Patripassianism

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason specified. Please add a |reason= parameter to this template. Please help improve this article if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions. (July 2010)

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2011)

In Christian theology, patripassianism is the view that God the Father suffers (from Latin patri- "father" and passio "suffering"). Its adherents believe that God the Father was incarnate and suffered on the cross and that whatever happened to the Son happened to the Father and so the Father co-suffered with the human Jesus on the cross. This view is opposed to the classical theological doctrine of divine apathy. According to classical theology it is possible for Christ to suffer only in virtue of his human nature. The divine nature is incapable of suffering. Classical theology is heavily influenced by Greek metaphysics and especially Neo-Platonic and Stoic conceptions of God. As a result, there is considerable debate among Christian theologians as to how much of classical theology is actually required for Christian orthodoxy. The early church considered patripassianism to be heresy.

Trinitarian

Patripassianism, a heretical doctrine denying the distinct personhood of the Trinity and asserting that God the Father became incarnate and suffered for mans redemption.

History

Patripassionism began in the third century AD. Patripassianism was referred to as a belief ascribed to those following Sabellianism, after its founder Sabellius, especially by the chief opponent Tertullian. Sabellius, considered a founder of an early movement, was a priest who was excommunicated from the Church by Pope Callixtus I in 220 and lived in Rome. Sabellius advanced the doctrine of one God sometimes referred to as “economic Trinity” and he opposed the Orthodox doctrine of the “essential Trinity”. Praxeus and Noetus were some major followers. Tertullian may have authored the term Patripassianism but was certainly a chief opponent of Modalism or the belief in one God with different modes. Therefore, opponents such as Tertullian advanced the idea that the Father co-suffers with the human Jesus.

Because the writings of Sabellius were destroyed it is hard to know if he did actually believe in Patripassianism but one early version of the Apostles' Creed, recorded by Rufinus, explicitly states that the Father is 'impassible.' This reading dates to about 390 AD. This addition was made in response to patripassianism, which Rufinus evidently regarded as a heresy.^[1]

Cyprian and Tertullian famously accused the Modalistic Monarchians of patripassianism.^[2] The Monarchians taught the unity of the Godhead in Christ and that as the Son suffered the Father also experienced the sufferings. They did not teach that the Father died on the cross, though they were sometimes accused of this.

This term has been used by others such as F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Accessed via Oxford Reference Online August 21, 2009.</ref> to describe other Oneness religions.

Association of Patripassianism

Oneness Pentecostalism has been associated with patripassianism. According to Dr. Gary Reckart, Sr. an self proclaimed gay Apostolic pastor. "If as Oneness believe, that God the Father was incarnate in Christ, which Jesus confessed ("it is the Father in me that doeth the work"), the Father was in Christ during all of the sufferings and being nailed to the cross. Thus the Father did suffer or experience death as he Himself is His Son." The heresy Oneness Pentecostals have the belief that those that make statements like Dr. Reckart, the assumption that God the Father, a divine spirit becoming flesh (Jesus Christ the Son), would have to feel pain, is advancing a supposition much like Tertullian and other opponents of a Oneness doctrine. Dr. Reckart emphasizes that Oneness do not believe (as also the ancient patripassians did not) that the Father died on the cross as the Son, nor that the Father died to replace the death of the Son. While all records of church history proves otherwise, Oneness rather ignore this fact and believe what fits their doctrine.

There are no known examples of any direct writings of Oneness Pentecostals ascribing to the belief of Patripassianism.^{[citation needed]}

In order to show the difference between Oneness Pentecostalism and Patripassianism, it must be understood that the Oneness view sees the Person of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as having suffered (while this is not the original teaching of Modalist) but not the manifestation of Father and Holy Ghost. Only the manifestation of Son was the means by which God's Person suffered and died, and even then His Deity did not die. Only the humanity of Jesus Christ experienced death. Since the manifestation of Father did not include humanity, it cannot be said that the Father died. The Person of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one and the same according to Oneness theology. But the offices or manifestations of Father, Son and Holy Ghost are distinct from His Person. The only suffering that the Father would have experienced was in grieving for the suffering of His manifestation as Son. The experiences of the Son are restricted to the manifestation of the Son, though the single Person of all three manifestations can be said to have experienced what each manifestation did.

The explanation is rather simple. Oneness adherents suggest the question of what Jesus did as a man as opposed to what He did as God. As a man He suffered on the cross, but As God He did not. As God He only suffered in seeing His Son suffer and die as any natural father would.

Whatever can occur with human beings is what Jesus suffered as a man, alone, and not as God. So, it cannot be said that Oneness theology proposes Patripassianism as though the Father died.

What causes the confusion in accusing Oneness adherents of Patripassianism is lack of realization that Oneness theology distinguishes Father, Son and Holy Ghost as offices that each accomplish and experience different things from the other. Although Oneness proponents claim "Jesus" is the name of the Father, Oneness people are speaking in terms of His person which is distinct from His three manifestations.

Trinitarianism equates the concept of Person with office. If there are three manifestations or offices, there must be three persons. But Oneness theology does not espouse such a concept. If one equates Jesus' person with His manifestation, it will be assumed Oneness proposes that the manifestation of Father suffered when Jesus suffered.

In summary, the Oneness position applies the name of Jesus to His Person. Trinitarianism applies it to His manifestation of Son alone. Since the Oneness position claims that the Name of "Jesus" and the concept of "Person" are common to all three manifestations of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and yet the manifestations of Father, Son and Holy Ghost are distinct from each other, Oneness theology proposes that Jesus suffered on the cross as Son, but not as Father. Using a rather crude example, a natural man can be a husband of his wife, son of his natural father and brother to his siblings, with his name applied to all three of these "offices". Yet each office is distinct. So it is with the Oneness view of the Godhead. The Name and Person applies to all three manifestations, but Jesus as Father did not experience nor do what He did as Son, and the same is seen in His manifestation as the Holy Ghost.

Therefore, Oneness and Modalism is considered a heresy by Trinitarians.

See also

• Heresy
• Nontrinitarianism
• Trinitarianism
• Trinity

References