness Pentecostalism differs somewhat by rejecting
sequential modalism, and by the full acceptance of the begotten
humanity of the Son, not eternally begotten, who was the man Jesus and
was born, crucified, and risen, and not the deity. This directly
opposes the pre-existence of the Son as a pre-existent mode, which
Sabellianism generally does not oppose.
Oneness Pentecostals believe that Jesus was "Son" only when he became
flesh on earth, but was the Father before being made man. They refer
to the Father as the "Spirit" and the Son as the "Flesh". But they
believe that Jesus and the Father are one essential Person. Though
operating as different "manifestations" or "modes". Oneness
Pentecostals reject the
Trinity doctrine, viewing it as pagan and
un-Scriptural, and hold to the Jesus\' Name doctrine with respect to
baptisms. They are often referred to as "Modalists" or "Jesus Only" .
Oneness Pentecostalism can be compared to Sabellianism, or can be
described as holding to a form of Sabellianism, as both are
nontrinitarian , and as both believe that Jesus was "Almighty God in
the Flesh", but they do not totally identify each other.
It cannot be certain whether
Modalism completely as
it is taught today as Oneness doctrine, since only a few fragments of
his writings are extant and, therefore, all we have of his teachings
comes through the writing of his detractors.
The following excerpts which demonstrate some of the known doctrinal
characteristics of ancient Sabellians may be seen to compare with the
doctrines in the modern Oneness movement:
Cyprian wrote - "...how, when
God the Father
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, be judged to have obtained the
remission of sins?
* Hippolytus (A.D. 170–236) referred to them - "And some of these
assent to the heresy of the Noetians, and affirm that the Father
himself is the Son..."
Pope Dionysius , Bishop of Rome from A.D. 259–269 wrote -
"Sabellius...blasphemes in saying that the Son Himself is the Father
and vice versa."
Tertullian states - "He commands them to baptize into the Father
and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed
it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into three
persons, at each several mention of their names.”
Oneness Pentecostals seek to differentiate themselves from
ancient Sabellianism, modern theologians such as
James R. White and
Robert Morey see no difference between the ancient heresy of
Sabellianism and current Oneness doctrine. This is based on the denial
Oneness Pentecostals of the Trinity, especially of the Divinity and
Eternality of the SON of God, based upon a denial of the distinction
between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Sabellianism,
Patripassianism, Modalistic Monarchianism, functionalism, Jesus Only,
Father Only, and
Oneness Pentecostalism are viewed as being derived
from the Platonic doctrine that God was an indivisible Monad and could
not be differentiated as distinct Persons.
Greek Gospel of the Egyptians
* ^ G. T. Stokes, “Sabellianism,” ed. William Smith and Henry
Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and
Doctrines (London: John Murray, 1877–1887), 567.
* ^ https://www.britannica.com/topic/
Encyclopedia Brittanica Online
* ^ A B C Views of Sabellius, The Biblical Repository and Classical
Review, American Biblical Repository
* ^ von Harnack, Adolf, Dogmengeschichte (in German), 1:284–85,
n. 3; 2:232–34, n. 4 .
* ^ Ortiz de Urbina, Ignacio (1942), "L’homoousios preniceno" ,
Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 8: 194–209 .
* ^ Ortiz de Urbina, Ignacio (1947), El Simbolo Niceno (in
Spanish), Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, pp.
* ^ Mendizabal, Luis M (1956), "El Homoousios Preniceno
Extraeclesiastico" , Estudios Eclesiasticos (in Spanish), 30: 147–96
* ^ Prestige, George Leonard (1952) , God in Patristic Thought (2d
ed.), London: SPCK, pp. 197–218 .
* ^ Gerlitz, Peter (1963), Aufierchristliche Einflilsse auf die
Entwicklung des christlichen. Trinitatsdogmas, zugleich ein religions-
und dogmengeschichtlicher Versuch zur Erklarung der Herkunft der
Homousie, Leiden: Brill, pp. 193–221 .
* ^ Boularand, Ephrem (1972), L'heresie d'Arius et la ‘foi’ de
Nicke (in French), 2, La "foi" de Nicee, Paris: Letouzey & Ane, pp.
* ^ Kelly, John Norman D (1972), Early Christian Creeds (3d ed.),
London: Longman, p. 245 .
* ^ Dinsen, Frauke (1976), Homoousios. Die Geschichte des Begriffs
bis zum Konzil von Konstantinopel (381) (Diss) (in German), Kiel, pp.
* ^ Stead, Christopher, Divine Substance, pp. 190–202 .
* ^ Grillmeier, Aloys (1975), Christ in Christian Tradition, 1,
From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451), London: Mowbrays, p. 109 .
* ^ Select Treatises of St. Athanasius - In Controversy With the
Arians - Freely Translated by John Henry Cardinal Newmann - Longmans,
Green, and Co., 1911, footnote n.124
* ^ Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria. "Against the Arians,
Discourse 3, paragraph 66". ChristianClassicsEtheralLibrary. Retrieved
2 June 2017.
* ^ A History of Christianity: Volume I: Beginnings to 1500 by
Kenneth S. Latourette, Revised Edition p.144-146, published by
HarperCollins, 1975: ISBN 0-06-064952-6 , ISBN 978-0-06-064952-4
* ^ A B C D E F Hippolytus, of Rome. "Against the Heresy of
Noetus". Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Retrieved 29 May 2017.
* ^ A B Tertullian, of Carthage. "Against Praxeas, Chapter 1".
Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Retrieved 29 May 2017.
* ^ Schaff, Phillip. "History of the Christian Church, Volume II".
Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Retrieved 29 May 2017.
* ^ A B Dionysius, bishop of Rome. "Against Sabellians". Early
Christian Writings. Retrieved 28 May 2017.
* ^ Hippolytus, of Rome. "The Refutation of All Heresies, Book 9".
EarlyChristianWritings. Retrieved 29 May 2017.
* ^ Hippolytus, of Rome. "The Refutation of All Heresies, Book 10".
EarlyChristianWritings. Retrieved 29 May 2017.
* ^ Tertullian, of Carthage. "Against Praxeas, Chapter 2".
ChristianClassicsEtherealLibrary. Retrieved 29 May 2017.
* ^ Tertullian, of Carthage. "Against Praxeas, Chapter 3".
ChristianClassicsEtherealLibrary. Retrieved 29 May 2017.
* ^ pgs 51-55
Vladimir Lossky The Mystical Theology of the Eastern
Church, SVS Press, 1997. (ISBN 0-913836-31-1 ) James Clarke & Co Ltd,
1991. (ISBN 0-227-67919-9 )
* ^ Moss, C. B., The Christian Faith: An Introduction to Dogmatic
Theology, The Chaucer Press, London, 1943
* ^ See, for example, Metzger, Bruce M., A Textual Commentary on
the Greek New Testament (2nd Edition), Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 1994, pages 647-649.
* ^ Anthony Buzzard (July 2003). "Trinity, or not?". Elohim and
Other Terms. focusonthekingdom.org. Retrieved 2 March 2011.
* ^ The Oneness of God
* ^ A rebuttal to Bernard
* ^ Colossians 1:12-20 (ESV)
* ^ Tertullian, of Carthage. "Against Praxeas". Christian Classics
Ethereal Library. Retrieved 29 May 2017.
* ^ "The God Head". theapostolicwayupcff.com. Retrieved 29 May
* ^ Skynner, Robert. "Answering Oneness Pentecostals: Colossians
2:9". YouTube. Retrieved 29 May 2017.
* ^ St. Athanasius, of Alexandria. "Contra Gentes Part III".
Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Retrieved 28 May 2017.
* ^ St. Athanasius, of Alexandria. "The Incarnation of the Word".
Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Retrieved 28 May 2017.
* ^ "The End of the "Son"". ChristianDefense.com. Retrieved 28 May
* ^ Dulle, Jason. "Avoiding the Achilles Heels...".
OnenessPentecostal.com. Retrieved 28 May 2017.
* ^ "Athanasian Creed". Reformed.org. Retrieved 29 May 2017.
* ^ Gill, Kenneth. "Dividing Over Oness". ChristianityToday.
Retrieved 29 May 2017.
* ^ Monarchians, New Advent, Catholic Encyclopedia
Vladimir Lossky , The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church,
SVS Press, 1997, p.50-59.(ISBN 0-913836-31-1 ) James Clarke London:
Beliefs condemned as heresy by the Catholic Church
Anomoeanism , Semi-
* Free Spirit
Community of the Lady of All Nations