Origen and Sola Fide/faith alone

[FrancesDS]

I had a pastor friend send me a quote from Origen to support his belief that Sola Fide (justified by faith alone) was taught by Church Fathers. He sent other Fathers as well. The quote from Origen is curious as he is discussing Rom 3:28. I am not sure if this is an accurate translation as I have no access to a source for this. But more importantly, I find this quote confusing because it does seem to support sola fide yet I also have read that Luther and Melanchthon did not agree with Origen’s views on justification. I would love some insights on this quote.
Thank you in advance.

Here is the quote:
“Where then is your boasting? It is excluded. Through what law? That of works? No, but through the law of faith. For we hold that a man is justified through faith without works of law.” (Romans 3:28)
“He is saying that the justification of faith alone suffices, so that the one who only believes is justified, even if he has not accomplished a single work.
It is incumbent upon us, therefore, as those who are attempting to defend the harmoniousness of the Apostle’s writings and to establish that they are entirely consistent in their arrangement, that we should ask: Who has been justified by faith alone without works of the law? Thus, in my opinion, that thief who was crucified with Christ should suffice for a suitable example. He called out to him from the cross, ‘Lord Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom!’ In the Gospels nothing else is recorded about his good works, but for the sake of this faith alone Jesus said to him, ‘Truly I say to you: Today you will be with me in paradise.’ If it seems appropriate, let us now apply the words of the Apostle Paul to the case of this thief and say to the Jews, ‘Where then is your boasting?’ Certainly it is excluded, but excluded not through the law of works but through the law of faith. For through faith this thief was justified without works of the law, since the Lord did not require in addition to this that he should first accomplish works, nor did he wait for him to perform some works when he had believed. But by his confession alone the one who was about to begin his journey to paradise received him as a justified traveling companion with himself.”
-Origen, Commentary on Romans 3.9.2-3 (AD 240)

 

[thephilosopher6]

There is nothing in there claiming faith alone, those quotes are completely sound in Catholic doctrine. Protestants may try to interpret these in accordance with their view, but at the end of the day what Origen writes here could be interpreted either way. There is nothing indicating he is teaching for or against sola fide in these quotes.

Origen does espouse a view of progressive salvation, something that does not support the Protestant doctrine of sola fide, and even puts forth an early doctrine of Purgatory which is against sola fide and proves that Origen could not have been monergistic and thus he could not have held to faith alone (you can copy and paste anything I write for your argument if you need to for a debate and don’t need to credit me).

CONTINUED BELOW

 

[thephilosopher6]

“There are also many other things which escape our notice, and are known to Him alone who is the physician of our souls. For if, on account of those bad effects which we bring upon ourselves by eating and drinking, we deem it necessary for the health of the body to make use of some unpleasant and painful drug, sometimes even, if the nature of the disease demand, requiring the severe process of the amputating knife; and if the virulence of the disease shall transcend even these remedies, the evil has at last to be burned out by fire; how much more is it to be understood that God our Physician, desiring to remove the defects of our souls, which they had contracted from their different sins and crimes, should employ penal measures of this sort, and should apply even, in addition, the punishment of fire to those who have lost their soundness of mind! Pictures of this method of procedure are found also in the holy Scriptures. In the book of Deuteronomy, the divine word threatens sinners with the punishments of fevers, and colds, and jaundice, and with the pains of feebleness of vision, and alienation of mind and paralysis, and blindness, and weakness of the reins. If any one, then, at his leisure gather together out of the whole of Scripture all the enumerations of diseases which in the threatenings addressed to sinners are called by the names of bodily maladies, he will find that either the vices of souls, or their punishments, are figuratively indicated by them. To understand now, that in the same way in which physicians apply remedies to the sick, in order that by careful treatment they may recover their health, God so deals towards those who have lapsed and fallen into sin, is proved by this, that the cup of God’s fury is ordered, through the agency of the prophet Jeremiah, to be offered to all nations, that they may drink it, and be in a state of madness, and vomit it forth. In doing which, He threatens them, saying, That if any one refuse to drink, he shall not be cleansed. By which certainly it is understood that the fury of God’s vengeance is profitable for the purgation of souls. That the punishment, also, which is said to be applied by fire, is understood to be applied with the object of healing, is taught by Isaiah, who speaks thus of Israel: The Lord will wash away the filth of the sons or daughters of Zion, and shall purge away the blood from the midst of them by the spirit of judgment, and the spirit of burning. Of the Chaldeans he thus speaks: You have the coals of fire; sit upon them: they will be to you a help. And in other passages he says, The Lord will sanctify in a burning fire and in the prophecies of Malachi he says, The Lord sitting will blow, and purify, and will pour forth the cleansed sons of Judah.” - Origen, De Principiss: Book 2:10:6

CONTINUED BELOW

 

[thephilosopher6]

He continues,

“But that fate also which is mentioned in the Gospels as overtaking unfaithful stewards who, it is said, are to be divided, and a portion of them placed along with unbelievers, as if that portion which is not their own were to be sent elsewhere, undoubtedly indicates some kind of punishment on those whose spirit, as it seems to me, is shown to be separated from the soul. For if this Spirit is of divine nature, i.e., is understood to be a Holy Spirit, we shall understand this to be said of the gift of the Holy Spirit: that when, whether by baptism, or by the grace of the Spirit, the word of wisdom, or the word of knowledge, or of any other gift, has been bestowed upon a man, and not rightly administered, i.e., either buried in the earth or tied up in a napkin, the gift of the Spirit will certainly be withdrawn from his soul, and the other portion which remains, that is, the substance of the soul, will be assigned its place with unbelievers, being divided and separated from that Spirit with whom, by joining itself to the Lord, it ought to have been one spirit. Now, if this is not to be understood of the Spirit of God, but of the nature of the soul itself, that will be called its better part which was made in the image and likeness of God; whereas the other part, that which afterwards, through its fall by the exercise of free-will, was assumed contrary to the nature of its original condition of purity—this part, as being the friend and beloved of matter, is punished with the fate of unbelievers. There is also a third sense in which that separation may be understood, this viz., that as each believer, although the humblest in the Church, is said to be attended by an angel, who is declared by the Saviour always to behold the face of God the Father, and as this angel was certainly one with the object of his guardianship; so, if the latter is rendered unworthy by his want of obedience, the angel of God is said to be taken from him, and then that part of him— the part, viz., which belongs to his human nature— being rent away from the divine part, is assigned a place along with unbelievers, because it has not faithfully observed the admonitions of the angel allotted it by God.” - Origen, De Principiss, Book 2:10:7

 

[thephilosopher6]

These two quotes above prove that Origen could not have held to the doctrine of sola fide/faith alone.

 

[MT1926]

In situations like these I think you need to establish and get directly to the point if your pastor friend believes in what the Church fathers taught or if he is just picking and choosing what HE can interpret to fit his belief?

As for Origen’s quote, I see nothing in there to support Sola Fide.

First thing here is that the Catholic Church agrees no work can bring us to initial justification with the Lord. However, that does not mean we don’t have to cooperate with God’s grace after we are justified.

Second, I believe your friend is equating “work’s of law” with “good works”. They are not the same thing. When St. Paul speaks of works of law he is referring to the observance of the entire Law of Moses. These are not equal with good works. Initial justification takes place apart from any observance of the Law( or good works), whereas final justification (salvation) at the Last Judgement takes place apart from the ceremonial works of the Law, BUT not apart from observing the moral commandments of the Law (Rom 2:13; Mt 19:16-19; 1 Cor 7:19; Jas 2:8-13)

Third, we need to keep in mind that the Church Fathers were not infallible. Therefore, their teachings are their opinions and not always spot on. There can be some error in their teaching, which is why it needs to be lined up with the teaching from the Magisterium. I believe Origen is incorrect with this quote. “In the Gospels nothing else is recorded about his good works.” Personally, I believe verses 40-41 records the good thief’s “good works”…

40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong.”

Rebuking the other thief, who was ridiculing Jesus, was a good work in my book. Confessing that he was a sinner and deserved his punishment was a good work as well.

I’m not saying this is what saved the thief, I’m just saying Origen was off the mark here and I think the reason for this was because his writing here was trying to make the point about “works of law” not of “good works”.

The Catholic Church agrees that Jesus does not require us to first accomplish works in order to come into initial justification. That is why we Baptize infants, what good work or work of law could they have performed?

As philosopher wrote above, “Origen does espouse a view of progressive salvation”. If your friend would reread Origen with this in mind, he would see that Origen is speaking of initial justification here and not final salvation.

Hope this helps,

God Bless