- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi,
I would like to see more written on this subject as it appears to be one of the first challenges to the gospel presented by Satan.
I understand it partly involves “finding the god in all of us”.The only beings spoken of as living in natural man before he is born from above are demons.
Here is what I found:
“Gnosticism was a heresy that arose in the first few centuries A.D. when Christianity was spreading throughout the world, and it claimed to be Christian, but was not. It was rather a very basic departure from Christian truth, and promoted a salvation that was more of an elevation of the soul, through a secret knowledge rather than through the atonement of the cross”
True or not I don't know.
You can get some idea of the teachings of these gnostics by reading the writings of Iraeneus who contested their teachings quite verbosely
You can find the writings of Iranaeus here
Hi ,
Origen was one of the earliest theologians and his words seem at times to cling too loosely to scripture and to have helped usher in the falsehoods so rampant in the increasingly apostate church.This is from another site
“In his lifetime he was often attacked, suspected of adulterating the Gospel with pagan philosophy. After his death, opposition steadily mounted. The chief accusations against Origen's teaching are the following: making the Son inferior to the Father and thus being a precursor of Arianism, a 4th-century heresy that denied that the Father and the Son were of the same substance; spiritualizing away the resurrection of the body; denying hell, a morally enervating universalism; speculating about pre-existent souls and world cycles; dissolving redemptive history into timeless myth by using allegorical interpretation, thus turning Christianity into a kind of Gnosticism, a heretical movement that held that matter was evil and the spirit good. None of these charges is altogether groundless.”From what I have seen Origen denounced both the Trinity concept as well as the Unitarian one.
I would however like to see the proof that he indeed spiritualized away the resurrection of the body; denied hell, speculated about pre-existent souls and world cycles; and dissolved redemptive history into timeless myth by using allegorical interpretation.
It may well exist, and if I saw the proof, then that would help me know more about him. Although I have to say that speculation doesn't make one a false teacher. Also did he deny hell or the teaching/version of hell that the Catholics promote today?
If someone could quote his writings where these accusations come from, that would be helpful to me at least.
Hi t8,
This is wikipedia on the teachings of Origen
“[edit]
Philosophical and religious
Origen, trained in the school of Clement and by his father, was essentially a Platonist with occasional traces of Stoic philosophy. He was thus a pronounced idealist, regarding all things temporal and material as insignificant and indifferent, the only real and eternal things being comprised in the idea. He therefore regards as the purely ideal center of this spiritual and eternal world, God, the pure reason, whose creative powers call into being the world with matter as the necessary substratum.Likewise Platonic is the doctrine that those spirits capable of knowing supreme reason, but imprisoned in the body in this world, will rise after death to divinity, being purified by fire. In his attempt to amalgamate the system evolved by Greek thought with Christianity, Origen found his predecessors in the Platonizing Philo of Alexandria and even in the Gnostics. His exegesis does not differ generally from that of Heracleon, but in the canon of the New Testament and in the tradition of the Church, Origen possessed a check which kept him from the excesses of Gnostic exegesis.
He was, indeed, a rigid adherent of the Bible, making no statement without adducing some Scriptural basis. To him the Bible was divinely inspired, as was proved both by the fulfilment of prophecy and by the immediate impression which the Scriptures made on those who read them. Since the divine Logos spoke in the Scriptures, they were an organic whole and on every occasion he combatted the Gnostic tenet of the inferiority of the Old Testament.
In his exegesis, Origen sought to discover the deeper meaning implied in the Scriptures. One of his chief methods was the translation of proper names, which enabled him, like Philo, to find a deep meaning even in every event of history (see hermeneutics), but at the same time he insisted on an exact grammatical interpretation of the text as the basis of all exegesis.
A strict adherent of the Church, Origen yet distinguished sharply between the ideal and the empirical Church, representing “a double church of men and angels”, or, in Platonic phraseology, the lower church and its celestial ideal. The ideal Church alone was the Church of Christ, scattered over all the earth; the other provided also a shelter for sinners. Holding that the Church, as being in possession of the mysteries, affords the only means of salvation, he was indifferent to her external organization, although he spoke sometimes of the office-bearers as the pillars of the Church, and of their heavy duties and responsibilities.
More important to him was the idea borrowed from Plato of the grand division between the great human multitude, capable of sensual vision only, and those who know how to comprehend the hidden meaning of Scripture and the diverse mysteries, church organization being for the former only.
It is doubtful whether Origen possessed an obligatory creed; at any rate, such a confession of faith was not a norm like the inspired word of Scripture. The reason, illumined by the divine Logos, which is able to search the secret depths of the divine nature, remains as the only source of knowledge.
[edit]
Theological and dogmatic
Origen's conception of God is entirely abstract — God is a perfect unity, invisible and incorporeal, transcending all things material, and therefore inconceivable and incomprehensible. He is likewise unchangeable, and transcends space and time. But his power is limited by his goodness, justice, and wisdom; and, though entirely free from necessity, his goodness and omnipotence constrained him to reveal himself.This revelation, the external self-emanation of God, is expressed by Origen in various ways, the Logos being only one of many. Revelation was the first creation of God (cf. Prov. viii. 22), in order to afford creative mediation between God and the world, such mediation being necessary, because God, as changeless unity, could not be the source of a multitudinous creation.
The Logos is the rational creative principle that permeates the universe. Since God eternally manifests himself, the Logos is likewise eternal. He forms a bridge between the created and uncreated, and only through him, as the visible representative of divine wisdom, can the inconceivable and incorporeal God be known. Creation came into existence only through the Logos, and God's nearest approach to the world is the command to create. While the Logos is substantially a unity, he comprehends a multiplicity of concepts, so that Origen terms him, in Platonic fashion, “essence of essences” and “idea of ideas”.
The defense of the unity of God against the Gnostics led Origen to maintain the subordination of the Logos to God, and the doctrine of the eternal generation is later. Origen distinctly emphasised the independence of the Logos as well as the distinction from the being and substance of God. The term “of the same substance with the Father” was not employed. He is merely an image, a reflex not to be compared with God; as one among other “gods”, of course first in rank.
[edit]
The Logos doctrine and cosmology
The activity of the Logos was conceived by Origen in Platonic fashion, as the world soul, wherein God manifested his omnipotence. His first creative act was the divine spirit, as an independent existence; and partial reflexes of the Logos were the created rational beings, who, as they had to revert to the perfect God as their background, must likewise be perfect; yet their perfection, unlike in kind with that of God, the Logos, and the divine spirit, had to be attained. The freedom of the will is an essential fact of the reason, notwithstanding the foreknowledge of God. The Logos, eternally creative, forms an endless series of finite, comprehensible worlds, which are mutually alternative. Combining the Stoic doctrine of a universe without beginning with the Biblical doctrine of the beginning and the end of the world, he conceived of the visible world as the stages of an eternal cosmic process, affording also an explanation of the diversity of human fortunes, rewards, and punishments. The material world, which at first had no place in this eternal spiritual progression, was due to the fall of the spirits from God, the first being the serpent, who was imprisoned in matter and body. The ultimate aim of God in the creation of matter out of nothing was not punishment, but the upraising of the fallen spirits. Man's accidental being is rooted in transitory matter, but his higher nature is formed in the image of the Creator. The soul is divided into the rational and the irrational, the latter being material and transitory, while the former, incorporeal and immaterial, possesses freedom of the will and the power to reascend to purer life. The strong ethical import of this cosmic process can not remain unnoticed. The return to original being through divine reason is the object of the entire cosmic process. Through the worlds which follow each other in eternal succession, the spirits are able to return to Paradise. God so ordered the universe that all individual acts work together toward one cosmic end which culminates in himself. Likewise as to Origen's anthropology, man conceived in the image of God is able by imitating God in good works to become like God, if he first recognizes his own weakness and trusts all to the divine goodness. He is aided by guardian angels, but more especially by the Logos who operates through saints and prophets in proportion to the constitution of these and man's capacity.[edit]
Christology
The culmination of this gradual revelation is the universal revelation of Christ. In Christ, God, hitherto manifest only as the Lord, appeared as the Father. The incarnation of the Logos, moreover, was necessary since otherwise he would not be intelligible to sensual man; but the indwelling of the Logos remained a mystery, which could be represented only by the analogy of his indwelling
in the saints; nor could Origen fully explain it. He speaks of a “remarkable body”, and in his opinion that the mortal body of Jesus was transformed by God into an ethereal and divine body, Origen approximated the Docetism that he otherwise abhorred. His concept of the soul of Jesus is likewise uncertain and wavering. He proposes the question whether it was not originally perfect with God but, emanating from him, at his command assumed a material body. As he conceived matter as merely the universal limit of created spirits, so would it be impossible to state in what form the two were combined. He dismissed the solution by referring it to the mystery of the divine governance of the universe. More logically did he declare the material nature of the world to be merely an episode in the spiritual process of development, whose end should be the annihilation of all matter and return to God, who should again be all in all. The doctrine of the resurrection of the body he upholds by the explanation that the Logos maintains the unity of man's existence by ever changing his body into new forms, thus preserving the unity and identity of personality in harmony with the tenet of an endless cosmic process. Origen's concept of the Logos allowed him to make no definite statement on the redemptive work of Jesus. Since sin was ultimately only negative as a lack of pure knowledge, the activity of Jesus was essentially example and instruction, and his human life was only incidental as contrasted with the immanent cosmic activity of the Logos. Origen regarded the death of Jesus as a sacrifice, paralleling it with other cases of self-sacrifice for the general good. On this, Origen's accord with the teachings of the Church was merely superficial.[edit]
Eschatology
His idealizing tendency to consider the spiritual alone as real, fundamental to his entire system, led him to combat the rude Chiliasm (see Christian eschatology) of a sensual beyond; yet he constrained himself from breaking entirely with the distinct celestial hopes and representations of Paradise prevalent in the Church. He represents a progressive purification of souls, until, cleansed of all clouds of evil, they should know the truth and God as the Son knew him, see God face to face, and attain a full possession of the Holy Spirit and union with God. The means of attainment of this end were described by Origen in different ways, the most important of which was his Platonic concept of a purifying fire which should cleanse the world of evil and thus lead to cosmic renovation. By a further spiritualization Origen could call God himself this consuming fire. In proportion as the souls were freed from sin and ignorance, the material world was to pass away, until, after endless eons, at the final end, God should be all in all, and the worlds and spirits should return to a knowledge of God, in Greek this is called Apokatastasis.”Hi t8
From the island of freedom site
“Origen is generally considered the greatest theologian and biblical scholar of the early Eastern church. He was probably born in Egypt, perhaps in Alexandria, to a Christian family. His father Leonides had given him an excellent literary education. His father died in the persecution of 202, and he himself narrowly escaped the same fate. At the age of 18, Origen was appointed to succeed Clement of Alexandria as head of the catechetical school of Alexandria, where he had been a student.Between 203 and 231, Origen attracted large numbers of students through his manner of life as much as through his teaching. During this time Origen traveled widely and while in Palestine (c. 215) was invited to preach by local bishops even though he was not ordained. Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, regarded this activity as a breach of discipline and ordered him to return to Alexandria. The period following, from 218 to 230, was one of Origen's most productive as a writer.
In 230 he returned to Palestine, where he was ordained a priest by the bishops of Jerusalem and Caesarea. Demetrius then excommunicated Origen, deprived him of his priesthood, and sent him into exile. Origen then settled at Caesarea and founded a school of literature, philosophy, and theology. During the persecutions of the Christians in 250 under Emperor Decius, Origen was imprisoned and tortured. Released in 251, but weakened by injuries, he died in about 254, probably in Tyre.
Origen's literary productivity was enormous. His accomplishments as an exegete and student of the text of the Old Testament were outstanding. His works include letters, treatises in dogmatic and practical theology, apologetics, exegeses, and textual criticism. Contra Celsum (Against Celsus) is a closely reasoned long apologetic work refuting arguments advanced by the philosopher Celsus, an influential 2nd-century Platonist of Alexandria and perhaps the first serious critic of Christianity. Other works include The Hexapla, the first attempt to establish a critical text of the Old Testament, and De Principiis (or Peri Archon), which treated successively in its four books of: (a) God and the Trinity, (b) the world and its relation to God, Â man and his free will, (d) Scripture, its inspiration and interpretation. Many other works of Origen have been entirely lost: for instance, the treatise in two books On the Resurrection, a treatise On Free Will, and ten books of Miscellaneous Writings. Origen attempted to synthesize Christian scriptural interpretation and belief with Greek philosophy, especially Neoplatonism and Stoicism. His theology was an expression of Alexandrian reflection on the Trinity, and, prior to Saint Augustine, he was the most influential theologian of the church.
Origen is regarded as the father of the allegorical method of scriptural interpretation. He wrote that Scripture is inspired because it is the word and work of God. But, far from being an inert instrument, the inspired author has full possession of his faculties, he is conscious of what he is writing; he is physically free to deliver his message or not. Since Scripture is from God, it ought to have the distinctive characteristics of the Divine works: truth, unity, and fullness. The word of God cannot possibly be untrue; hence no errors or contradictions can be admitted in Scripture. The author of the Scriptures being one, the Bible is less a collection of books than one and the same book, a perfect harmonious instrument. But the most Divine note of Scripture is its fullness. True there are imperfections in the Bible: antilogies, repetitions, want of continuity; but these imperfections become perfections by leading us to the allegory and the spiritual meaning.
He taught the principle of the threefold sense, corresponding to the threefold division of the person into body, spirit, and soul, which was then a common concept. He developed the idea of Christ as the Logos, or Incarnate Word, who is with the Father from eternity, but he taught also that the Son is subordinate to the Father in power and dignity. He also taught that souls pre-existed, and that they are engaged in a process, the outcome of which will be such that even the Devil will be saved. He believes that God created from eternity, for “it is absurd”, he says, “to imagine the nature of God inactive, or His goodness inefficacious, or His dominion without subjects” (De princip., III, v, 3). Consequently he is forced to admit a double infinite series of worlds before and after the present world. “
and African Christian site
“Origen, one of the greatest of the Fathers of the Church, was born, probably in Alexandria, into a devoutly Christian family. His father, Leonidas, gave him a thorough and careful Christian education.When Origen was seventeen, a new outbreak of persecution led to the arrest of his father. Origen, an enthusiastic Christian tried to follow his father into prison and ultimately to martyrdom, but his mother, either feeling that he was too young or feeling that Christians ought not to court martyrdom, hid all of his clothing and left him naked in his room, thus preventing his martyrdom.
On his father’s death he supported his mother and six younger brothers by becoming a teacher at the Catechal School of Alexandria succeeding Clement of Alexandria who had been driven out of Alexandria by the persecution.
Where Clement had been tolerant and cerebral in his faith, Origen was ardent and austere. Early in his teaching career, he seems to have undergone voluntary castration in order to be able to teach both girls and boys without scandalizing pagan Alexandrians. His action also reveals that the Alexandrian church valued education for women and men equally, quite a radical position to take in the third century Roman Empire.
In order to become financially independent, Origen sold his library to give him a daily income of about twelve cents, on which he managed to live by keeping his needs to the barest minimum. He embraced a very ascetic Christianity, teaching all day, spending most of the night studying the Bible and sleeping very little.
Origen’s theology was rigidly Biblical, and the bulk of his writing consisted of direct Biblical exegesis. However, he was a strong proponent of the allegorical intrepretation of the Bible, and always valued spiritual interpretations over physical ones. He was one of the first theologians to argue that the petition in the Lord’s Prayer ought to read, not “Give us this day our daily bread” but “give us this day our spiritual bread.” In general his treated each passage of scripture as possessing three layers of meaning — the literal (bodily), , the moral (application) and the allegorical, or figurative (spiritual). This allegorical method of interpretation, however, allowed Origen to incorporate a good deal of Greek philosophy into his interpretation of the Bible, though most of it unconsciously.
Origen’s mystical view of God and reality has greatly influenced the shape of both the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition and the Southern Coptic Christian tradition.”
Thanks Nick.
I haven't read it all with a fine tooth comb, but from what I have skimmed through it looks quite interesting. I will read that quote when I have more concentration power. Maybe tomorrow after my Moccha.
However I feel that to judge a man correctly and in truth, we need to see that which he has written. For many can critique and conclude what men have done, but what comes out of a mans mouth (or that which he writes) is what is in his heart.
For example, imagine if 200 years from now someone wrote a commentary on Nick (yourself). Do you think that other men should judge you by that critique or study, or should they actually check out what you have written in order to conclude for themselves what manor of man you are.
I know this much, that the spirit of this world, the accuser, will do anything to make a true person look false. In light of that, I would also imagine that a true man of God would also write that which a worldy person wouldn't understand by reason of it being of the Spirit and not the world, and in this light such a person would most likely be mis-quoted just as Christ was on a number of occasions.
Remember when the Jews said that Jesus was making himself out to be equal to God? To judge correctly we need to see that which he said and look at it through the eyes of truth.
So thanks for the quote above, I will read it. But for me to judge correctly, I would need to see writings that he penned that contradicted scripture. If what he wrote was scriptural or even partly speculation then I would conclude that he was a great man. If not, then my conclusion would be that he had a big imagination and used truth mixed with his own reasoning to create false teachings.
I have no problem calling a spade a spade, but I first need to see that it is a spade before saying that it is so.
So if anyone can supply the text(s) that prove this critique, then that would be very useful to me.
Thanks.
Hi t8,
From a gnostic site
“The Champion for the Secret Teachings of JesusAs the orthodox church in Rome gained more and more political power the more it viewed secret teachings as a threat to their own public teachings. But the Church leader who made the final and greatest attempt to revive the secret teachings of Jesus within the orthodox teachings was the first Church Father named Origen (183-253 A.D.) of Alexandria in Egypt who was a disciple of Clement of Alexandra. Origen was the first person since Paul to develop a system of theology around the teachings of Jesus. His effort was the first within the orthodox church to systematize a theology on so vast a scale. Although Origen defended orthodoxy, he included in his system the wisdom of the Christian Gnostics. His theology was a perfect synthesis of “orthodox” and “gnostic” teachings and came the closest to reviving the “Lost Christianity” of the original sects, communities and schools, at a time when the Christian Gnosticism was falling into disrepute. Unfortunately, hundreds of years later, the Church declared him a heretic and his teachings as heresy mostly because they affirmed preexistence and therefore reincarnation.
Origen had this to say about the secret teachings of Jesus:
“[Jesus] conversed with His disciples in private, and especially in their sacred retreats, concerning the Gospel of God; but the words which He uttered have not been preserved, because it appeared to the evangelists that they could not be adequately conveyed to the multitude in writing or in speech… and they saw… what things were to be committed to writing, and how this was to be done, and what was by no means to be written to the multitude, and what was to be expressed in words, and what was not to be so conveyed”. (Contra Celsus, Chap. VI. 18)
Concerning these secret teachings, Clement stated:
“James the Righteous, John and Peter were entrusted by the Lord after his resurrection with the higher knowledge. They imparted it to the other apostles, to the seventy…” (Outlines Book VI)”
Hi t8
From the catholic site on Origen
“II. ORIGENISMBy this term is understood not so much Origen's theology and the body of his teachings, as a certain number of doctrines, rightly or wrongly attributed to him, and which by their novelty or their danger called forth at an early period a refutation from orthodox writers. They are chiefly:
Allegorism in the interpretation of Scripture
Subordination of the Divine Persons
The theory of successive trials and a final restoration.
Before examining how far Origen is responsible for these theories, a word must be said of the directive principle of his theology.
The Church and the Rule of FaithIn the preface to the “De principiis” Origen laid down a rule thus formulated in the translation of Rufinus: “Illa sola credenda est veritas quae in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat traditione”. The same norm is expressed almost in equivalent terms n many other passages, e.g., “non debemus credere nisi quemadmodum per successionem Ecclesiae Dei tradiderunt nobis (In Matt., ser. 46, Migne, XIII, 1667). In accordance with those principles Origen constantly appeals to ecclesiastical preaching, ecclesiastical teaching, and the ecclesiastical rule of faith (kanon). He accepts only four Canonical Gospels because tradition does not receive more; he admits the necessity of baptism of infants because it is in accordance with the practice of the Church founded on Apostolic tradition; he warns the interpreter of the Holy Scriptures, not to rely on his own judgment, but “on the rule of the Church instituted by Christ”. For, he adds, we have only two lights to guide us here below, Christ and the Church; the Church reflects faithfully the light received from Christ, as the moon reflects the rays of the sun. The distinctive mark of the Catholic is to belong to the Church, to depend on the Church outside of which there is no salvation; on the contrary, he who leaves the Church walks in darkness, he is a heretic. It is through the principle of authority that Origen is wont to unmask and combat doctrinal errors. It is the principle of authority, too, that he invokes when he enumerates the dogmas of faith. A man animated with such sentiments may have made mistakes, because he is human, but his disposition of mind is essentially Catholic and he does not deserve to be ranked among the promoters of heresy.
A. Scriptural Allegorism
The principal passages on the inspiration, meaning, and interpretation of the Scriptures are preserved in Greek in the first fifteen chapters of the “Philocalia”. According to Origen, Scripture is inspired because it is the word and work of God. But, far from being an inert instrument, the inspired author has full possession of his faculties, he is conscious of what he is writing; he is physically free to deliver his message or not; he is not seized by a passing delirium like the pagan oracles, for bodily disorder, disturbance of the senses, momentary loss of reason are but so many proofs of the action of the evil spirit. Since Scripture is from God, it ought to have the distinctive characteristics of the Divine works: truth, unity, and fullness. The word of God cannot possibly be untrue; hence no errors or contradictions can be admitted in Scripture (In Joan., X, iii). The author of the Scriptures being one, the Bible is less a collection of books than one and the same book (Philoc., V, iv-vii), a perfect harmonious instrument (Philoc., VI, i-ii). But the most Divine note of Scripture is its fullness: “There is not in the Holy Books the smallest passage (cheraia) but reflects the wisdom of God” (Philoc., I, xxviii, cf. X, i). True there are imperfections in the Bible: antilogies, repetitions, want of continuity; but these imperfections become perfections by leading us to the allegory and the spiritual meaning (Philoc., X, i-ii).
At one time Origen, starting from the Platonic trichotomy, distinguishes the body, the soul, and the spirit of Holy Scripture; at another, following a more rational terminology, he distinguishes only between the letter and the spirit. In reality, the soul, or the psychic signification, or moral meaning (that is the moral parts of Scripture, and the moral applications of the other parts) plays only a very secondary rôle, and we can confine ourselves to the antithesis: letter (or body) and spirit. Unfortunately this antithesis is not free from equivocation. Origen does not understand by letter (or body) what we mean today by the literal sense, but the grammatical sense, the proper as opposed to the figurative meaning. Just so he does not attach to the words spiritual meaning the same signification as we do: for him they mean the spiritual sense properly so called (the meaning added to the literal sense by the express wish of God attaching a special signification to the fact related or the manner of relating them), or the figurative as contrasted with the proper sense, or the accommodative sense, often an arbitrary invention of the interpreter, or even the literal sense when it is treating of things spiritual. If this terminology is kept in mind there is nothing absurd in the principle he repeats so often: “Such a passage of the Scripture as no corporal meaning.” As examples Origen cites the anthropomorphisms, metaphors, and symbols which ought indeed to be understood figuratively.
Though he warns us that these passages are the exceptions, it must be confessed that he allows too many cases in which the Scripture is not to be understood according to the letter; but, remembering his terminology, his principle is unimpeachable. The two great rules of interpretation laid sown by the Alexandria catechist, taken by themselves and independently of erroneous applications, are proof against criticism. They may be formulated thus:
Scripture must be interpreted in a manner worthy of God, the author of Scripture.
The corporal sense or the letter of Scripture must not be adopted, when it would entail anything impossible, absurd, or unworthy of God.
The abuse arises from the application of these rules. Origen has recourse too easily to allegorism to explain purely apparent antilogies or antinomies. He considers that certain narratives or ordinances of the Bible would be unworthy of God if they had to be taken according to the letter, or if they were to be taken solely according to the letter. He justifies the allegorism by the fact that otherwise certain accounts or certain precepts now abrogated would be useless and profitless for the reader: a fact which appears to him contrary to the providence of the Divine inspirer and the dignity of Holy Writ. It will thus be seen that though the criticisms directed against his allegorical method by St. Epiphanius and St. Methodius were not groundless, yet many of the complaints arise from a misunderstanding.
B. Subordination of the Divine PersonsThe three Persons of the Trinity are distinguished from all creatures by the three following characteristics: absolute immateriality, omniscience, and substantial sanctity. As is well known many ancient ecclesiastical writers attributed to created spirits an aerial or ethereal envelope without which they could not act. Though he does not venture to decide categorically, Origen inclines to this view, but, as soon as there is a question of the Divine Persons, he is perfectly sure that they have no body and are not in a body; and this characteristic belongs to the Trinity alone (De princip., IV, 27; I, vi, II, ii, 2; II, iv, 3 etc.). Again the knowledge of every creature, being essentially limited, is always imperfect and capable of being increased. But it would be repugnant for the Divine Persons to pass from the state of ignorance to knowledge. How could the Son, who is the Wisdom of the Father, be ignorant of anything (“In Joan.”, 1,27; “Contra Cels.”, VI, xvii). Nor can we admit ignorance in the Spirit who “searcheth the deep things of God” (De princip., I, v, 4; I, vi, 2; I, vii, 3; “In Num. him.”, XI, 8 etc.). As substantial holine
ss is the exclusive privilege of the Trinity so also is it the only source of all created holiness. Sin is forgiven only by the simultaneous concurrence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; no one is sanctified at baptism save through their common action; the soul in which the Holy Ghost indwells possesses likewise the Son and the Father. In a word the three Persons of the Trinity are indivisible in their being, their presence, and their operation.Along with these perfectly orthodox texts there are some which must be interpreted with diligence, remembering as we ought that the language of theology was not yet fixed and that Origen was often the first to face these difficult problems. It will then appear that the subordination of the Divine Persons, so much urged against Origen, generally consists in differences of appropriation (the Father creator, the Son redeemer, the Spirit sanctifier) which seem to attribute to the Persons an unequal sphere of action, or in the liturgical practice of praying the Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost, or in the theory so widespread in the Greek Church of the first five centuries, that the Father has a pre-eminence of rank (taxis) over the two other Persons, inasmuch as in mentioning them He ordinarily has the first place, and of dignity (axioma) because He represents the whole Divinity, of which He is the principle (arche), the origin (aitios), and the source (pege). That is why St. Athanasius defends Origen's orthodoxy concerning the Trinity and why St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nazianzus replied to the heretics who claimed the support of his authority that they misunderstood him.
C. The Origin and Destiny of Rational Beings
Here we encounter an unfortunate amalgam of philosophy and theology. The system that results is not coherent, for Origen, frankly recognizing the contradiction of the incompatible elements that he is trying to unify, recoils from the consequences, protests against the logical conclusions, and oftentimes corrects by orthodox professions of faith the heterodoxy of his speculations. It must be said that almost all the texts about to be treated of, are contained in the “De principiis”, where the author treads on most dangerous ground. They system may be reduced to a few hypotheses, the error and danger of which were not recognized by Origen.
(1) Eternity of Creation
Whatever exists outside of God was created by Him: the Alexandrian catechist always defended this thesis most energetically against the pagan philosophers who admitted an uncreated matter (“De princip.”, II, i, 5; “In Genes.”, I, 12, in Migne, XII, 48-9). But he believes that God created from eternity, for “it is absurd”, he says, “to imagine the nature of God inactive, or His goodness inefficacious, or His dominion without subjects” (De princip., III, v, 3). Consequently he is forced to admit a double infinite series of worlds before and after the present world.
(2) Original Equality of the Created Spirits.
“In the beginning all intellectual natures were created equal and alike, as God had no motive for creating them otherwise” (De princip., II, ix, 6). Their present differences arise solely from their different use of the gift of free will. The spirits created good and happy grew tired of their happiness (op. cit., I, iii, 8), and, though carelessness, fell, some more some less (I, vi, 2). Hence the hierarchy of the angels; hence also the four categories of created intellects: angels, stars (supposing, as is probable, that they are animated, “De princip., I, vii, 3), men, and demons. But their rôles may be one day changed; for what free will has done, free will can undo, and the Trinity alone is essentially immutable in good.
(3) Essence and Raison d'Être of Matter
Matter exists only for the spiritual; if the spiritual did not need it, matter would not exist, for its finality is not in itself. But it seems to Origen – though he does not venture to declare so expressly – that created spirits even the most perfect cannot do without an extremely diluted and subtle matter which serves them as a vehicle and means of action (De princip., II, ii, 1; I, vi, 4 etc.). Matter was, therefore, created simultaneously with the spiritual, although the spiritual is logically prior; and matter will never cease to be because the spiritual, however perfect, will always need it. But matter which is susceptible of indefinite transformations is adapted to the varying condition of the spirits. “When intended for the more imperfect spirits, it becomes solidified, thickens, and forms the bodies of this visible world. If it is serving higher intelligences, it shines with the brightness of the celestial bodies and serves as a garb for the angels of God, and the children of the Resurrection” (op. cit., II, ii, 2).
(4) Universality of the Redemption and the Final Restoration
Certain Scriptural texts, e.g., I Cor. xv, 25-28, seem to extend to all rational beings the benefit of the Redemption, and Origen allows himself to be led also by the philosophical principle which he enunciates several times, without ever proving it, that the end is always like the beginning: “We think that the goodness of God, through the mediation of Christ, will bring all creatures to one and the same end” (De princip., I, vi, 1-3). The universal restoration (apokatastasis) follows necessarily from these principles.
On the least reflection, it will be seen that these hypotheses, starting from contrary points of view, are irreconcilable: for the theory of a final restoration is diametrically opposed to the theory of successive indefinite trials. It would be easy to find in the writings of Origen a mass of texts contradicting these principles and destroying the resulting conclusions. He affirms, for instance, that the charity of the elect in heaven does not fail; in their case “the freedom of the will will be bound so that sin will be impossible” (In Roman., V, 10). So, too, the reprobate will always be fixed in evil, less from the inability to free themselves from it, than because they wish to be evil (De princip., I, viii, 4), for malice has become natural to them, it is as a second nature in them (In Joann., xx, 19). Origen grew angry when accused of teaching the eternal salvation of the devil. But the hypotheses which he lays down here and there are none the less worthy of censure. What can be said in his defence, if it be not with St. Athanasius (De decretis Nic., 27), that we must not seek to find his real opinion in the works in which he discusses the arguments for and against doctrine as an intellectual exercise or amusement; or, with St. Jerome (Ad Pammach. Epist., XLVIII, 12), that it is one thing to dogmatize and another to enunciate hypothetical opinions which will be cleared up by discussion? “
And on Origen from org.uk
“Origen assumed the leadership of Alexandria's Catechetical School at the age of only eighteen, after an outbreak of persecution under the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus (146-211) in 203 forced the previous incumbent, Clement, to flee. He was undoubtedly one of the most brilliant of the church fathers, yet sadly, due to his more infamous interpretations he has (perhaps unfairly)[1] been the object of much ridicule over the centuries. Origen was the most prolific of the Christian writers of his time and his six-column arrangement of the Hebrew Old Testament text (known as the Hexapla)[2] was not surpassed for over a thousand years.[3] Much time has been wasted in discussions of Origen, arguing over whether he was orthodox or not. Rather than repeat these I will leave them to one side and attempt to explain the reasons behind his interpretation of Scripture and the creation account in particular. As with all the early Church fathers we must learn to sift out “the wheat of real wisdom from the tares of unfounded speculation.”Origen reasoned in the 4th book of his treatise On First Principles that, if the Bible is inspired by God, then it cannot be irrelevant, unworthy of God, or simply crude. If it ever appears to be in error then we have obviously missed its deeper meaning.[4] Origen wrote that the “literalists” of his day that “they attack allegorical interpretation and want to teach that divine Scripture has nothing deeper than the text allows”.[5] “Literalists,” he complained, “believe such things about [God] as would not be believed of the most savage and unjust of men”.[6] These 'Literalists' misunderstood the meaning of poetry, metaphors, parables and figures of speech and had no concept of the need to understand what the original author of the text was seeking to express to his audience.[7] It is therefore not surprising that they arrived at interpretations that Origen found offensive and caused him react against their definition of the 'literal meaning' [8] .He was prepared to tolerate these unintellectual believers, though he did find them an embarrassment when explaining Christianity to sophisticated pagans. Nonetheless, he believed that if they were genuine in their simplicity then the literal meaning of the Gospels was sufficient for salvation.[9] There was a second group of 'literalists' whom Origen was much less tolerant towards: the Judaisers. By means of a more sophisticated literalism this group attempted to continue obedience to the Law within the Christian Church.[10]
Unlike the 'non-intellectual' believers of his day Origen believed that the Bible
…contains three levels of meaning, corresponding to the threefold Pauline (and Platonic) division of a person into body, soul and spirit. The bodily level of Scripture, the bare letter, is normally helpful as it stands to meet the needs of the more simple. The psychic level, corresponding to the soul, is for making progress in perfection.… [The] spiritual interpretation deals with 'unspeakable mysteries' so as to make humanity a “partaker of all the doctrines of the Spirit's counsel”.[11]
It has often been pointed out that Origen was not consistent in the distinction he made between the three levels of Scripture. In reality he only discussed two levels – those of the letter and the spirit.[12] Most modern theologians and Bible students seek to identify the meaning God intended a biblical text to have to its original audience. From this they derive its contemporary application, which (to be considered valid) must be linked to the text's original meaning.[13] For Origen the universal application – what the text teaches about Christ and how the reader can become like Him – was the original meaning of the text.[14] If a text did not appear to be speaking about how you might advance towards perfection then you had misunderstood it. This was the key that showed Origen that he had interpreted a text correctly. To put it simply: if he could make a passage speak in this way then he was confident that he had uncovered its true 'spiritual' meaning. Some passages yielded such an application easily; others required more spiritual insight and, sometimes, the rejection of the historical meaning. It was this 'insight' that the 'literalists' (those who saw only the 'letter') lacked.There are several specific reasons that we can deduce from Origen's writings that led him to the conclusion that the straightforward historical meaning of many passages of Scripture were simply not true.[15] Most can be found in Book 4 of On First Principles.
Where a passage contradicts his eschatology. Origen's rejection of some passages, such as Zech. 9:10; Isa. 7:15; 11:6-7, 'obviously' which cannot be intended literally,16 seems to have been based upon his understanding of the end times (eschatology). Most early Christian writers were pre-millennialists and believed in a literal 1 000 year rule of Christ on earth.[17] Opposition to such an idea arose due to the excessive millennial claims of the Montanists in the second century, attempts to calculate the date of Christ's Return,[18] and in response to Gnostic ridicule of the doctrine.[19] Origen rejected such a carnal belief[20]: his views greatly influencing later writers, notably Eusebius of Caesarea.[21] We are faced with a 'chicken and the egg' scenario in attempting to decide if his eschatology influenced his choice of hermeneutic or vice versa.
He used a defective translation in the Septuagint.[22] There are several examples of this in On First Principles 4.1.17. Origen argues that as there is no such thing as a 'goat-stag' (Deut. 14:5 LXX) and that a 'griffin' (Lev. 11:13; Deut. 14:12 LXX) cannot be subdued by man. The correct translations for these creatures are 'mountain goat' and 'vulture' respectively (see NIV). He argues that it is impossible to observe Exodus 16:29 literally, “…for no living being is able to sit throughout a whole day, and remain without moving from the sitting position”.[23] The solution to this problem seems obvious to us, the correct reading being: “stay where he is” rather than “sit”.
In his second Homily on Exodus Origen finds a problem with Exodus 1:21 which reads in his Bible: “Because the midwives feared God, they made houses for themselves.” This leads him to comment:This statement makes no sense according to the letter. For what is the relationship that the text should say, “Because the midwives feared God, they made houses for themselves.”? It is as if a house is built because God is feared. If this be taken as it stands written, not only does it appear to lack logic, but also to be inane. But if you should see how the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, teaching the fear of God, make the houses of the Church and fill the whole earth with houses of prayer, then what is written will appear to have been written rationally.”[24]
Of course the solution becomes obvious when one translates the Greek word oikias correctly in this context as “families” instead of “houses”. The verse then reads: “And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own.” (NIV).He failed to place himself in the literal context: literary, psychological or moral. (A relatively rare occurence[25] and in my own study of Origen I have found no clear examples.)
He considered the text useless, contrary to Christ's precepts or impossible.[26] Origen rejects Matthew 5:29 & 39 in On First Principles 4.1.18 because they seem to him impossible.[27] There he writes that the command that the right cheek should be struck is most incredible, because every one who strikes (unless he happens to have some bodily defect) strikes the left cheek with his right hand.
Likewise in his Commentary on Romans(2.9) Origen rejects the Mosaic command of circumcision (Lev. 12:3):
Now the law of nature can be in harmony with th
e law of Moses according to the spirit, not according to the letter. For what natural sense is there in, for example, the command to circumcise a child on the eighth day.[28]
There are, however, good medical reasons why circumcision was to be carried out on the eighth day that have only been recognised relatively recently with the discovery of blood clotting agents. In similar vein Origen argued “…what could be more irrational than (to take literally the injunction), “Salute no man by the way,” which simple persons think the Saviour enjoined the apostles?”[29]He has inadequate knowledge of Hebrew civilisation.[30]
He was too literal in his thinking and rejected what are obviously figures of speech, especially anthropomorphic language. For example:
When the psalmist declares that God's truth 'reaches to the clouds', Origen feels constrained to insist that clouds cannot be intended literally in such a saying; they must be interpreted spiritually of those who are obedient to the word of God. The literal interpretation of Zech. 4:10 would imply that God had seven bodily eyes.[31]
When discussing Exodus 21:22-25 where Origen is at a loss to explain how an unborn child can lose an eye or have his/her teeth knocked out. How, he asks, can a pregnant woman be burnt while witnessing a fight between two men.[32] His over-literal understanding does not consider that it is the principle of just – but not excessive punishment – that is being established here.
Because Paul apparently rejected a text's 'literal' meaning.[33] Several instances in the New Testament are cited by Origen as precedents for rejecting a text's historical meaning, e.g. 1 Corinthians 9:9-10 (Deut. 25:4);[34] 1 Corinthians 10:4,11,[35] and Galatians 4:21-24.[36] In all these cases there are good reasons for arguing that Paul did not see the Old Testament references as having no historic meaning. Origen then extends this precedent to scriptures not mentioned by Paul, for example:
Do you think these are the only words related to wells? Jacob also goes to a well and finds Rachel there. There Rachel becomes known to him as “good in her eyes and beautiful in appearance.” [Cf. Gen. 29:17] But Moses finds Sephora, the daughter of Raguel, at a well. [Cf. Exod. 2:15]
Are you not yet moved to understand that these words are spoken spiritually? Or do you think that it always happens by chance that the patriarchs go to wells and obtain their marriages at waters? He who thinks this way is “a sensual man” and “does not perceive these things which are of the spirit of God.” [Cf. 1 Cor. 2:14] But let him who wishes remain in these understandings, let him remain “a sensual man.” I, following Paul the apostle, say that these things are “allegories” [cf. Gal. 4:24] and I say that the marriages of the saints are the union of the soul with the word of God: “For he who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit.”[37]He had an inadequate grasp of God's progressive self-revelation. How, he argues, can even the simplest of believers explain literally the meaning of the account of Lot lying with his daughters?[38] How could Abraham have had two wives; two sisters be married to Jacob, and two handmaids be given to him by his wives?[39] Are not all these things forbidden in the Law?[40] Despite what Origen wrote these events are explicable as historical events, not condoned by God, which took place before the Law was given.
None of the errors listed above were restricted to Origen. Many other ancient, and indeed some modern writers have made the same mistakes. Despite his reservations regarding the historical meaning of a text, Origen was at times prepared even to defend the literal meaning, such as that of Noah's Ark[41] and the Flood.[42] However, he usually fails to connect the spiritual interpretation to the straightforward historical sense.[43] For him it was “almost accidental that the Bible contained much true history. The soul within the body of Scripture was the important thing.”[44] The motivation behind Origen's exegesis was the desire that his audience see and hear Christ in the Scriptures and be transformed through that experience.[45] We might quibble with his methodology, but surely not with his intention. It is also worth noting that Origen believed that the passages of Scripture that are historically true far outnumbered those which have a purely spiritual meaning.[46]”
Unfortunately, most if not all of Origen's writings were destroyed by the church. It is nearly impossible to discern precisely what he believed. We have only the arguments against surviving and must deduce from them his stand. This type of deducing is questionable at best.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
