Patripassianism is the belief that God the Father literally suffered and died on the cross along with Jesus Christ. The name comes from the Latin words pater meaning “father” and passus meaning “suffered.” This view is considered a heresy by most Christians.
History of Patripassianism
The roots of Patripassianism can be traced back to the 2nd century AD. One of the earliest known adherents was Praxeas, who taught this view in Rome around 190 AD. He argued that the Father and Son were two modes or aspects of the one God, rather than distinct persons. Thus, he believed it was the Father who became incarnate as Jesus and suffered on the cross.
Another early Patripassian was Noetus of Smyrna (d. 230 AD). He taught that Jesus was the Father and the Father was Jesus. So when Jesus suffered and died, it was in fact God the Father suffering. The influential North African bishop Sabellius (fl. 215 AD) held similar views, teaching that God successively revealed himself throughout history as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, rather than existing eternally as three distinct persons.
The Patripassian beliefs of Praxeas and others were condemned as heresy at the Synod of Rome around 230 AD. Later, doctrines like Modalism and Monarchianism inherited some Patripassian ideas as well. However, mainstream Christian orthodoxy solidified around the view that God the Father and Jesus Christ are distinct persons within the Trinity, and that Jesus alone suffered on the cross.
Patripassian Beliefs
Patripassianism is based on several key beliefs:
– God is absolutely one, with no real distinction between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are three modes or aspects of the one God.
– The Father became incarnate as the Son, Jesus Christ. The divine nature of Christ is the Father.
– When Jesus suffered and died on the cross, it was actually God the Father suffering and dying. The Father literally experienced (pati) suffering (passio).
– Since God is impassible (incapable of suffering), Patripassianism undermines a core doctrine of classical theism.
– The names Father and Son do not refer to distinct persons, but to different roles or modes that the one God assumes at various times.
Essentially Patripassianism denies the real distinction between the three persons of the Trinity. It fuses Father, Son and Spirit together into sequential roles or manifestations of the unitary divine nature. This results in the controversial claim that the Father suffered on the cross as Jesus.
Biblical Basis
There are a few biblical texts that Patripassianism uses to argue its position:
Isaiah 9:6 – Refers to Jesus Christ as “Everlasting Father”, which supposedly identifies him as the Father.
Isaiah 63:16 – Speaks of God the Father as Israel’s redeemer, a role ascribed to Christ.
John 10:30 – Jesus states “I and the Father are one.” Taken to mean they are one person.
John 14:9 – Jesus says “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” Indicates he is the Father incarnate.
2 Corinthians 5:19 – “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.” Affirms God was in Christ on the cross.
Colossians 2:9 – “In Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.” Says Jesus is the fullness of God.
Patripassians use these texts to argue that Jesus is the Father, and that the Father became incarnate as Christ and suffered on the cross. However, there are numerous other passages that clearly make distinctions between Jesus and the Father, undermining the Patripassian position (John 8:16-18, 14:10-11, 17:1-5, etc.). When the relevant biblical texts are considered as a whole, mainstream Christians argue that Patripassianism lacks coherent scriptural support.
Objections to Patripassianism
Throughout church history, Patripassianism has been rejected as heterodox by theologians on many grounds:
– It confuses the persons of the Trinity, collapsing the distinctions between Father, Son and Spirit. This goes against the biblical depiction of Jesus praying to the Father, the intimate relationship between Father and Son, and passages differentiating between them (Matt 3:16-17).
– If the Father suffered and died, then who was sustaining the universe? The doctrine of divine impassibility states that God cannot suffer or die. Patripassianism contradicts this classical Christian teaching.
– The Father pouring out his wrath towards sin on another mode or aspect of himself is incoherent. Father and Son must be distinct persons for Christ’s atonement to make sense.
– Patripassianism either destroys the Trinity or implies that Christ only assumed the appearance of humanity (Docetism). In either case, it departs from historical Christian orthodoxy.
– Early proponents of Patripassianism like Praxeas, Noetus and Sabellius were condemned as heretics for good reason by church councils. Their views contradict teachings that Christians had held from the beginning.
For these reasons and others, Patripassianism has been rejected by the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant branches of mainstream Christianity. It contradicts what most Christians have historically believed about the distinct persons and roles of the Father and Son.
Key Takeaways about Patripassianism
In summary, here are some key facts about the Patripassian belief system:
– It originated in the late 2nd and 3rd centuries with figures like Praxeas, Noetus and Sabellius.
– Patripassians believe that the Father became incarnate as the Son, and suffered and died on the cross.
– Core beliefs include one God with no real Trinity, Jesus as the Father incarnate, and the Father suffering on the cross.
– Some biblical texts like John 10:30 and 2 Corinthians 5:19 are used to argue for Patripassian ideas.
– Most Christians reject Patripassianism as a Trinitarian and Christological heresy that contradicts Scripture and orthodoxy.
– Implications like divine passibility, modalism, denying the atonement and docetic Christology make Patripassianism untenable for mainstream theology.
So in summary, Patripassianism teaches that God the Father literally experienced suffering and death on the cross as Jesus Christ. This view undermines essential doctrines about the Trinity and atonement, which is why it is considered heretical by most forms of Christianity. The distinction between the persons of Father and Son is crucial for coherent biblical theology according to the mainstream position.
Modalism Compared to Patripassianism
Modalism and Patripassianism have some similarities, but also key differences:
Similarities:
– Both views teach that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are modes or manifestations of the one God, rather than distinct persons.
– They deny the real personal distinctions between the members of the Trinity.
– God is understood as unitary, revealing himself over time in different forms or modes.
Differences:
– Classical Modalism does not necessarily affirm that the Father literally became incarnate and suffered on the cross. Patripassianism explicitly makes this claim.
– Patripassianism mainly focuses on identifying the Father as becoming incarnate in Christ, rather than just speaking of Father, Son and Spirit as modes.
– Modalism was a broader movement, of which Patripassianism is a subset. Not all Modalists were Patripassians.
– Patripassianism implies divine passibility, which Modalism does not necessarily require.
So while both views depart from orthodox Trinitarian theology, Patripassianism makes the specific claim that the Father suffered on the cross as Jesus Christ – a distinctive belief not always held by Modalists.
Trinitarian Distinctions According to Mainstream Christianity
Mainstream Christian theology maintains firm distinctions between the persons of the Trinity based on biblical revelation:
– God is three persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These are real eternal distinctions within the divine nature, not just temporary roles or modes.
– The Father and Jesus Christ are two distinct persons, not the same person. The Father sent the Son (John 3:16), and Jesus prays to the Father (John 17).
– Jesus Christ has two natures – fully God and fully man. He is not the Father but the Son incarnate. The Trinity was not crucified, only the Son’s humanity.
– God did not literally suffer or die on the cross. As an impassible being, only Christ’s human nature could suffer and die.
– The atonement requires a mediator and propitiation. Father and Son must be distinct persons for Christ’s sacrifice to make sense.
– The Father, Son and Spirit relate to one another in love. Each has unique personal roles and functions.
Mainstream Christianity has always maintained these basic Trinitarian distinctions in contrast to Patripassianism. The Father sending the Son to die for sin could not occur if Father and Son were the same person. The doctrine of atonement depends on real Trinitarian distinctions.
The Council of Nicea’s Response to Patripassianism
The Council of Nicea in 325 AD definitively condemned Patripassianism as heretical. It did so by articulating the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and person of Christ:
– The Council affirmed that Jesus Christ is begotten of the Father, not made or created. He is fully God, one in essence with the Father.
– Yet the Son is a distinct person from the Father. The Father did not become incarnate or suffer death, only the incarnate Son did.
– The Nicene Creed speaks of Jesus Christ as “begotten not made” and “of one Being with the Father.” This establishes personal distinctions within the Godhead.
– Nicea upheld Christ as a single person with two natures – fully God and fully man. Against Patripassianism’s mono-subject Christology.
– The anathemas condemn anyone who says the Father and Son are the same person or denies their distinction.
By directly addressing Patripassian claims, the Council of Nicea authoritatively rejected them as contrary to Scripture and orthodox theology. Its formulation remains foundational for Trinitarian theology today.
Implications for Orthodox Christology
If Patripassianism is true, then historic Christian teaching about Christ’s person and natures is undermined:
– Christ could not have two natures (fully God and fully man) if he is simply the Father incarnate. The Word-became-flesh Christology requires distinction between Father and Son.
– Christ’s humanity was not real but only an appearance (Docetism) if his divine nature is strictly that of the impassible Father.
– The communicatio idiomatum (communication of divine/human properties) is compromised since Father and Son cannot share natures.
– Patripassianism ultimately leads to Eutychianism, where Christ’s humanity is absorbed into his divinity, rather than affirmed as a distinct nature.
– If the Father and Son are interchangeable, then the incarnation loses coherent meaning within orthodox Christology.
So historically, Christians have seen Patripassianism as a grave threat to doctrines of the Trinity, incarnation and atonement. It implies an essentially docetic view of Christ that undercuts core Christian teachings about who Christ is.
Historical Exceptions and Qualifications
While mainstream Christianity has always rejected pure Patripassianism, there have been exceptions:
1) Tertullian: Some of his writings suggest the Father could in some sense be said to experience suffering, while stopping short of full Patripassianism. But he strongly critiqued Patripassians like Praxeas.
2) Cyril of Alexandria: He used un-nuanced wording that seemed Patripassian at times, but his overall theology was firmly orthodox and opposed to Patripassianism.
3) Theodore of Mopsuestia: He was accused of Patripassian-leaning phrases and ideas, but these charges may have been somewhat exaggerated.
4) Certain modern theologians try to affirm that God the Father suffered metaphorically or spiritually on the cross, while avoiding literal Patripassianism.
So there have been rare instances of theologians accused of Patripassian tendencies. But in general, church history bears out an almost universal condemnation of literal Patripassian doctrines as incompatible with Nicene Christianity. Qualifications that strictly avoid Ontological Patripassianism, however, have been made.
The Bottom Line
In summary, Patripassianism teaches that God the Father literally became incarnate as Jesus Christ and suffered death on the cross, rather than only the Son. This view undermines essential Christian doctrines about the Trinity and incarnation, which is why it was widely condemned as heresy from the earliest times. The distinction between Father and Son is critical for coherence and for preserving Christ’s two natures. While a few theologians have seemed semi-Patripassian, mainstream Christianity has maintained firm opposition to ontological Patripassian ideas as contradicting biblical revelation.