Origen and the Divinity of Christ

[CutlerB]

Hi there everybody,

I have a question regarding Origen and his view of Christ. I will list them below.

1. Did Origen change his views on the Divinity of Christ over time, including to the point of becoming heretical?
2. What does he mean when he writes in On Prayer, Chapter X: “For when He has heard one say. “Teach you us to pray,” He does not teach men to pray to Himself but to the Father saying, “Our Father in heaven,” and so on. For if, as is shown elsewhere, the Son is other than the Father in being and essence, prayer is to be made either to the Son and not the Father or to both or to the Father alone.”

This is of importance to me, as I am in a discussion with a Jehovah’s Witness on their brochure Should you Believe in the Trinity. In it, they quote Origen as having said such things, whilst also attributing statements to other Fathers who never said anything like the ascribed things.

 

[Jim_Baur]

If you have the time, energy and desire there is a great work by De Lubac entitled “History and Spirit the Understanding of Scripture According to Origen.”

I wish I had the answers.

I have studied Origen.

He is safe as can be for your own study.

This is the judgment of the office of the Papacy–“Origen is the greatest in the East.”

Concerning your friends the Witnesses, Origen will always be under suspicion by some Catholics, Protestants and non-Christians. Historians are still in disagreement.

Were in Germany?

My family if from the Tubingen and Reutlingen area.

 

[CutlerB]

If you have the time, energy and desire there is a great work by De Lubac entitled “History and Spirit the Understanding of Scripture According to Origen.”

I wish I had the answers.

I have studied Origen.

He is safe as can be for your own study.

This is the judgment of the office of the Papacy–“Origen is the greatest in the East.”

Concerning your friends the Witnesses, Origen will always be under suspicion by some Catholics, Protestants and non-Christians. Historians are still in disagreement.

Were in Germany?

My family if from the Tubingen and Reutlingen area.

I don’t have the time for that reading at the moment, sorry. But thank you.

Well he might be safe, but how do I explain that quote then? I mean, my JW friend says: “Isn’t that quote direct as can be?”

I’m from the area of Hamburg, up north.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Hi there everybody,

I have a question regarding Origen and his view of Christ. I will list them below.

1. Did Origen change his views on the Divinity of Christ over time, including to the point of becoming heretical?
2. What does he mean when he writes in On Prayer, Chapter X: “For when He has heard one say. “Teach you us to pray,” He does not teach men to pray to Himself but to the Father saying, “Our Father in heaven,” and so on. For if, as is shown elsewhere, the Son is other than the Father in being and essence, prayer is to be made either to the Son and not the Father or to both or to the Father alone.”

This is of importance to me, as I am in a discussion with a Jehovah’s Witness on their brochure Should you Believe in the Trinity. In it, they quote Origen as having said such things, whilst also attributing statements to other Fathers who never said anything like the ascribed things.

The language here of being different in essence seems to be directed towards showing that the Father and Son are not the same person, which is why he writes that prayers are to be offered to either the Son alone, the Father alone, or both. What he does not seem to be commenting on is whether the Son is of the same divinity as the Father, which is what a Jehovah’s Witness would try to deny.

 

[Jim_Baur]

My wife’s family was from your area. There name is Thien.

As I mentioned, I cannot answer your question completely.

1. He did not become heretical.
   At his time, the doctrine of the Incarnation had not been settled. He died about 250 and the creeds were first written in 325.
2. Jesus is the Son and not the Father. However, as Jesus clearly teaches, they who see Me see the Father. Origen taught this.

2.Yes there was development in his thought, but as far as I know, he always taught the Jesus was true God and true man.

1. One area that he might have had some trouble was in the existence of our soul–when was the soul created?
2. He was condemned several times. But the issues are really complicated. And as I stated, the Church sees him as the Greatest in the East.

I wish I could help, sorry!

Origen is often misquoted and certainly misunderstood.

As I mentioned, there are many Catholic theologians that misunderstand Origen because they do not read or study him. The point that is most often misunderstood is his use of allegory.

Good luck.

 

[bzkoss236]

I don’t have the time for that reading at the moment, sorry. But thank you.

Well he might be safe, but how do I explain that quote then? I mean, my JW friend says: “Isn’t that quote direct as can be?”

I’m from the area of Hamburg, up north.

I looked up a copy of On Prayer in an English translation and that quote is in chapter 10, but if you read more from the chapter, he isn’t making the claim that Jesus is not a part of God. That part of Chapter 10 is Origen arguing that we shouldn’t pray only to Jesus, but to either God alone (implying through Jesus), or to God through Jesus Christ. And that particular quote is at a part where he separates Jesus from the Father as a separate being to show the appropriateness of doing so. He says “For if” and not “Because”. It would be the same as me explaining to someone how to do an algebra problem, and instead of tackling the entirety of the problem at once, to assume for a minute that there are different parts completely separate from each other and solve them as such and then put them back together in the end. I think Origen here is using a similar argument style by showing how to treat the whole by separating the whole and showing how you would treat them individually and then bringing them back into the whole.

If you want to read the whole of chapter 10, here’s the link I used: LINK
Then go to the left side and go to chapter 10.
The quote you give is towards the bottom of the first page of chapter 10.

 

[Muze]

Hi there everybody,

I have a question regarding Origen and his view of Christ. I will list them below.

1. Did Origen change his views on the Divinity of Christ over time, including to the point of becoming heretical?
2. What does he mean when he writes in On Prayer, Chapter X: “For when He has heard one say. “Teach you us to pray,” He does not teach men to pray to Himself but to the Father saying, “Our Father in heaven,” and so on. For if, as is shown elsewhere, the Son is other than the Father in being and essence, prayer is to be made either to the Son and not the Father or to both or to the Father alone.”

This is of importance to me, as I am in a discussion with a Jehovah’s Witness on their brochure Should you Believe in the Trinity. In it, they quote Origen as having said such things, whilst also attributing statements to other Fathers who never said anything like the ascribed things.

I think the biggest thing we need to keep in mind when reading the ECFs is that they are often dealing with particular problems, and thus are expressing things in response to some heresy or bad teaching.

In this case, Origen appears to be dealing with some early oneness types (possibly docetists), and thus will be emphasizing the distinction between Father and Son, without really talking about unity in the godhead.

 

[jimmy]

Hi there everybody,

I have a question regarding Origen and his view of Christ. I will list them below.

1. Did Origen change his views on the Divinity of Christ over time, including to the point of becoming heretical?
2. What does he mean when he writes in On Prayer, Chapter X: “For when He has heard one say. “Teach you us to pray,” He does not teach men to pray to Himself but to the Father saying, “Our Father in heaven,” and so on. For if, as is shown elsewhere, the Son is other than the Father in being and essence, prayer is to be made either to the Son and not the Father or to both or to the Father alone.”

This is of importance to me, as I am in a discussion with a Jehovah’s Witness on their brochure Should you Believe in the Trinity. In it, they quote Origen as having said such things, whilst also attributing statements to other Fathers who never said anything like the ascribed things.

When reading Origen you should realize that he is a neoplatonist. Not that he is a philosopher, but neoplatonism is a preconception of his. So the chain of being (the One → the Logos → World Soul ->) is fundamental to his understanding of God. The Logos emanates (or is begotten) from the One from eternity and the Soul emanates eternally from the Logos. The Logos is the image of the One, so we know the One through the Logos because we can’t know the One directly. With this in mind he wouldn’t be considered orthodox by modern standards, even if he was never a heretic. It is a form of subordinationism.

That said, he did believe in the divinity of Christ. Christ was the Son of God (the Logos) by generation. And he did believe in the eternal generation of the Son. He spoke of the Son as homoousios with the Father.

His theology was largely, anti-monarchian. The monarchians included the adoptionists, who said that Christ was only the adopted son of the Father. They generally refer to the baptism of Christ as the point at which he was adopted. Another branch of monarchianism was modalism, which spoke of the Son as simply a manifestation on earth of the Father. They were the same. In this context, the quote from On Prayer makes perfect sense. The Father and the Son aren’t the same. It is a response to modalism, and he is emphasizing the distinction between the Father and the Son.

You can’t blame him either for not using the language of the Nicene-Constantinople creed, since the language wasn’t dogmatically taught until Nicea and Constantinople. He didn’t understand a distinction between person and essence, because these terms weren’t made distinct in theology until the Cappadocian fathers in the end of the fourth century. It was the Cappadocians who spoke of three hyposases (persons), and one ousia (essence). Until them, the terms were synonymous so for Origen to speak of the Son as a distinct essence isn’t the same as denying the divinity of Christ. And when you don’t have the terms or the language, it is hard to explain a concept such as the Trinity or the nature of Christ.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Origin was certainly heretical in some of his opinions. For example, he did not believe that hell is eternal.

But, regardless, we must realize that the Early Fathers were not always unanimous, especially when speaking on mysteries as deep as the nature of the Trinity or the divine/human nature of Jesus. For any given doctrine, you can probably find one or two quotes that seem contrary. And if the best you can come up with is from Origin then you are fairly desperate, considering his dubious reliability.

What is more definitive is the general consensus of the Fathers. You can read what several of them had to say in this Catholic Answers tract.

 

[Cavaradossi]

When reading Origen you should realize that he is a neoplatonist. Not that he is a philosopher, but neoplatonism is a preconception of his. So the chain of being (the One → the Logos → World Soul ->) is fundamental to his understanding of God. The Logos emanates (or is begotten) from the One from eternity and the Soul emanates eternally from the Logos. The Logos is the image of the One, so we know the One through the Logos because we can’t know the One directly. With this in mind he wouldn’t be considered orthodox by modern standards, even if he was never a heretic. It is a form of subordinationism.

This is not at all heterodox, nor can it really be said to be Neoplatonic. This idea that the Son is the image of the Father, and that the Father is only known through the Son is completely scriptural. So is the idea that the Son has His cause in the Father, in a similar manner as the Intellect was thought to have its cause in the One. Furthermore, Origen, being a contemporary of Plotinus (actually he was somewhat older than Plotinus) could hardly be called a Neoplatonist (his tendencies were Platonizing). The only major problems I can think of in trying to remain too faithful to the Platonic One-Intellect analogy are that the Son and Holy Spirit could be conceived of as inferior beings to the Father, as the Intellect and the Soul are considered in Platonism, and that the relationship between the Soul and men is not a suitable analogoue for the relation between the Spirit and men.

 

[jimmy]

This is not at all heterodox, nor can it really be said to be Neoplatonic. This idea that the Son is the image of the Father, and that the Father is only known through the Son is completely scriptural. So is the idea that the Son has His cause in the Father, in a similar manner as the Intellect was thought to have its cause in the One. Furthermore, Origen, being a contemporary of Plotinus (actually he was somewhat older than Plotinus) could hardly be called a Neoplatonist (his tendencies were Platonizing). The only major problems I can think of in trying to remain too faithful to the Platonic One-Intellect analogy are that the Son and Holy Spirit could be conceived of as inferior beings to the Father, as the Intellect and the Soul are considered in Platonism, and that the relationship between the Soul and men is not a suitable analogoue for the relation between the Spirit and men.

It is the great chain of being, and it comes from neoplatonism. To deny Origen was a neoplatonist is futile, because it is undeniable. Ammonius Saccus was supposedly the founder of neo-platonism, not plotinus. Plotinus and Origen were both taught by Ammonius Saccus.

The concept of the Son as image isn’t neoplatonic though, I will give you that much. But it isn’t simply that you know the Father through the Son; the Father is completely unaccessible. You can know the Logos, but not the One. It is subordinationism.

I don’t deny that the monarchy of the Father is the teaching of the scriptures, or that it is orthodox. The problem is subordinationism.

 

[Cavaradossi]

It is the great chain of being, and it comes from neoplatonism. To deny Origen was a neoplatonist is futile, because it is undeniable. Ammonius Saccus was supposedly the founder of neo-platonism, not plotinus. Plotinus and Origen were both taught by Ammonius Saccus.

To view him as a Neoplatonist is thoroughly anachronistic, however, since Neoplatonism wasn’t even a distinct school of thought from Platonism at that point in time (it is justifiable for Plotinus, who had a tremendous influence upon Neoplatonism, but I’m not so convinced about Origen).

The concept of the Son as image isn’t neoplatonic though, I will give you that much. But it isn’t simply that you know the Father through the Son; the Father is completely unaccessible. You can know the Logos, but not the One. It is subordinationism.

Yet even this idea is Scriptural. No one comes to the Father (who is hidden) except through the Son (who reveals the Father as in the Old Testament theophanies). What is unacceptable is not so much that we have mediated access to the Father (akin to the pre-intellectual experience of the One which is mediated by the Intellect), but that in the Neoplatonic understanding, the Intellect is an inferior being which contemplates the One in one simple act, while we would never affirm this understanding of the Logos. There are plenty of things which are defective with Platonic and Neoplatonic cosmology, but this particular similarity is not really an issue. The role of the Son as a unique mediator and revealer of the unknown Father is perfectly orthodox.

I don’t deny that the monarchy of the Father is the teaching of the scriptures, or that it is orthodox. The problem is subordinationism.

Of course. I think we can agree that subordinationism is not correct.

 

[CutlerB]

Of course. I think we can agree that subordinationism is not correct.

Could you explain what subordinationism is, and why it’s not correct? It may be of help in my discussion, as I keep reading some things that might be subordinationism.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Could you explain what subordinationism is, and why it’s not correct? It may be of help in my discussion, as I keep reading some things that might be subordinationism.

Subordinationism would be any teaching that the Son is lesser than the Father with respect to essence, power, or dignity. The only way in which it has ever been recognized that the Father is greater than the Son is that the Father is the cause of the Son, as St. Basil taught in Against Eunomius, but the Father being the cause of the Son need not imply either that the Son is not coeternal with the Father, for in some kinds of causation, the effect is simultaneous with the cause, or that the Son is of a lesser essence, for when things are said to beget other things, they usually beget something of the same essence.

 

[CutlerB]

Subordinationism would be any teaching that the Son is lesser than the Father with respect to essence, power, or dignity. The only way in which it has ever been recognized that the Father is greater than the Son is that the Father is the cause of the Son, as St. Basil taught in Against Eunomius, but the Father being the cause of the Son need not imply either that the Son is not coeternal with the Father, for in some kinds of causation, the effect is simultaneous with the cause, or that the Son is of a lesser essence, for when things are said to beget other things, they usually beget something of the same essence.

Thank you. The problem is, my JW friend won’t understand the meaning of “beget”. (We’re discussing in German, and that word is really difficult to explain.)