Talk:Sabellianism

Details

The story of Sabellianism is much more complicated. But just how much detail can even a wikipedia tolerate?

Sabellianism, it appears, is named after Sabellios mostly by accident. Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch in Syria was deposed in 268 CE after four years of controversy over his Christology. Paul, apparently, was an Adoptionist, meaning that he felt Jesus was a normal human being whom God "adopted" as his son. Sometime during this long argument the name of Sabellios came up. No one in Antioch had ever heard of him, but his name was associated with Rome. So they wrote to Rome about him. Bishop Dionysios replied in a letter of which only a small fragment has been preserved. This was enough to make Sabellios famous among the Greek theologians.

In Rome, fifty or so years earlier, Hippolytos knew Sabellios personally and mentions him in the Philosophumena. He knows Sabellios disliked Trinitarian theology, but he calls Modal Monarchism the heresy of Noetos, not that of Sabellios. He thought he had very nearly recounciled Sabellios to the mainline church.

At approximately the same time Tertullian wrote a tract Against Praxeas. He blamed Praxeas for Monarchism. Maybe Praxeas and Noetos are the same man. He describes Praxeas as rejoining the mainline church in the end and them adds that his heresy had sprung up again. It was Tertullian who coined the nickname Patripassionism for Monarchism, intending it as an insult.

Monarchism simply denies the idea of persons in the godhead. But then a monarchist must take a christological position. That is, who was Christ? A modal monarchist says Christ was God, that he was the Father himself in the flesh. An adoptionist monarchist says Christ was an ordinary, but gifted, man whom God adopted and took into heaven. The adoptionist idea has recurred many times in the history of Christianity. Adoptionist monarchism is very similar to the even older idea called Ebionism which holds that Jesus was an ordinary man and a prophet. Islam takes an Ebionist view concerning Jesus.

Overt modal monarchism is quite rare. The idea that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are simply three names for the same being seems to contradict a number of passages in the Bible where the Father and the Son converse. Even people who believe that nothing is impossible for God are reluctant to believe he can be in two places at the same time. It appears that Tertullian's ancient tract Against Praxeas is still the only refutation of modal monarchism ever written.

Nevertheless it is easy to fall into a modal monarchistic manner of speaking when one is trying to explain the trinity. Hence there is a constant danger that a careless theologian will express a Sabellian idea. So the idea of modal monarchism lives on, not as an actual heresy, but as a heretical position to be avoided.

I hesitate to put this into the wikipedia. If someone else thinks it is worth saving they can move it over. - Kleinecke

I've added a few paragraphs from Kleinecke's account to the article. More probably could be incorporated (after all, Wikipedia is not printed on paper & thus must limit the length of its articles). -- llywrch 23:28, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Probably needs a little tidying and tightening up for the article (though it's fine for talk page in its present form), but it is useful and informative, and should be incorporated.—Copey 2 14:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Kaden

(What's the significance of this heading?—Copey 2 14:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

I'll work on moving it over. The article as it stands doesn't make sense, at least in the case of the first paragraph.

--Finog 01:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I added the quote from Tertullian and reworked the text to be a little more efficent. New articles need to be added on Praxeus and Tertuliian's work adversus praxeus. Rethinker 20:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Modalism

Kudos on the article, well done. Accurate, and well written. If I could make a criticism, maybe could do with footnotes. All in all, a good explanation.

Cialovesyou 12:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Sabellianism article be named Modalism? Sabellianism is a form of modalism, not vice versa. Jonathan Tweet 02:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

New Church view

The New Church could have what is called a modal monarchistic view. The Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg provide a very detailed and rational explantion of how the One God, YHWH, was born into the soul of the man, Jesus Christ, who through a process of making His human nature Divine became one with His Father. Jesus is the One Person who is God. Trinitarians have been trying to preserve the divinity of Jesus, but have split God into three beings in the process. God can be seen as one Divine Human Being. See the section on the New Church.

I have removed the paragraph beginning with "Both Michael Servetus and Emanuel Swedenborg have been interpreted as being proponents of Modalism. Neither, however, described God as appearing in three modes." Neither view is related to Modalism, and the view confusing their doctrines with Modalism is not documented. It is quite clear that Swedenborg regarded Modalism as a heresy:

"From its cradle the Christian church began to be infested and divided by schisms and heresies...After the time of the apostles several other sects arose, as the Marcionites, the Noetians, the Valentinians, the Encratites, the Cataphrygians, the Quarto-Decimans, the Alogians, the Catharians, the Origenists or Adamites, the Sabellians" (True Christian Religion, n. 378). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Webber (talk • contribs) 18:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Unverified claim

Great article, however this statement:

"It is reported that followers of Sabellianism baptized in the shorter formula of the name Jesus Christ as opposed to the Trinitarian formula of the day and spoke "in other tongues" and prophesied."

violates Wikipedia's POV policy on Weaseling in that it makes a claim with an anonymous unverified reference "it is reported"... by whom? As a former Oneness Pentecostal, I have never historically found any evidence that they were practicing tongues in Sabellianism and in addition, the only group who did practice glossalia were the Montanists,who were Trinitarians. --Zaphnathpaaneah 17:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The unverified claim can be verified by the following :

Sabellianism was doctrine adhered to by a sect of the Montanists. Cyprian wrote of them "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?" (Cyprian, c. 250, W, 5.383,484) In 225AD Hippolytus spoke of them saying "Some of them assent to the heresy of the Noetians, affirming the Father Himself is the Son." Victorinus had this to say of them "Some had doubts about the baptism of those who appeared to recognize the same Father with the Son with us, yet who received the new prophets." Saballianism was also referred to by the following Church fathers: Dionysius (c.200-265 AD) wrote "Those baptized in the name of three persons...though baptized by heretics..shall not be rebaptized. But those converted from other heresies shall be perfected by the baptism of the Holy Church." (St. Diontsius, Letters and Treatises,p.54). "Sabellius...blasphemes in saying that the Son Himself is the Father and vice versa." (Dionysius of Rome, c.264,W, 6.365) "Jesus commands them to baptize into the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-not into a unipersonal God." (Turtullian, C. 213,W,3.623) Sabellianism teaching of Modalism and singular name baptism was also accompanied by glossolalia and prophecy among the abovementioned sect of Montanists. In 225 AD Turtullian speaks of "those who would deserve the excellent gifts of the spirit-and who...by means of the Holy Spirit would obtain the gift of language, wisdom, and knowledge."

It is reported that Sabellians experienced glossollia and baptized in the"shorter formula" because of their denial of the Trinity. (J.H. Blunt, p.332,Heik,p 150, kelsey, pp. 40,41).

Sabell-21:29, 28 December 2007

I keep seeing this. It is true that at least one sect of Sabellians were Montanists, however Tertullian (credited with defending the Trinity) was also a Montanist and Praxeas (the modalist Tertullian wrote against) persuaded the bishop of Rome to condemn Montanism. It appears a more accurate statement would be somethings like, "It is reported that some Sabellians were also Montanists and others were not..." Aprettysimple1 (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Contemporary modalism

I don't have the scholarly credentials to add to the existing article (which I appreciate). However, in the conservative Christian circles where I move, those who understand the issue usually agree that popular inclusive language formulas for the Trinity (e.g. as Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer) are a form of modalism. If this is correct, it would seem like it should be included in the article on Sabellianism, since this article is the link when you search "modalism." Thanks!

This is a formula I have heard in my own Baptist church, which is trinitarian. I think that most of the sort of feminist theology it attempts to accommodate is in fact trinitarian as well. I suspect the modalist interpretation is a construct of those who oppose it rather than the intent of those who use it, though I think I see your point; isn't the whole Godhead involved in creation, redemption and sustaining, after all? The Jews lost God's revealed name (YHWH) through reverence; Christians look like losing God's revealed name (Father) through well-meant inclusiveness. Copey 2 01:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Except Father really isn't a name, it's a title, and God's revealed name is most assuredly Jesus :) Spiritanointed (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The distinction between "name" and "title" is a modern one. Is "King of kings and Lord of lords" a "name" or a "title"? According to Rev 19:16 it's a name. "Jesus" is most assuredly not the name Jesus is referring to in John 17:26. Koro Neil (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC) (same person as Copey 2).

We refer to THE Father, so Father is not a name - in the OT His name was Jehovah (Exodus 6:3). Isaiah 9:6 indicates that "Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace" are attributes rather than personal names. The only personal name for God we have to use today is Jesus. Rev107 (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My point still stands. You are talking about modern usage of the English word 'name'. New Testament Greek doesn't make the distinction. We say THE Father, certainly. The Greek of the original New Testament says "THE Father" (ho patēr in the nominative case); it also says "THE Jesus" (ho Iēsous).

If 'Jesus' were the only personal name of God, Jesus would have addressed the Father as 'Jesus' in his prayers, and called him 'Jesus' when talking to the disciples about his Father. He never does. Koro Neil (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This section really does need some refs. My understanding of Oneness Pentecostalism is that they hold Father, Son and Holy Spirit as titles or synonyms not modes (ie you can interchange them at will). This may not have always been the case, I don't know. I'll look for some good refs. Jasoninkid (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Comparative Religion

two points: 1) Sabellianism is only the Christian name for Modalism as a heresy, in Hinduism modalism is essentially orthodoxy. Sabellianism is therefore only a subset of modalism from a strictly broad, encyclopedic view. 2) the difficulty of articulating what the Trinity IS (as opposed to what it is not) makes it difficult to avoid modalist articulations in the christian context and it would be worth further clarifying why precisely Modalism/Sabellianism do not fall within the set of beliefs agreed on by most Christians to be correct.

To what extent might the term modalism be more appropriate as the primary heading of this article? Sabellianism, strictly speaking is the term used among orthodox Christians to describe a kind of modalism within the context of Christian theology. This however would only be a subset of the potential application of the idea of modalism which might better be the primary heading with Sabellianism as a subset of the idea for the context of Chrisitianity.

Within a broader understanding of modalism, the term might also be applied for example to the Hindu conception of the One God as revealed in multiple and infinite forms. An orthodox Hindu would have no trouble accepting the full complete and unique divinity of any of the devas, (Siva, Vishnu, (or His various forms: Ram, Krishna) Shakti (Or Durga, Kali, Laxmi etc. ) as being all equally aspects of God for the believer and yet only aspects or manifestations of God, as He is, in absolute unity. While violating, from an Abrahamic, particularly from a Jewish (see the Shema) or Islamic standpoint (see Tawhid), the idea of the fundamental and indivisible unity of God, this conception of God's unity is no less compromised than that of orthodox Christianity's Trinity and indeed uses the modal concept to preserve a degree of unity not present in orthodox Christianity which accounts Father, Son and Holy Spirit as separate persons sharing an essence.

Before the instant objection that the Hindu and Christian beliefs are not comparable it is importatn to mke some observations. It might be responded that Hindus are often regarded by outsiders as polytheists but this is not their own conception, (indeed it bears note that among Muslims particularly, orthodox Christians are also thought of as having strayed into polytheism.) Hindus should more properly be thought of as modal monotheists, While the various Devas may interact in a mythological sense with each other or the historical world this is not formally different in application than for example the Father and the Son (as incarnate in the Christ) interacting through the means of prayer (as in the Lord's Prayer addressed to the Father or Christ's prayers at Gethsemane) and in other ways within the Gospels. The role of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the father (or amongst western Filioque Christians from Father and Son) is not in substance radically different in concept from some traditional understandings of the Hindu devas' relationships to each-other. They are all just God, not gods. Hence in Hinduism, the form of worship is immaterial and determined by local traditions and the needs of the believer who uses the conception of the Deva to draw closer to God much as an Eastern Orthodox Christian might use an ikon as a focus for increased reminder of and devotion to God. This is all by way of explaining that modalism is not an idea unique to what are commonly accounted the heretical fringes of Christian Theology.

Chrisitians are asked as a mystery of faith to accept the Trinity as beyond rational comprehension and as part of the historic teaching of the church. (since the Bible is not strictly clear on this point and tends rather to emphasize Gods Unity) It is also part of this historic teaching, for concrete historical reasons (preserving the divinity of Christ and the unique role of the suffering of the Son among the three persons) that the division of the Godhead into threeness is more than simply the perception of the believer or an artifact of the encounter of God with His creation. God's existence in three persons is a fundamental and definitive reality of God's existence in God's self in orthodox belief, yet, in keeping with the traditions of Scripture He is also One God eternally. Sabellian Modalism represents a rational solution to the "three yet one paradox" indeed it often seems to be the simplest and easiest way to reconcile the paradox of the trinity logically.

I would weigh in here with Kleinecke that modal descriptions of the Trinity persist widely even among orthodox Christians, even as in the next sentence Sabellianism and modalism are denounced, precisely because of the very difficulty of this mystery of the orthodox faith. Indeed the level of precision required to preclude modalism is part of what makes creedal statements and prayers difficult to formulate. Quite aside from the more modern formulas mentioned by the conservative Christian commmenter previous to me, it is my experience that even amongst very traditional Christians, when they try to explain the Trinity as part of evangelism, they often explain it in modal terms. It is worth perhaps including in the article on Sabellianism precisely why it is unorthodox so that it is more than simply a heresy to be avoided but rather the absence of a truth to be affirmed within the set of consensus Christian doctrines. ~~CharlusIngus.

Indeed. Let's change this article's name to "modalism." Jonathan Tweet 01:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Heresy

Is inclusion in this category a violation of neutrality policies? Thuban541 05:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

4th century usage

By the 4th century, weren't people using the term to describe adoptionism (cf. Marcellus of Ancyra, Photinus) instead of modalistic monarchianism? Jacob Haller 03:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Adoptionism is a completely different theology, also known as "dynamic monarchianism". It states that Jesus "became" God later on in life, but was born merely a man. It was declared a heresy in the 2nd century. -- DeWayne Lehman (talk • contribs) @ 02:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the term was used more loosely. Socrates of Constantinople, in his history, book 2, chapter 29 states "These met at Sirmium, ... and found that Photinus held the heresy of Sabellius the Libyan, and Paul of Samosata, they immediately deposed him. This decision was both at that time and afterwards universally commended as honorable and just; but those who continued there, subsequently acted in a way which was by no means so generally approved." I'm not sure whether the article should note the confusion. Jacob Haller 04:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Meaning and origins

In the Meaning and origins section, wouldn't it be better, due to the length of the section, to put the attribution of the theology to Sabellius at the beginning of the section rather than the end? Maybe I have a short attention span, but I'm reading through the prose, and wondering where its going for what seems like a bit too long. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Filioque dispute

The article should maybe mention the Catholic-Orthodox dispute over filioque, with some Orthodox theologians labeling their Catholic counterparts as Sabellian, and the Catholic side responding with the label of Monarchianism. ADM (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposing merger

The article Patripassionism says that the idea is an alternate form of Sabellianism, and, frankly, that article needs a lot of work. If it is right in saying they're the same thing, then I think it makes sense that they become one article instead of two. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

though in basic agreement with dynamic monarchianism on the foundational issue of limiting the term theos to the person of the Father alone, modalistic monarchianism, also known simply as modalism, nevertheless attempted to speak of the full deity of the Son. The earlier modalists (operating between the second and third centuries), such as Noetus, Epigonus, and Praxeas, achieved this objective by identifying the Son as the Father himself. This led to the charge of patripassianism, which became another label for modalism. Patripassianism is the teaching that it was the Father who became incarnate, was born of a virgin, and who suffered and died on the cross. Praxeas attempted to soften this charge by making a distinction between the Christ who is the Father and the Son who was simply a man. In this way the Father cosuffers with the human Jesus. A more sophisticated form of modalism was taught by Sabellius in Rome early in the third century and was given the name Sabellianism. Although much of his teaching has been confused historically with that of Marcellus of Ancyra (fourth century), some elements can be reconstructed. It seems that Sabellius taught the existence of a divine monad (which he named Huiopator), which by a process of expansion projected itself successively in revelation as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As Father it revealed itself as Creator and Lawgiver. As Son it revealed itself as Redeemer. As Spirit it revealed itself as the giver of grace. These were three different modes revealing the same divine person. Sabellius as well as the modalists preceding him shared the same view of the Logos as that of Paul of Samosata. This along with the fact that modalism was much more popular than dynamic monarchianism (so much so that it alone is sometimes simply called monarchianism) is perhaps why Paul is classified by later patristic writers as a modalist. from Elwell Evangelical Dictionary

So it appears they are slightly different but frankly the Sabellianism should just have a section on the earlier form. I'd agree with the merger since it is going to be hard to discuss the difference with two separate articles. jbolden1517^Talk 21:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion that this entry be merged with the entry for patripassionism seems to make sense only in the context of also merging the theopaschism article with Sabellianism. But, because of the quickly diverging considerations for theopaschism (not yet worked out on that page), I disagree with the merger as proposed, and instead would suggest that both concepts be discussed within this article as being correlated with modalism, but requiring separate treatment in their own articles. Whiskeybokeh (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hans Kung

When Hans Kung was denounced for heterodoxy in 1978, one of the charges that was brought against him was that he was promoting a kind of neo-Sabellianism, by which the Father was deeply present in Jesus during his lifetime, but not in a sense of consubstantiality and verbal pre-existence like what was taught at the council of Nicea. Therefore, according to Kung, Jesus was perhaps a demi-God and certainly an extraordinary human being, but he was not the fully divine man that official Church teaching enshrines. [1] ADM (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to merger

"I have begun to delve into information that I can not even imagine existed." Otr500 (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I realize that according to dates the subject of merging has not been mentioned in some time. I would certainly hope the intended purpose of this encyclopedia would be to provide accurate information on a subject. I have noticed that collaboration, especially on touchy subjects, has been successful. I have, without a doubt, seen this is not the case on certain articles related to religion.

I have only started to research but there are many reasons why a merger should not happen. If anyone, from this point on, wishes for reason"s", before I can gets things together, let me know. Otr500 (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

As added to Talk:Patripassionism:

As added to Talk:Patripassionism:

No merger

I am expressing my view on both proposed merged articles for the record. I have not had time to devote to these subjects, had a house fire and lost everything, and am trying to move at present. This article is tagged as having multiple issues and may need a complete rewrite to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Without going into this too deep there was no evidence that supports a possible merger and evidence to suggest a reason to keep separate.

A clear connection, other than third party slander, must make a connection that the two articles are related or can be merged without deleterious effects. Patripassionism, as far as I understand, is a belief that because there may be only one God, all other reasoning aside, that if one was to feel pain(suffers) then all would have to, but more specifically a spirit, in the form of the Father "would" feel any pain attributed to the Son, being in the form of flesh. This vehicle can not be used to force or further a possible false venue. Unless a clear connection that a person, now or then, that believed or believes in one God always believed or believes that the Father suffered when the Son did, then the two articles can not be merged under either of the two titles and the proposed merger tag needs to be removed. The articles interest me and I will be able to delve into the subjects more at a later date. Otr500 (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the merge request template for several reasons some of which are stated above. If a editor had a suggestion and placed a template it follows that there would be a discussion. If an editor made a passing tag, and no follow up discussion, there is reason to consider this fact.

There was one weak response but the issue is that merging the two articles, again especially as named, would be offensive to many that are currently associated with teachings of Sabellianism and accept the name modalism For others to define a belief, in derogatory explanations of which they are not familiar, or that they are familiar and trying to show contentious ideas through their own interpretation of what they think another person (or group of people) thinks or believes, is what Tertullian did with his writings. He did the same against Praxeas as also Hippolytus wrote of Callistus.

Conclusion: If someone can provide evidence that Sabellius or Praxeas, actually believed in a doctrine that advocates Modalism (and like names) meaning the same as Patripassionism ( or Patripassianism), not from those considered opponents, then the two should be merged.

However, the main reason is Wikipedia:AFM timeline. Otr500 (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Rename

Sabellianism to Modalism. Please put all comments below.

• Support Sabellianism is a specific form of Modalism that specifically identified the Father with the Son. This article's name should reflect other views such as Servetus and Oneness that aren't necessarily direct offgrowths of Sabellianism.--  Novus  Orator  11:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose:Sabellius died around 215 and Servetus was burned at the stake in 1553. Both were subjected to their written works being destroyed so that no evidence would remain. Apparently this worked better for adversaries of Sabellius than Servetus. From the history section of Monarchism; "Modalism (or Modalistic monarchianism) considers God to be one person appearing and working in the different "modes" of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The chief proponent of modalism was Sabellius, hence the view is commonly called Sabellianism. It has also been labeled Patripassianism by its opponents, because it purports that the Person of God the Heavenly Father suffered on the cross.". Servetism is the theology of Michael Servetus, not modalism, Sabellianism, or the like. Modalism has been attributed to him. The theology of Sabellius would be Sabellianism with modalism attributed to him as well as charges of Patripassianism.

There is ample space ( I am told) to recreate the article Modalism (that was incorrectly merged) and include information from those that were considered or labeled as Modalists. Sabellious, Servetus, Sebastian Castellio who actually argued that "the Trinity, predestination, free will, the nature of God, of angels, the state of souls after life, etc.) which are absolutely not necessary for salvation.", Callistus, Pope Zephyrinus, Pope Callixtus I, Noetus (that some might actually consider more the father of modalism than Sabellius), Oneness, and any that I have missed. Otr500 (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong reference

It seems that in the sentence, "In passages of scripture such as Matthew 1:16-17 where the Son, Father, and Holy Spirit are separated in the text, ...", the bible reference is wrong. Matt. 1:16-17 has nothing to do with the memebers of the Trinity. Theophilius (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Section: Eastern Orthodox view

This looks to be nothing more than a bit of preaching. If there's a connection to the rest of the article, I can't see it. It should either be rewritten or cut. 192.31.106.35 (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

How does this differ from standard Trinitarianism?

I'm confused. How does this differ from standard Trinitarianism? This sounds pretty similar to the explanations various mainstream Christians have given me for the Trinity. 109.149.70.145 (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Catholic criticism

This paragraph has poor grammar that seriously confuses whatever point the editor was trying to make. It contains sentence fragments rather than sentences, and I cannot seem to mentally assemble the fragments into a logical whole. Whatever connection the editor was trying to make between Aristotelian philosophy and Catholic criticism of Sabellianism is lost in the muddle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.64.53.227 (talk) 03:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Modalists differentiate themselves from Unitarians ...

... uh? (Section Meaning and origins) AFAIK (but I might be wrong) the Sabellians were active say 1400 years ago, while the Unitarians emerged some 500 years ago. If the Modalists really knew that the Unitarians were to emerge in 900 years, their prophetic abilities must have been admirably superior to everything known. Or this article gargles balderdash, more likely, kind of. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I almost wish there was a kill button on each article, such that if it was pressed say 10 times, the article were to be deleted for being annoying nonsense. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree but probably not for the same reasons as you. This article is an example of why Wikipedia is considered a joke to many. So much of the article, as well as some that are related, has escaped even being tagged WP:OR of which it is full of. I have been a editor a good while but have to battle constantly because "JUST" making a good article is not always the intent. I can not edit this article because there is a drive to "mainstream" everything to trinitariansism. The name, referred to as Sabellianism (with too many references to count), was a nontrinitarian belief, that is identified in the lead.

This article has evolved from a writing that should be about a "difference" in what became known as "mainstream" trinitarian, and an alternative belief at the time and later evolving, to a whole lot of rubbish, that tilts WP:balance to a whole new definition. His chief opponent Tertullian (also full of OR), was associated with Sabellius at one point, reversed directions and fought hard against him, and was instrumental in getting an order to have all books on the person and belief destroyed. This same person used a word, that is still sometimes attached to any that have similar beliefs, "Patripassianism". Tertullian later reversed directions and became associated with Montanism that held Oneness beliefs. Tertullian later was accused of misogyny because of his writings, going against mainstream, concerning Eve. In reality, his biblical teachings had no more to do with any dislike of women than his charges against Sabellius concerning patripassianism.

The point is; The article is about a Oneness belief that is different from "mainstream theology", but is now an article that is misdirected, includes "Main article: Trinitarianism" under the "Meaning and origins" section, and even content concerning his opponent is utterly OR and weasel wording. That article states "He even labeled second marriage a species of adultery (De exhortationis castitatis, ix), but this directly contradicted the Epistles of the Apostle Paul ".

Anyway, it does not matter to me because I get tired of fighting to make a good article when apparently I get in a boat of being the only one that would like to see that. "IF" there is not references to link then tag it, or remove it, and play the battle game. Be advised, if you like to be a good editor and lacking a "kill button", that you can have a lot of battling fun (if you like that) to correct OR even with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. My opinion; "mainstream" tried to eradicate Sabellius and since that was not as effective as intended then keep trying. Otr500 (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Out of context quote

I have removed the quote "Sabellius held to a Trinity." tagged as dubious since April 2022 -- and reference. We can enter a long arduous discussion about why it is an improper "quote", that will include that it misrepresents and distorts not only the "supposed" teaching of the subject, it is a spin (inadvertent or not) to somehow toss in that the subject was really a trinitarian. It is a "he said he said," from an author writing a "Historical Commentaries" (subtitled: "Opinions of Sabellius") about a person as if it is a history of what that person actually said or wrote. Almost the entirety of the history of the subject was eradicated, supposedly by, or with great assistance, of Tertullian, a Roman citizen, having held to some of the same beliefs as Sabellius and at a point belonging to the same movement. When he broke away he vehemently denied most but not all of this belief. "Patripassianism", as well as "Trinity", were supposedly coined by Tertullian.

The fact is that the suspicious addition of one sentence from a commentary cannot be used to try to swing the supposed teachings of the subject, as well as the later historical followers and church leaders, to make it appear this person was in fact a Trinitarian. This is misleading and can be seen as an attempt to even change history.

• Reference removed: VON MOSHEIM, JOHN LAWRENCE (1854). HISTORICAL COMMENTARIES ON THE STATE OF CHRISTIANITY.

Does the Eastern Orthodox view contain Sabellianism?

It’s unclear if the section “Eastern Orthodox view” is in support of, or is opposed to, Sabellianism. Is this section supposed to contrast with Sabellianism, or is it supposed to be one view which contains Sabellianism? 72.201.95.148 (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Abelard

The attacks on Abelard for Sabellianism deserve a section, even if only to clarify why the clerics thought his logic/Platonism reeked of it and why they were mistaken on that point (if so). — LlywelynII 15:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)