[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Origen


There has previously been a quote from someone characterizing Origen's view of 
John 1:1 that could be quite misleading (unintentional, I'm sure).

Of course, we all know that Origen could be a little inconsistent, but to put 
his subordinationalist tendencies in proper context, it must be conceded that 
Origen maintained a Trinitarian framework for his views.

For example, he wrote:

"In the first place, we must note that the nature of that deity which is in 
Christ in respect of His being the only-begotten Son Of God is one thing, and 
that human nature which He assumed in these last times for the purposes of the 
dispensation is another."
---Roberts and Donaldson, -Nicene Fathers, l. 4, pp. 245-246, de Principiiis, I. 
ii. 1.

He also wrote:

"...[i]t clearly shows that the existence of the Son is derived from the Father, 
BUT NOT IN TIME, NOR FROM ANY OTHER BEGINNING..." (Emphasis mine).
---ibid., Vol. 4, p. 251, de Principiis, I. ii. 11.

He even used the very word Trinity and spoke of the eternity of the Holy Spirit 
also.
---ibid. Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, I. iii. 4.

And here's a real clincher for context:

"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less..."
---ibid., Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principiis, I. iii. 7.

I hope this helps in putting things back into context regarding Origen's views.
One could probably say that Origen's seeming inconsistencies stem from a 
zealousness to guard against Sebellianism. To use this to support another 
extreme, Aryanism, just does not wash when considered in the light of context.

Eirhvh,
Bob