Was Athanasius a Sabellian?

For an overview of Sabellian theology, see - The Sabellians of the Fourth Century . The main characteristic is that God is only one hypostasis (Reality or Person). Jesus Christ, therefore, is not one of the hypostases in God. Rather, the Logos of God merely worked in the man Jesus Christ as an activity, energy, or inspiration. This question is based on the books of the following experts in this field: > LA = Lewis Ayres Nicaea and its legacy, 2004 Ayres is a Professor of > Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United > Kingdom. > > RH = Bishop R.P.C. Hanson The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God > – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987 With respect to Athanasius, in my reading, I came across statements that claim the following: Similar to the Sabellians ------------------------- Athanasius’ theology was similar to the known Sabellians of his time: - "The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and **Athanasius**. Eustathius insists there is **only one hypostasis**.“ (LA, 69) The Son is part of the Father. ------------------------------ For Athanasius, the Son is intrinsic to the Being – not of God – but of the Father. In other words, the Son is part of the Father: - “Athanasius' increasing clarity in treating the Son as **intrinsic to the Father's being**.” (LA, 113) - “Athanasius' argument speaks not of two realities engaged in a common activity, but develops his most basic sense that the Son is **intrinsic to the Father's being**.” (LA, 114) - “Although Athanasius’ theology was by no means identical with Marcellus’, the overlaps were significant enough for them to be at one on some of the vital issues—especially their common insistence that the Son was **intrinsic to the Father's external existence**.” (LA, 106) The Holy Spirit is part of the Father. -------------------------------------- For Athanasius, just as the Son is part of the Father, the Holy Spirit is part of the Son and, therefore, not a distinct Reality: - “Just as his (Athanasius’) account of the Son can rely heavily on the picture of the Father as one person with his intrinsic word, so too he emphasizes the closeness of Spirit to Son by presenting the Spirit as the Son's ‘energy’.” (LA, 214) - “The language also shows Athanasius trying out formulations that will soon be problematic. … ‘The Cappadocians' will find the language of ἐνέργεια [superhuman activity] used of the Spirit … to be highly problematic, seeming to indicate a lack of real existence.” (LA, 214) Only one hypostasis ------------------- Athanasius believed that there is only one hypostasis in God: - The “clear inference from his (Athanasius') usage” is that “there is **only one hypostasis in God**.” (LA, 48) - “Athanasius' most basic language and analogies for describing the relationship between Father and Son primarily present the two as intrinsic aspects of **one reality or person**.” (LA, 46) - "The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is **only one hypostasis**.“ (LA, 69) Opposed three hypostases ----------------------- Athanasius opposed the concept of “three hypostases.” He regarded the phrase as "unscriptural and therefore suspicious:” - Athanasius wrote: "Those whom some were blaming for speaking of three hypostases, on the ground that the phrase is unscriptural and therefore suspicious ... we made enquiry of them, whether they meant ... hypostases foreign and strange, and alien in essence from one another, and that each hypostasis was divided apart by itself." (LA, 174) The Enemy --------- For Athanasius, the enemy was those who taught more than one hypostasis (Person) in God: - “Athanasius and Marcellus now seem to have made common cause against those who insisted on distinct hypostases in God.” (LA, 106) Alliance with Marcellus ----------------------- The similarity of their theologies allowed Athanasius to form an alliance with Marcellus: - At the time when both Marcellus and Athanasius were exiled to Rome, “they considered themselves allies.” (LA, 106) - “At the Council of Jerusalem and the Council of Tyre in the same year he (Marcellus) had supported Athanasius.” (RH, 217) - “Athanasius ... continued to defend the orthodoxy of Marcellus.” (RH, 220) - Contrary to the traditional account, “it is … no longer clear that Athanasius ever directly repudiated Marcellus, and he certainly seems to have been sympathetic to Marcellus’ followers through into the 360s.” (LA, 106) - “About the year 371 adherents of Marcellus approached Athanasius, presenting to him a statement of faith. … He accepted it and gave them a document expressing his agreement with their doctrine.” (RH, 801)  If Athanasius was not a Sabellian, how does one salvage him from it?