In this thread i'd like to lay-out my arguments that, in my opinion, rule out the possibility of Origen being a mere heretic when he speaks about controversial subjects relating to theology. I will defend both his view of the possibility of previous worlds and the pre-existence of the soul as summarised within his book ''on the first principles''.
In his book, Origen, though he admits to it being speculation, confirms his belief in the possibility of previous created-worlds (that would go back infinitely). He appeals to the idea that God couldn't have been in-active before creation as this absence of action would trespass on His omnipotence and unchanging nature (i.e. what is active but simultaneously unchanging, must have always been active). God being unchanging is, as far as i'm aware, something that's accepted by most branches of Christianity to one degree or another, having historically been perceived as the unmoved mover that Himself can't be moved by anything else, being ontologically above all changes. Origen uses a similar approach when he argues for the existence of the soul. His main argument seems to come down to his rejection of creation out of nothing, as for nothing to have existed God necessarily must have been inactive. It logically follows that if the possibility of creatio-ex-nihilo is ruled out, both matter and spirit must have had a pre-existence. This combined with God being unchanging, and we being a direct witness of the fact that God by His nature created a world, leads us to the conclusion that either;
1. Endless created worlds exist at the same time.
2. A created world must have always existed (as Origen argues).
And that either;
1. The soul, having been uncreated, was with God before birth.
2. The soul, having been uncreated, was in a previous world before birth.
3. The soul, having been uncreated, was in a previous body before birth.
Having summarised his position i'd like to emphasise that i consider this to be a consistent approach to theology that argues from stable and logical first-principles, as this theory is based solely on induction from fundamentals that can be established through and deduced from direct perception (i.e. change can't be the foundation of change as this would cause an infinite regress which would exclude the possibility of a foundation for reality). The ultimate reason for why i belief that his teaching is possible, however, is not his reasoning alone, but predominantly the arguments against his theology, which i consider to be insufficient with regards to discrediting his speculations. With these i will end my defence, and will leave the final conclusion to the reader.
The principle argument against Origen's conception of God generally boils down to two main arguments. One is an appeal to the teachings of the apostolic fathers, that don't actively support the possibility of pre-existence, the other is an appeal to Scripture, either to validate church consensus as being guided by the Holy Spirit, or to use specific verses that (seem to) contradict Origen's teachings. I consider both these arguments to be insufficient to discredit his theology for the following reasons;
- The apostolic fathers aren't an infallible source, and many of their statements could be considered heretical.
- Though Scripture may be inspired by the Holy Spirit, our interpretation of it isn't a infallible source either.
This means that there is virtually nothing left to refute Origen's teachings in their totality, as even the supposed validity of the ecumenical councils is based on a specific interpretation of verses by clergy, who aren't infallible, with interpretations that aren't infallible either. That having said, the more we move away from direct perception with regards to our metaphysics, the more presuppositions we end up making about the reliability of our perception. Since we ourselves aren't infallible this is a position that i would argue to be philosophically unjustifiable. For this reason, a consistent reasoning based on first principles derived from broad generalisations of patterns in the external world (as discussed in the beginning by using the example of ''change''), will, in my opinion, lead to more sound theological conclusions. These generalisations being broad in nature would logically have a higher chance of encapsulating the truth than appealing to the consensus of small groups of fallible individuals, as a large fishing net has a higher chance of catching fish than a fishing rod. Being forced to conclude that Origen seems to have applied this technique to form his theological conclusions, i believe that, of all the early Christian writers, his worldview has the highest chance of being true.