Also found in: Dictionary, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
Graphic Thesaurus  🔍
Display ON
Animation ON
  • noun

Words related to Sabellian

an extinct Osco-Umbrian language of ancient Italy that survives only in a few inscriptions

Related Words

References in periodicals archive ?
The substratum influence of Etruscan and especially Sabellian on southern Italo-Romance has been amply discussed in the literature and includes not only lexical and phonological traits but also morphological patterns; to mention one salient example, one of the accepted explanations for the southern Italian tt-Perfect (stetti, detti etc.) is to derive it from a similar formation in Oscan (Pisani, Il sostrato, 159-160 and Le lingue, 65; Buck).
(65) Cross, Horace Bushnell, 102; Fred Kirschenmann, "Horace Bushnell: Orthodox or Sabellian?" Church History 33, no.
Clark, Edinburgh]); and idem, "On the Discrepancy between the Sabellian and Athanasian Method of Representing the Doctrine of the Trinity," The Biblical Repository and Quarterly Observer, vol.
My conjecture would therefore be that the crime ascribed to Origen, that of calling the Son innatus, was not the Sabellian error (b),(31) but either (a) or (c) or a combination.
persona) is distinguishable yet united, a formula that served in the ancient church to refute Sabellian patripassionism on both fronts.
In order to make several of the sentences in the syntax section comprehensible, Wallace should have indicated in his table 33.6 Sabellian personal endings (p.
It appeared therefore that he did not consider the Word of God to be a subsistent part of a Trinity, but that he was a Sabellian who believed that the Trinity was in reality a Monad, which only appeared at certain times to consist of three entities, Father, Son, and Spirit.
Homoousios was used in the third century as a technical term of the identification-theology (that is, Christ and the Father are one and the same God) only by a small group of bishops of the Libyan Pentapolis, or members of the Church of Alexandria, who manifested a distinct inclination towards a kind of Sabellian monarchianism.
Suspicion of the term homoousios (it had Sabellian overtones and lacked biblical warrant), together with Emperor Constantius's support for non-Nicene Christianity, account for its comparative neglect.
Perhaps in her discussion of the Sabellian or patripassian views attributed to it Trevett could have more clearly pointed to the naif modalism common in the second century.
Any assertions about the Trinity beyond this ecclesial framework should not be considered binding.(32) In particular, the Sabellian view has many attractive elements when compared with the Athanasian view that prevailed at the Council of Nicaea.(33)
Damian set out to refute tritheism, but used arguments that to Peter were either confused or Sabellian. Of Peter's three books the first has not survived.
The faith of the Church demands the conclusions he has reached: "If then fatherhood and sonship are not real relations in God, it follows that God is not Father or Son in reality but only because our minds conceive him so, which is the Sabellian heresy."(27) Two articles later he underscores the point, now citing Boethius to the effect that "in divine matters substance contains unity, relation unfolds trinity."(28) The faith of the Church excludes a Sabellian understanding of the Trinity; Thomas alters his Aristotelian conceptuality, introducing a new kind of "real relation," to accomplish this.
He also defends the authenticity of the fragments of correspondence between Dionysius of Rome and Dionysius of Alexandria rather trenchantly against Abramowski's challenge, and takes them as evidence that in Egypt, at the end of the third century, there was a Logos theology among the educated, a minority of monarchians of Sabellian stripe, and a middle group which he defines negatively, as neither monarchians nor partisans of the clear distinction between Father and Logos.
The issue also arises internally from the communicatio idiomatum, the doctrine that any attribute that applies to one of Christ's natures applies to the whole of his person as well, so that in some sense we must say that God "suffers" and indeed even "dies." But how can this be understood without either ending up as an evangel of Nietzsche's kerygma that God is dead or in a kind of Sabellian modalism in which the Godhead fully undergoes what Jesus experiences?