Paul of Samosata

Really, really important.

But you didn't think we'd stop there, did you? We also encounter the Sabellius and Paul of Samosata.

Who on earth is the Son? Now remember, we're doing our very best because we got challenged earlier.

When I said I was going to cover 15 of the top heresies of the 80, of the 80 that the Panarian lays out, people told me, why not all of them? All right, we're trying to lump a lot of them together and go through the incredible line of pretty much all the ones that he does refute.

So that later on in the future, people come back to this show and they've got a rock solid full whole hour of the incredible St. Epiphanius and the heresies he crushed.

Now, when we talk about Sabellius and Paul of Samosata, the central question is who is the Son? Is our Lord truly distinct from the Father? Or are Father and Son simply different names for the same divine person? And was Jesus eternally the Son of God? Or as Paul of Samosata believed, did he become God's Son at some point during his earthly sojourn? Error of the first one we encounter is that of Sabellianism.

Sabellianism is very often associated with the teaching that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are manifestations.

Remember what we're laying out.

Our claim is confirmed by the Acts of the Apostles.

While Paul and Barnabas were in Antioch, they were chosen by the Holy Spirit to travel among the Gentiles and preach the gospel of Christ.

They went and did what they had been commanded and then returned to Antioch.

While they were there, men from Jerusalem went down to Antioch, teaching the brethren, Paul and Barnabas disagreed with them and argued the point.

With regard to this dispute, everyone agreed that Paul, Barnabas, and some others should go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem.

On their arrival at Jerusalem, certain Pharisees who had become Christians arose and said to the apostles, "'When Gentiles become believers, you must circumcise them and order them to keep the law of Moses.'" At this, the apostles and elders gathered to look into the matter.

There was much debate until Peter arose and said, it's quoting Acts 15, or he's quoting Acts 15, 7 through 11.

Rather, I think that they should be commanded to abstain from the pollution of idols, from unchastity, from the meat of improperly sacrificed animals, and from blood.

For those who pretend to acknowledge the faith confessed at Nicaea, but dare to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, are simply denying the Arian heresy in words, but retaining it in thought.

And let the impiety of Sabellius and Paul of Samosata, and the madness of Valentinus and Basilides, and the insanity of the Manichæans, be anathematized by all.

For when this is done, every one will be cleared of all evil suspicion, and the catholic Church's faith will alone be exhibited in its purity.

Now we do not suppose any of you, or any one else, to be ignorant of the fact that this is the faith which is held by us, and by those who have been always in communion with us.

For we believe the Godhead to be one and its nature to be one, and not that the Father's is one and that the Son's and the Holy Spirit's are foreign to him.

Thereupon too, of course, those who had been blamed for saying three hypostases agreed with the former, and those also who said one essence admitted the language of the others as they explained it.

And both parties anathematized Arius as one who fought against Christ, and Sabellius and Paul of Samosata as impious men, and Valentinus and Basilides as alien from the truth, and Manes as an inventor of evil.

And all by God's grace, after the above-mentioned explanations, agreed with us that the faith confessed at Nicaea by the Fathers was better and more accurate than such phrases, and that for the future they would rather be content with and use its terms.

First, at the fore of these issues was the Imperial Mint, which Aurelian temporarily closed.

Second, the emperor dealt with the growing problem of the Christian schism by deposing Paul of Samosata, the divisive bishop of Antioch, who had received patronage from Zenobia.

On the military side of things, a pressing issue was the Palmyrene garrison at Daphne, just south of Antioch, which had been left behind as a rearguard by Zabdas as he withdrew south.

This contingent was unlikely to pose a threat, but its position above the strategic narrow gorges could hinder Aurelian's advance and inflict serious losses on his army.

This is Gnosticism in general, I would say.

And Gnosticism was so prevalent in the early church that people accused Paul of being Gnostic.

People accuse...

Well, people put forward, um, certain apocryphal books like the Gospel of Thomas and say, "Look, this is about Jesus," and we-- If you read that, you say, "No, that's not really about Jesus, 'cause that's, that's really Gnostic.

That doesn't belong in our Bible." But some people argue books like that should be in the Bible, and we say, we say, "No," uh, because the Bible consistently does not teach about Gnosticism.

It doesn't teach spirit good, flesh bad, and it sounds like that sometimes in Paul.

But when Paul is talking about flesh, he's talking about this corrupt- this corruption of sin, and that my flesh is causing me to do bad when really he's talking about the sin in my flesh.

And so that's a very tough thing.

because the Father is God and the Son is therefore adopted.

The main proponent of this is a man by the name of Paul of Samosata, not Sammy Sosa, but Paul of Samosata, who was active in the 260s.

So this is one view.

Okay, how could Jesus be God? Well, he was adopted at some point as the Son of God.

That's right.

Paul, Paul of Samosata.

The, he was the Bishop of Antioch in, I think, the late, you know, 250s-

Yeah

It's because there was an earlier council, which is a council of Antioch, which was in 268, where this very term was used.

And it was used to condemn a guy named Paul of Samosata.

And Paul of Samosata, in his understanding of the divine relationship, it is basically a modalism.

Do you know what modalism is?

Essentially, they can change in different...

So that

the Father and the Son are simply aspects of the same thing.

And that's kind of what Paul of Samosata was arguing, that the Son can manifest or the Father can manifest, but they're the same being.