Is Origen "not strictly" monotheistic?

[DrBubbaLove]

Here is the text in full.

We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God. Does the same difference which we observe between God with the article and God without it prevail also between the Logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the God who is over all is God with the article not without it, so "the Logos" is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, John 17:3 "That they may know You the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The first eleven sentences he devotes to the mentioning of John’s familiarity with Greek, (John believed to being originally written in Greek) and a discussion about the meaning of John’s use of articles, what significance we should attach to John using an article or not. Which given John’s knowledge of Greek could only have been deliberate? He explains what he, Origen, believes it means.

This is interesting in that today, the main detractors from interpreting this verse as traditionally done by Origen (and almost 2 millennium of people since) is apparently the same argument today as it was in Origen’s day.

Origen concludes (in the 11th sentence) by observing people considering this Greek article question could error in one of two ways (for fear of making multiple Gods). They either make Jesus just another name for God, or they deny his divinity altogether by making him separate from God. Both views clearly Origen sees as error. So Origen has said here that Jesus cannot be separate in his Nature from God, nor is it correct to see Jesus as not distinct, a name only and not another Person while the same Nature. We especially note that Origen clearly sees that the error of seeing Jesus as a completely separate being would DENY his Divinity.

The next sentence (12) he explains what he means by saying beings can be called god, namely in their participation with His Divinity.

The very next sentence (13) he takes that thought further and applies it specifically to Christ, the Son of God, the first born. Clearly indicating that the way or level of “participation” that Origen sees in the Son is clearly far beyond any other beings (gods – remember he just said basically that all reasoning beings participate in His Divinity by the mere fact of having reason. He expounded on this very idea in the preceding book and paragraphs, so the meaning (of gods) should be understood here).

In the 14th sentence he also recalls what he has said previously about all rational (humans, angels…etc) ‘beings’ being called gods, reminding the reader that God made everything through the First-born (Jesus), and the same include “generous measure” of His Divinity that they may be called gods. Earlier in the first book he likens this generous measure to “image” as in Genesis 1 creation story.

The last two sentences he summarizes, there is only One True God, and all other beings (those – rational implied again from early in these books) after him are gods in the sense they reflect or are an image of the One True God. Further he says of all these ‘images’, Jesus stands alone in that he alone is always with God, is God, was God at all times. He makes brief reference to a concept he treats heavily in the book proceeding the one from which this quote comes, that Jesus is the Word, the Wisdom of God (here he says uninterrupted contemplation). In the preceding book he makes the point that to speak of God in the sense of time without His Wisdom, His Word, is meaningless.

We also note in the first book also the idea Origen puts forth that Christians cannot believe that matter is uncreated. He also treats the idea of image, what it means for man to be made in the image, as directly opposed to Jesus being IN the Image.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Jeffcc,
Those are my words summarizing what Origen says in the paragraph two of his second book on John. No commentaries or what someone else says Origen says.

Just reading his first two books up to paragraph two of the second book, which was the chopped up paragraph you made your first quote of Origen.

Now you are free to say I just did that with my "obvious" Catholic bias, but I defy you to read the same material and make it say what the chopped up quote in your post above attempts to make Origen say.

Specifically in the way you chopped the paragraph and omitted relevant info, you attempt to make Origen appear to say that John's leaving out an article for Logos implies Jesus is a separate being from God, that Origen says Jesus is another god. To me that is especially shameful and egregious in that Origen explicitly denies such a thing as being an error the very section you omitted. Further he goes on to explain the difference between gods that are images of, ie have some of that Divinity in their existence and Jesus being IN His Image.

 

[jeffC]

Hello, DrBubbaLove

Reply part I

Limit the capacity to act, means one does not have the capacity, whether one would choose to act or not. We will agree, assuming no other council of gods more powerful (unknown and big assumption in your view), that your council of gods collectively, but not individually could represent All Power in “this” universe. Still does not follow such a Father is "All Powerful". That is why such thinking frequently gets the response "your god is not big enough".

I'll leave the argument over whether any capacity to act is truly limited to the other thread, where I have responded to this argument. I disagree, as it is largely a matter of definition. And, as already indicated, the matter of detail involved in resolving this dispute of philosophy goes beyond any Biblical treatment of "all-powerful". As long as it is admitted that each individual is functionally all-powerful, any and all Biblical standards are met. Any reasoning along the lines of "my god is better than your god" is frankly petty, and can serve only polemical purposes. I prefer to note common ground where possible, and remember that beliefs uniting Christian faiths are more numerous than the differences.

We note your association of trivial with God and your lack of understanding of what a Person means. Three People cannot be ‘alone’.

First, I apologize for using language that denigrated your beliefs. That was not my intent; "Trivial" is a mathematical term, and I didn't consider the more common implication. I recognize that the Trinity is profound and deeply held, and anything but "trivial".

We would argue that a union of Three Persons within One Nature would be much tighter than any union of separate beings. Having One Divine Will as opposed to three wills in union would have to be tighter.

Note that we are specifically discussing a union of will. You argue your point using the Three Persons, but do you hold that there are three Wills, or one Will? The former is closer to Social Trinitarianism than to the traditional viewpoint.

If you hold more closely to the latter, then my point still applies. In physics, a "trivial solution" is one that is true by inherent definition only. In the analogy I was considering, from my perspective the unity of the Trinity is inherent in the definition of "one substance". There is only one will. Not three wills united, but one identically singular will. Thus, the unity is one of inherent definition. One will cannot be different from itself.

On the other hand, a true "unity" is made up of multiple distinct parts (in this case, distinct wills). Here, the unity is also a true union (a union by definition consists of at least two different sets, or "things" as Origen put it*). IMO, a perfect unity that could be otherwise is more meaningful than one that arises fundamentally by definition. Looked at another way, a single frequency cannot produce a harmony. Perfect harmony arises only from several distinct frequencies summed together; this is a union, a single note is not.


*Before you object, recall that for Origen the Word has an independent will; We are not merely speaking of hypostasis, here. "For Origen the oneness of the Son with the Father is important, but His independence is theologically prior." [Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 130]

The OP opening quotes of Origen, yes; he clearly believes Father, Son and Holy Ghost are of One Essence, Inseparable, One in Being. That is the very definition of consubstantiality.

If ??? The first several posts of this thread contain several quotes of Origen that contain the very definition of consubstantial. Where is the “if” in those statements?

One in Being, i.e. one in substance is the very definition of consubstantiality. The others are not; related, perhaps, but they are also related to other viewpoints that do not contain consubstantiality, like Origen's. One can read too much into inseparability. I hope this becomes more clear below, where we examine how these comparisons of the Word to God which you rely on to make your case are exactly paralleled by comparisons of humans to the Word. However you conclude that the Word is inseparable from God, you must conclude that we are in the same way inseparable from our Savior.

The truth is the truth. In spite of recent re-writes of history, there are many of us in the US that know what the Fathers of this Country felt about separation, and it has nothing to do with what is being argued today.

Consubstantial has a definition which matches what Origen says about the Nature of God, and matches that of ours today. He defends the distinction of the Persons, not a separation. True he interchanges person and nature (if the translation is accurate), but a full reading of the text clearly demonstrates where he address one then the other.

But you see how the re-definition of terms causes problems for some who don't realize (or don't care) that their understanding of some words doesn't mean the same thing now as when they were coined. I'm glad you see where I'm coming from with the "separation of church and state" example.

However, the meaning of nature, essence, substance, person, and even consubstantiality changed over the years, and we see this in his description of the "two errors". Origen does not teach any doctrine of "one substance"; rather he expressly distances himself from that idea. And you have it backwards: Some are willing to take snippets of Origen's writings, even some that are mostly considered fraudulent, and try to attribute to him consubstantiality. But the whole of Origen's writings clearly demonstrates that he could do no such thing. There is consensus among scholars on this issue from both sides of the aisle, as I have shown.

I fail to understand the ardent defense of someone who the Catholic Church condemned as a heretic, although I'm glad you recognize the import of someone who grew up in the Christian faith, whose parents were immersed in the Apostolic faith, and who was mainstream enough and influential enough to be recognized as the Augustine of the East.

Again, your assumption that any Subordinate Christology would conflict. It was only when the language of these early writers was taken to an extreme that conflict arose.

The conflict between Subordinationism and Christian consubstantiality is not an assumption. It is the conclusion of the Christological debates, and we have both agreed upon Hodgson's statement, that "in [the Divine unity] there is no room for any trace of subordinationism...".

The conflict between Origen and Consubstantiality has nothing to to with taking Origen's statements to the extreme. It is the plain, straightforward, and ubiquitous themes that conflict with the core of the Trinity. On the other hand, taking statements that sound familiar, and that later generations of Christians take to be synonymous with consubstantiality, and then inserting those later interpretations into Origen's meaning, is that not taking his words to an extreme?

Clearly these early writers thought these ideas coexist because they held to both.

All this statement does is demand that the Apostles taught a contradictory gospel. Since I reject this notion, I am forced to choose between consubstantiality and what I see as an earlier Biblical Christology (subordinationist); given Gal. 1:8, this is an easy choice for me.

As we still speak in subordination terms today, obviously we feel some subordination language is acceptable. Only if we overlook their comments regarding consubstantiality. since these early writers showing subordination views also held to consubstantiality, we are not the ones denying history or claiming contradiction that needed “fixing”.

I have not seen any evidence for the claim that before Tertullian anyone held to consubstantiality. At best, there have been attempts to read this conclusion into statements such as "one God" or "inseparable". This is not proof. At best it is supporting evidence, but without a smoking gun this "evidence" no better than proof by assertion, and is better explained in other more straightforward ways.
Nowhere is this made more clear than in the writings of Justin and Origen, where "one God" and "inseparable" are used alongside express denials of consubstantiality.

I'm afraid one can't gloss over the conflict by saying that "some subordination language" doesn't conflict. This entirely avoids the issue that the "subordination language" used by the ECFs before Nicea DOES conflict. The subordinationism expressed by them is one where the Word is inferior in essence to the Father, who alone is "the God", autotheos . The Subordinationism under examination is completely incompatible with the concept of co-equality, and hence the entire Trinity doctrine.

When scholars say that Subordinationism was the "ante-Nicean orthodoxy", they are contrasting pre-325 AD orthodoxy with what became orthodox later. If the new "language" was compatible with what came before, there would be no such comparison. Just saying, "well, there are some forms of subordination language that are OK", does not change the fact that there is a core contradiction between the earlier Christology and the later one.

First of all, lest not paint a false picture. Not all the people we are quoting are “Fathers” or “Doctors” of the Church. Some are considered ecclesiastical writers. Some fell away from the Church. Even so, these writings are treasured for the truths contained, even if some thoughts reflect or easily lead to error.

Fortunately for the orthodox heritage, the winners of theological debates get to determine which theologians are preserved for history and promoted as correct, and which are to be burned at the stake along with their writings. So far, we've only examined writers who are considered mainstream by the later (established) orthodoxy.

Even excluding any one particular writing that can be dismissed as heretical, in the aggregate a very consistent picture emerges. Even more startling, is that this same picture is visible even in the ante-Nicene "orthodox" Fathers.

Which contemporary idea expresses the thought that Jesus consists of only a portion the Divine substance?

None, but that is not the definition of subordination or a question of whether Origen was monotheistic or not. Again people are allowed to make mistakes, just as you would (and have) said a J Smith did.

On the contrary, this is precisely the ontological Subordinationism I have been discussing that is seen in the ECF. And although the words in this case are Tertullian's, the sentiments are shared by Origen.

I'm OK with mistakes; we do all make them, especially as we try to work out our thoughts in writing. However, the theology we are discussing is the core Christology of the first 300 years of Christianity. Again, if one or two people were making these "mistakes", then it would be excusable from the Trinitarian POV. However, when everyone is making the same "mistake", I think that no longer qualifies as a mistake. It was the accepted and taught theology, which changed.

Which contemporary idea expresses the notion that Jesus is of the same "kind" of substance as the Father?

One in Being as expressed in the Creed covers this. But you probably focused on “same” and “kind” as in comparing one human person with another, same nature, same kind. Since these same writers clearly state there is only One Nature, when they say same, it means just as we say today, everything the Father is (God), so is the Son (God) and the Spirit (God).So just saying same in that context is much more than just placing the Three in a similar group (like all people being human).

There is a difference between "the same substance" and the "same kind of substance"; the difference being that the former can be either consubstantiality or not, but the latter specifies the "not". Just one more reason why the context infered above does not actually exist in the writings of Origen.

Which contemporary idea specifies that Jesus is "other in ousia" from the Father?

None, except LDS and some other liberal Christians, non-Trinitarians. As Origen says they are One in Essence am not sure the relevance of the question.

It is Origen who says that Jesus is "other in ousia". More on this below, but allow me to repeat Hanson, as scholarly conclusion should carry more weight than either of our opinions: "Origen never says that the Son comes from the substance of the Father; ... it [should be] clear that the likelihood of Origen having described the Son as consubstantial (homoousious) with the Father is very slim. This might have committed him to saying that he had the same ousia as the Father, a view which he actually disowned, and would have suggested to him that the Father and the Son were of the same material, an idea which he was anxious to avoid." [The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381, p68-69]

Which contemporary idea specifies that Jesus is eternally subject to the Father?

Saying Jesus is the Word implies the idea of expression, the expression of thought, ideas. Whose ideas? God the Father. In that sense the idea belonging to God the Father is necessarily expressed by the Word, Jesus the Son. In creation, the Father is Creator of everything that is, His thoughts can create. But the expression of those thoughts is through the Son. In that sense then, there is subjection being expressed. Just as saying, Son and Spirit owe all that they are to the Father, expresses subjection.

That's not the kind of subjection that is discussed. Rather, the ECFs frequently comment on 1 Cor. 15:22-27, which specifically states that the Son receives His power and authority from the Father. Furthermore, at the end, the Son is in some way "made subject" again to God. There is an evolving relationship, not the sort of thing that the Trinity absorbs very well.

1 Cor. 15
27 Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him [Christ], it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.​

 

[jeffC]

Reply Part II

I would accept that most of the Apostles never spent a lot of time contemplating the nature of God or fully understood Jesus Words in that regard. Having not fully formed those ideas, I do not agree that it follows those ideas were later changed.

The conflict of Subordinationism with the later Trinity doctrine (co-equal and consubstantial) disagrees with the notion that the later ideas were not changed. I for one do not agree with the supposition that conclusions of later philosophers should be given more weight than the original words of Apostles. At the very least, those who disagree with the conclusions of the philosophers should not be ostracized from the Christian community for giving priority to the Revelation.

To me it is harder to argue against comments Jesus, Paul, John and Peter made, the form of Baptism in use (from the Didache)…etc, (which all support the later views expressed) and all to suggest that everything starts to drastically change less than a generation after the last Apostle dies. At the very least one would expect John would complain about these upstarts that you would have to claim are changing everything about the Deity. We do not see that in the evidence we have.

On the contrary, the historical evidence is very clear that everything did change drastically within a generation of the death of the last Apostle. On the contrary, John (for one) does complain about the upstarts who are bringing heresies into the Church (we will recall that Paul specifically warned against Greek enmity against corporeality, but many other examples could be listed - particularly close to 100 AD). Even if one does not accept that things changed for the worse, it is a matter of historical record that beginning about 150 AD the "Apologists" began defending Christianity in terms of the Greek religion. It was there express purpose to Hellenize the Church's teachings. That is a drastic change, even if they thought they were correct in doing so.


I find it harder to argue that Jesus, Paul, John, and Peter, the latter of whom had direct access to revelation, were given a "dumbed down" version of the Truth that only the wise could resolve over the next 500 years by appeal to established Greek thought, and various philosophical innovations. I just don't see how any of that can be reconciled with Paul's express warning to the Galatians.

 

[jeffC]

Besides, you have not shown subordination to be a “bedrock” principle...

I mentioned earlier that I would provide scholarly sources on request, in addition to the examples from Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Origen, Tertullian, and Irenaeus (and more) that we have already considered. I suppose here is as good a place to do it as any, as Origen provides the quintessential example of a Subordinationist Christology. The similarities of his descriptions with so many of the other ante-Nicene Fathers make Origen an excellent test case for the conclusions of these Biblical Scholars.

The following is taken from a discussion of Ante-Nicene Subordinationism on CF awhile back, here.

"...until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology." Hansen, R., "The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD", in Williams, R., ed., The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in honour of Henry Chadwick, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989,) p. 153.

"If such was the teaching of Athanasius and his allies [i.e. homousis as numerical unity of substance, rather than ‘the same kind of being’ in the three persons of the Godhead] , at least three types of theology found shelter at different times in the anti-Nicean camp. The first, indefinite, on occasion ambiguous on the crucial issues, but on the whole conciliatory, reflects the attitude of the great conservative 'middle party' [i.e. the majority].... It's positive doctrine is that there are three divine hypostases [persons], separate in rank and glory but united in harmony of will. [J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, Revised ed., (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1978) 236, 247-248]

"All informed, honest scholars know that the particular doctrine of the Trinity held to by most, but not all, Evangelicals was not developed until after the Council of Nicea. Bettenson writes, "'Subordinationism', it is true was pre-Nicene orthodox." David Waltz, quoting Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers (London: Oxford University Press, 1978), 239.

"It [subordinationism] is a characteristic tendency in much Christian teaching of the first three centuries, and is a marked feature of such otherwise orthodox Fathers as St. Justin and Origen…Where the doctrine [of the Trinity] was elaborated, as e.g. in the writing of the Apologists, the language remained on the whole indefinite, and, from a later standpoint, was even partly unorthodox. Sometimes it was not free from a certain subordinationism." [FL Cross and EA Livingston, editors, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd edition, (London: Oxford University Press, 1974), 1319, 1394. ]

"In this connection there must be recalled the fact, established earlier (p. 125), that every significant theologian of the Church, in the pre-Nicene period, had actually represented a Subordinationist Christology." (The Formation of Christian Dogma, An Historical Study of its Problems; Martin Werner, p234.)

"There is no theologian in the Eastern or the Western Church before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy [in the fourth century], who does not in some sense regard the Son as subordinate to the Father." (The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, R. P. C. Hanson, )

It is very telling that the so-called semi-Arians, the great "middle party" Kelly refers to (anyone who didn't tow the later party line was discredited by association with Arius), were the ones who supported homoiousios (similar kind of being/substance, rather than the same being/substance ) at the Council of Nicea. It was a relatively few influential individuals, like Athanasius and Hosea of Cordova, who -backed by the Emperor- were in favor of homoousios. And even though they were eventually convinced to accept homoousios, it was only because they found ways (or at least, they quickly found ways) to harmonize it with homoiousios!

 

[jeffC]

The following is in response to your suggestion to take Comm. John 2:2 line by line. Origen's words are in blue; your line-by-line is quoted in the relevant spot, in cases where I responded directly to it.


And perhaps it was because he saw some such order in the Logos, that John did not place the clause "The Word was God" before the clause "The Word was with God." The series in which he places his different sentences does not prevent the force of each axiom from being separately and fully seen. One axiom is, "In the beginning was the Word," a second, "The Word was with God," and then comes, "And the Word was God." The arrangement of the sentences might be thought to indicate an order; we have first "In the beginning was the Word," then, "And the Word was with [the] God," and thirdly, "And the Word was God," so that it might be seen that the Word being with God makes Him God.

let us first take note of the context of the first sentence in 2:2 (below), replicated above as the final paragraph of 2:1. Two points are important:
1) The Father is identified in the verses listed as "the God", or the "autotheos". The Word is called "God", without the article. Origen goes on to explain this distinction;
2) The Word is not the "autotheos"; He is God by virtue of "being with" the Father. IOW, if the Word were to be separated from the Father, he would no longer be God.​

We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God.

This is interesting in that today, the main detractors from interpreting this verse as traditionally done by Origen (and almost 2 millennium of people since) is apparently the same argument today as it was in Origen’s day.

What I find interesting is that Origen's argument is the SAME as the "main detractors" today. Origen is not discrediting this reasoning, he is making it!

So Origen notes that "the God" is reserved exclusively for "the uncreated cause of all things", i.e. the Father; the article is deliberately not used in scripture when the Son is named God. Here we have a foreshadowing of Origen's claim that only the Father is truly God, and any others are "named" god.​

Does the same difference which we observe between God with the article and God without it prevail also between the Logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the God who is over all is God with the article not without it, so "the Logos" is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos.

This parallel casts additional light on what distinctions Origen understands in the differences between "the God" and "God". There is a distinction between "the Logos" and simply logos (or reason) of men. And though in men God is the source of all reason, this does not imply that logos in men is consubstantial with "the Logos".​

Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other.

So Origen has said here that Jesus cannot be separate in his Nature from God, nor is it correct to see Jesus as not distinct, a name only and not another Person while the same Nature. We especially note that Origen clearly sees that the error of seeing Jesus as a completely separate being would DENY his Divinity.

As you noted, the primary concern is that somehow two "autotheoi" could be proclaimed. I will get more into the heart of the above passage later, as it is central to my argument and to the conclusions that have been drawn by Kelly, Hanson, and the others I have quoted, that based on the above, Origen is NOT a consubstantialist. I'm coming back to this at the end so that the entire context of this chapter can be brought to bear. However, briefly:

1) You say, "Origen has said here that Jesus cannot be separate in his Nature from God..."; yet Origen says the opposite: those who err "deny that the Son has a distinct nature".
2) Ostensibly, the one committing this second error holds adamantly, like Origen, that there is only one Autotheos, the Father. The Son's divinity then is "by participation" with the Father, just as is the case with "other gods beside Him". It is clear that consubstantiality is not implied for two reasons: a) it was just explicitly rejected in #1, and b) it is not that they are literally inseparable, but that to separate them is "unthinkable". Origen goes on to specifically expand what he means by "making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father". ​

To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, John 17:3 "That they may know You the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article).

Note that Origen's primary response to those who think his doctrine, whatever it is, proclaims two Gods is not "they are three in one", but that only the Father is "the only true God"; only the Father is "Very God, Autotheos, God of Himself". ALL beyond that is divine only by participation. Origen is arguing that two beings (and more) though they have different substances may both be called god, but there is only one Being who is truly God. This is Origen's defense of monotheism.​

And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken and called the earth."

Now note that Origen includes the Word, as the first of all God's works, in that ALL. Because He is with God, he also "attracts" divinity to Himself. One must ask how a substance that is homogeneous within itself "attracts" divinity from one portion to another.

Secondly, with the Word in the category of beings that "attract" divinity are "the other gods beside Him", that is other gods beside the Word. Note that the Father is God over all these lower gods, including Jesus. We will note that the other ECFs and the Bible itself frequently refer to the Father as Jesus' God (e.g. John 20:17). Here is the key to Origen's theology: as Jesus is of more exalted rank than "the other gods beside him", so is the Father of more exalted rank than the Son. Origen says that the Son and the Spirit are divine 'by degree' [quoted in Kelly, 131]. So, you were correct when you said that "Clearly indicating that the way or level of 'participation' that Origen sees in the Son is clearly far beyond any other beings (gods...)". However, Origen takes this observation one step further and applies the same relationship between the Father and Son. The Father transcends the Son.

Thirdly, neither is Jesus' status of being "with" the Father entirely unique; the entire realm of spiritual beings were also co-eternal (even before matter was created) with the Father. Thus, by participation with the Father - just like the Word, but in lower rank - they were gods. Now, no one is going to try and claim that the "spiritual realm" was also consubstantial with the Father. Why? Because centuries later there is no one to read that preconceived idea into Origen's words. Yet their deity exactly parallels the deity of the Word. More from Kelly:

[Origen] conceived of the whole world of spiritual beings (what he called logikoi or noes) as being co-eternal with the Father. Indeed, their relation to the Word is precisely parallel to that of the Word, at a higher level, to the Father; they are images of Him, as He is of the Father, and in their degree are equally entitled to be called gods....The Father, as we have seen, is alone autotheos; so St. John, he points out, accurately describes the Son simply as Theos, not the Theos. In relation to the God of the universe, He merits a secondary degree of honour; for He is not absolute goodness and truth, but His goodness and truth are a reflection and image of the Father's. The same goes for His activity; the Son is the Father's agent carrying out His commands, as in the case of creation. For this reason he concludes that 'we should not pray to any generate being, not even to Christ, but only to the God and Father of the universe, to Whom our Saviour Himself prayed'" [JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p131-132]​

Fourth, we note that this is why to separate Jesus from the Father results in denying the Son's divinity. Jesus was "the first" and the greatest to "attract to Himself Divinity". But just as no other being called God is "truly god" without being connected to the Father, so it is with Jesus too, in Origen. Hence, only the Father is "the God" and "ALL" other beings owe their divinity to the Father. And the Word is only Divine because He is always WITH the Father (not consubstantial with the Father).​

It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype.

It is by participation with divinity that they "became gods", the same type (if different rank) of participation that the Son enjoys; they "have a share of God". Therefore Origen declares in the next chapter that the God of the universe "is the God of these beings who are truly Gods." Again, we have to admit in this scenario that Origen is not strictly monotheistic by modern standards.​

But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.

This final sentence is the capstone describing what Origen means by becoming "separated" from the Father. First, the metaphor is one of contemplation, not a direct statement of "one substance". Next, Jesus does not "possess" Divinity of himself; he is dependent on the Father for it. He only continues to be God by continuing to remain with the Father. But note that Origen considers it possible, if unthinkable, for Jesus to "not continu[e] to be God" if he were to separate from communion with the Father. It is not a matter of "one substance", where such a scenario is impossible to even consider, but a true unity where the Son is united with the Father. It is the Son's Divinity that is inseparable from the Father in the absolute sense, not the person of the Son Himself. Hence, to try and make the Son out to be God co-equally or in the same sense as the Father is God in truth denies the Divinity of the Son, for there is in truth only one Autotheos.

Second, note that in the same way that lesser "gods" are such because they are "images", reflections, of the Son, in that same way is the Son god by image and reflection. So, whatever you interpret Origen saying about all other "gods", must be the same way that Origen interpreted the godhood of the Word.​

 

[jeffC]

"2. In What Way the Logos is God. Errors to Be Avoided on This Question"

From the portion omitted in your paste comes this sentence;
"They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other."

Note Origen sees these things as errors. How can anyone reading that say Origen sees the error and then makes the same error himself in the same paragraph?

Mostly, my analysis of the second error is completed in the previous post. Origen did view it as possible that the Son be "separable", just unthinkable that the Son would be. This is no endorsement of consubstantiality. More to the point, Origen expressly denies the possibility. In post 16 I detailed some reasons why. Here, I'll just focus on two of them: Origen's statement that the Father and Son differ in Essence (in error #1 quoted above) and Origen's statement that the Father "transcends" the Son.

Origen states that heretics "deny that the Son has a distinct nature (hypostasis)". Rouch, Kelly, and Hanson all point out that hypostasis and ousia were originally synonyms, and specifically that Origen uses the term "hypostasis" in this original sense (I quoted Rouch to this effect in post 16). Hypostasis is actually a scriptural term, the most theologically meaningful of which is found in Heb 1:3 where it is translated "Nature" or "Being" ("being" in my Catholic Bible, "nature" in the NASV, "substance" in the ASV). So any assertion that Origen is recognising only the distinction of "the Persons" is not based in the word "hypostasis", but in the word "distinct". IOW, on the assumption that Origen shared a particular perception about what was "distinct" in the trinity. But on the contrary, it is the "nature", "real existence, or essence" or "substance" of the Son that is "distinct". This in contra-position to the frequent assertion in the course of this dialogue that Origen confesses only "one Nature", "one Essence". Origen means that they deny that the Son is a distinct entity. In every writing that exists in the Greek (i.e. was not "sanitized" by Latin translators), the only unity that Origen suggests between Father and Son is one of love, will, and action, never a consubstantial union.

Note again the conclusion of Hanson: "...the likelihood of Origen having described the Son as consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father is very slim. This might have committed him to saying that he had the same ousia as the Father, a view which he actually disowned, and would have suggested to him that the Father and the Son were of the same material, an idea which he was anxious to avoid." [The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381, p.68]


Next, note the definition of transcendence: "transcendence is a condition or state of being that surpasses physical existence, and in one form is also independent of it." Clearly a state of being which "surpasses" another cannot possess identically the state of being/physic of the second. Now, on to Origen's own words:

There was God with the article and God without the article, then there were gods in two orders, at the summit of the higher order of whom is God the Word, transcended Himself by the God of the universe."[Comm. John, II.3].​

Note the hierarchy of Origen: God the Father transcends all other gods, including the Word (Origen specifically points out). Below the Father, there are Gods of two orders. The "higher order" is the one that the "other gods", the sons of god, belong to. At the summit of this order is the Word. What we have Origen saying is that the Son is transcended by the Father and belongs to a different "order" of godhood than the Father, the same order to which belong the saved of the saints of God (who are called the sons of God, and named gods themselves). This is not a system that is compatible with the concept of "one substance", even if it had been introduced in the East by this time (the only way in which it had been was through Sabellianism; it might be said that this same tendency is what produced the orthodox trinity).

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Jeffcc, response #1 to Jeffcc post #24 his comments in blue.
I agree that most religions are man’s attempt to understand and know God. I disagree that this makes all such attempts Christian. While you use many of the same terms, the meanings are all different. Our basic foundational understandings of the nature of God are so different and directly opposed am not sure on what grounds we could claim to be worshipping the same God. Ours is eternal and infinite, unchanging. Yours is not eternal, not infinite and continuosly changing. If we are going to all claim to be Christians, yet hold such opposing views as foundations of our faiths, am also not sure what the meaning of “Christian” becomes.

First, I apologize for using language that denigrated your beliefs. That was not my intent; "Trivial" is a mathematical term, and I didn't consider the more common implication. I recognize that the Trinity is profound and deeply held, and anything but "trivial".

Accept the apology. However must note you fail to correct yourself in your seeing the orthodox Christian belief as having God being alone. A single Being, God, who is Three Persons, cannot by definition be alone. There is no point where God the Father is alone. The very meaning of stating Jesus was “in the beginning” and then with the Father, is to say they have always been together. Besides, being alone indicates need and God cannot be said to have any need.
Neither is the orthodox ChristianTrinity a simple (trivial) unity) simply because we believe in only One Divine Will (and one Divine God). True that God is utterly simple. That is another reason He cannot be divided into three separate parts (that would be not simple). If for no other reason the Trinity is not a “simple” unity in that we cannot fully understand how Three Persons exist as One Being.

Note that we are specifically discussing a union of will. You argue your point using the Three Persons, but do you hold that there are three Wills, or one Will? The former is closer to Social Trinitarianism than to the traditional viewpoint.

Suspect you know full well, or should know, my belief is the later, which is not a union of wills (as your gods would have) because there is only One Divine Will, which was my point - that you could not have a closer union of Three Persons than that because there would not be three wills but a single Will in that union. Your counter is simply it is not really a unity because there is only One Will, but stating that makes this Trinity simple overlooks the fact we still have a unity of Three distinct Persons.

If you hold more closely to the latter, then my point still applies. In physics, a "trivial solution" is one that is true by inherent definition only. In the analogy I was considering, from my perspective the unity of the Trinity is inherent in the definition of "one substance". There is only one will. Not three wills united, but one identically singular will. Thus, the unity is one of inherent definition. One will cannot be different from itself.

Ok, glad you can see that necessity of One Will is part of One in Being/One Nature/One substance. Fail to see why you cannot make the same distinction when an ECF or early Christian writer says one substance. And we must add that while One Divine Will cannot conflict with itself, there are still Three distinct Persons forming this union that is Our God.

On the other hand, a true "unity" is made up of multiple distinct parts (in this case, distinct wills). Here, the unity is also a true union (a union by definition consists of at least two different sets, or "things" as Origen put it*). IMO, a perfect unity that could be otherwise is more meaningful than one that arises fundamentally by definition. Looked at another way, a single frequency cannot produce a harmony. Perfect harmony arises only from several distinct frequencies summed together; this is a union, a single note is not.

So the orthodox ChristianTrinity is not a “true” union. Yet as we have said already that is only true if one overlooks our (and Origen’s) insistence in a union of Three distinct Persons, which again is not a “simple” union (in name only to borrow Origen’s phrase). Look this whole section started with what inseperable/seperable meant and whether union in Nature precluded/excluded/included separate in Person. Here your analogy only works if we again blur the distinction (pun intended) Origen makes between the distinction of Persons and the Unity of the Three as One in Nature.
Lets say Origen is describing your view of a Trinity, (which means we ignore everywhere he describes One inseparable God). If we do so ignore Origen’s other statements about God, and take your union analogy of a harmony, say 3-notes are in perfect harmony – a “true” union as you described it. Those are still separate and distinct notes AND they are independent as well, one can exist without the other. Just because the notes are in union/harmony in a chord, no musician would describe the notes as inseparable or unable to exist without the other. Yet Origen says exactly that about the Three and One God. He says they are distinct yet inseparable.

*Before you object, recall that for Origen the Word has an independent will; We are not merely speaking of hypostasis, here. "For Origen the oneness of the Son with the Father is important, but His independence is theologically prior." [Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 130]


You will have to refresh my memory here in regards to where you claim Origen says the Word has an independent will. I do not remember you “showing” any such thing.
If Kelly is referring to the distinction of Person which is probably Origen’s emphasis of Christ being a distinct Person or the appropriation of acts of God to Jesus (subordination), then that has nothing to do with negating Oneness which you would have to prove since Origen clearly sees both. Again, nature address what, Person (independence) addresses who. A person has a proper personal name (Logos, Son, Jesus).
From wiki;
Hypostasis- In Early Christian writings it is used to denote "being" or "substantive reality" and is not always distinguished in meaning from ousia (essence); it was used in this way by Tatian and Origen, and also in the anathemas appended to the Nicene Creed of 325. See also: Hypostatic union, where the term is used to describe two realities (or natures) in one person. The term has also been used and is still used in modern Greek (not just Koine Greek or common ancient Greek) to mean "existence" along with the Greek word hyparxeos.

Originally Posted by DrBubbaLove
The OP opening quotes of Origen, yes; he clearly believes Father, Son and Holy Ghost are of One Essence, Inseparable, One in Being. That is the very definition of consubstantiality.

If ??? The first several posts of this thread contain several quotes of Origen that contain the very definition of consubstantial. Where is the “if” in those statements?

One in Being, i.e. one in substance is the very definition of consubstantiality. The others are not; related, perhaps, but they are also related to other viewpoints that do not contain consubstantiality, like Origen's. One can read too much into inseparability.

There does not appear to be understanding here how these men used these terms. If you read the entire wiki post for hypostasis you will see what I mean. Essence is nature or substance, answers what something is. Essence perhaps goes a step further than the words nature or substance, in that essence is inclusive of those terms in specifically defining something that really exists, in this case a Person. One Nature, which by definition is the same as saying one in substance. One in essence in this case is describing not a sharing or a sameness but two things existing, two Persons; Father and Son that are the same essence, God (yet still distinct Persons). Especially when one is referring to something that Origen has already said is both infinite and incorporeal. One in Being further refines that to preclude anyone arriving at the solution you reach, separate gods with subordination of roles.
We read too much into inseparability?????? Perhaps you do not read enough Origen saying they are inseparable. Here is a reminder. My notes in parentheses.
“"the Word, who was in the beginning, was with God, and was God” (Jesus is God-co-eternal which leads to à constubstantial)
“Word being with God makes Him God.” (not a god – Jesus is God)
“And we must be careful not to fall into the absurdities of those who picture to themselves certain emanations, so as to divide the divine nature into parts, and who divide God the Father as far as they can, since even to entertain the remotest suspicion of such a thing regarding an incorporeal being is not only the height of impiety, but a mark of the greatest folly, it being most remote from any intelligent conception that there should be any physical division of any incorporeal nature.” (Jesus and the Father are inseperable – both God, not two gods)
“Seeing God the Father is invisible and inseparable from the Son” (rather plain - Jesus and God inseparable)
“we do not say, as the heretics suppose, that some part of the substance of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father out of things non-existent” (everything that is the Father, is the Son,, IOW both God, not two gods)
“neither can the Son be understood to exist without the Father……..yet in their nature and essence they are one” (again pretty plain, co-eternal=One God=consubstantial)
“the nature of the Trinity is one and incorporeal.” (no body, One God=constubstantial)

“their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other.” (wrong to see Son as a name-mode of God only and not a distinct existence, also wrong to say the Son’s nature is separate from that of the Father)

This does not sound like someone we could read too much into his feelings about Father and Son being Inseparable, One in Being.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I hope this becomes more clear below, where we examine how these comparisons of the Word to God which you rely on to make your case are exactly paralleled by comparisons of humans to the Word. However you conclude that the Word is inseparable from God, you must conclude that we are in the same way inseparable from our Savior.

Well in a sense to fully know God would make us inseparable from Him as the Son is, but that is another topic. More to the point, that Jesus Knows God the Father Perfectly is yet another reason to see them Inseparable (as Origen says)- which leads again to consubstantial.
In the orthodox Christian view of God it makes no sense to speak of Him without Him having the ability to express His Knowledge, His Word. Just as it makes no sense to speak of Him and the Word without there Being Love expressed between the two as Father and Son, ie the Spirit. God exists. The fact He exists and knows Himself perfectly means He has a Perfect self-Image, a perfect Knowledge of Himself. A Perfect reflection that expresses (Word) who He is. So Father begets Son and a Perfect Love flows from them Knowing each other, the Holy Spirit.

However, the meaning of nature, essence, substance, person, and even consubstantiality changed over the years, and we see this in his description of the "two errors".

Actually I do not agree that is an example of what you claim it to be. Nor do I agree those definitions have changed (see wiki post above). Also am fairly certain, given everything else Origen says, that the problem in understanding him in this specific case (between orthodox Christian view and yours) is a matter of translation into Latin (then English) more than anything else. These definitions have not changed; the usage has been standardized to avoid the confusion you wish to see. Origen does not seem confused on the point of One Inseparable God, One Nature, One essence, which again is the very definition of consubstantial.

Origen does not teach any doctrine of "one substance"; rather he expressly distances himself from that idea.

Ok, gonna have to repeat some Origen quotes here from the first page. You may have been told he does not, but it sure does not read that way to me.
“And we , must be careful not to fall into the absurdities of those who picture to themselves certain emanations, so as to divide the divine nature into parts”
“in their nature and essence they are one”
Hardly see this as distancing himself from one substance. It is the very definition of consubstantial. The last from free online dictionary (bold mine):
consubstantial - regarded as the same in substance or essence (as of the three persons of the Trinity) Christian theology - the teachings of Christian churches

And you have it backwards: Some are willing to take snippets of Origen's writings, even some that are mostly considered fraudulent, and try to attribute to him consubstantiality. But the whole of Origen's writings clearly demonstrates that he could do no such thing. There is consensus among scholars on this issue from both sides of the aisle, as I have shown.

Where have you shown any such thing? The one attempt you made only works by omitting several key sentences in a single paragraph in order for you to make Origen APPEAR to say something he did not write. How is that showing anyone anything? Nor have you shown a consensus among scholars. We agree there might be consensus among LDS, non-Trinitarian, liberal and the unorthodox scholars.

I fail to understand the ardent defense of someone who the Catholic Church condemned as a heretic, although I'm glad you recognize the import of someone who grew up in the Christian faith, whose parents were immersed in the Apostolic faith, and who was mainstream enough and influential enough to be recognized as the Augustine of the East.

A failure to understand here only means you do not understand why some believe Origen was declared a heretic (not sure he was specifically, later followers of Origenism were perhaps), or why he was banished and deposed of priestly duties, none of which has anything to do with this discussion or his writings on this particular point.
St Jerome (who apparently had no great love for Origen) is quoted saying Origen was not banished for a point of doctrine. Being wrong on some issues at some point in one’s life does not make one wrong on everything prior (or even subsequent). Besides most of the controversy surrounding Origen is not about him or these writings but what some people did (repeatedly and over a long time) with some of his ideas after his death (again see Origenism). The use of works and appeal to his name by his peers and later Fathers in defense against heretics should give you pause in believing what you have been told about Origen and his writings.

Originally Posted by DrBubbaLove
Again, your assumption that any Subordinate Christology would conflict. It was only when the language of these early writers was taken to an extreme that conflict arose.

The conflict between Subordinationism and Christian consubstantiality is not an assumption. It is the conclusion of the Christological debates, and we have both agreed upon Hodgson's statement, that "in [the Divine unity] there is no room for any trace of subordinationism...".

Actually we did not agree at all. As stated earlier in this thread (I think), there is indeed room within the final developed concept of the Trinity for subordination, just not to the extent that some early Fathers and Christian writers took it (and perhaps more correctly later people repeatedly took the language of these writers – as you do now). We also admit one of several things Origen’s was later criticized for concerned subordination. As to whether he actually held a view too far, am not sure we can know for certain given we do not have original manuscripts of his writings. But that is ok as we still have the testimony of other Fathers and leaders using not only Origen’s works but just his name in defense of heresy.
And again we point out that the subordination these men envisioned was always within the context of One Being, they say so clearly in the same work in which they describe subordination. They saw, just as we do today, Three distinct Persons, with One Nature. But they could also see subordinate of roles/powers...etc – primarily in action and they held to an appropriation of particular acts within that One Nature to a single Person rather than God (All Three). They did not see that as separating the Nature of God at all.
The actual error is not in seeing subordination within the Trinity but claiming the trait appropriated belongs exclusively (only) to the One Person as opposed to correctly attributing it to all Three as God (attribute it to God). While the Latin Fathers did not typically speak in subordination terms these earlier writers did. That was not because the Latins could not see appropriation, but because people in their day had taken these ideas to extremes. Today, just as in the day of Origen, the expression of subordination is permitted within those limits, just as it is clearly expressed in the Creed the Latin Fathers established from all this. The Latin Fathers were more careful in language because they had to be.

The conflict between Origen and Consubstantiality has nothing to to with taking Origen's statements to the extreme. It is the plain, straightforward, and ubiquitous themes that conflict with the core of the Trinity. On the other hand, taking statements that sound familiar, and that later generations of Christians take to be synonymous with consubstantiality, and then inserting those later interpretations into Origen's meaning, is that not taking his words to an extreme?

Again, see Origen’s statements above as cut from the beginning of this thread. There is no way to suggest he is not speaking of consubstantiality when he expresses the very definition still in use today right along side his descriptions of Distinction of Person and subordination. Origen here is on the fore front of the development of the Trinity dogmas. He did not get it all right (perhaps his subordination within the One Being), but much of it he did. Besides, as we already note, even the Creed itself expresses subordination.

Originally Posted by DrBubbaLove
Clearly these early writers thought these ideas coexist because they held to both.

All this statement does is demand that the Apostles taught a contradictory gospel. Since I reject this notion, I am forced to choose between consubstantiality and what I see as an earlier Biblical Christology (subordinationist); given Gal. 1:8, this is an easy choice for me.

How so? For these writers it was not an either or question, and as already pointed out, neither was it either/or for the later Latin Fathers. The last group faced a problem the earlier writers did not (Arius). It was not that they could see no subordination at all. They had to correct the notion that an appropriation of an act to one of the Three Persons could be understood as excluding the participation of the other Two in that act. That opposed to the correct conclusion that any act of One Person could only be attributed to the One God of which each of the Three are. They would not have addressed Arianism once and for always in the manner they did if it was simply a matter of are the Three consubstantial or not, which appears to be your premise.
Besides, while the Apostles and Jesus gave us a deposit of faith and that together with Holy Scriptures the Church was given many bits or pieces of the Trinity dogma, but the full Trinity dogma was not fully developed for many centuries. Many of the Apostles were very likely not even literate men. Nor did they have time to ponder the full meanings of every thing that was held as a deposit of the faith concerning the Nature of God. That took the reasoning and logical conclusions of many Christians over several centuries to contemplate and to fully realize the implications of what Jesus, the Apostles and scriptures taught concerning the nature of God.
In the interim while the Trinity dogma developed, showing that some errors were made by some along the way is not an example of contradiction of the gospel, Jesus or the Apostles. It can’t be because all that we have of these are silent on many of the details we are discussing. Neither is it an example of changing or contradicting Church dogma. It is an example of how revelations from God can, with right reason, be developed.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Originally Posted by DrBubbaLove
As we still speak in subordination terms today, obviously we feel some subordination language is acceptable. Only if we overlook their comments regarding consubstantiality. since these early writers showing subordination views also held to consubstantiality, we are not the ones denying history or claiming contradiction that needed “fixing”.

I have not seen any evidence for the claim that before Tertullian anyone held to consubstantiality. At best, there have been attempts to read this conclusion into statements such as "one God" or "inseparable". This is not proof. At best it is supporting evidence, but without a smoking gun this "evidence" no better than proof by assertion, and is better explained in other more straightforward ways.

Do these help at all? (note all these before Tertullian and we are going all the way to the first century)
“Those (Gnostics) who transfer the generation of the word to which men gave utterance to the eternal Word of God, assigning a beginning and course of production [to Him], even as they do to their own word. And in what respect will the Word of God—yea, rather God Himself, since He is the Word—differ from the word of men, if He follows the same order and process of generation?” before Tertullian – Irenaeus - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103213.htm
God was in the beginning; but the beginning, we have been taught, is the power of the Logos. For the Lord of the universe, who is Himself the necessary ground of all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in existence, was alone; but inasmuch as He was all power, Himself the necessary ground of things visible and invisible, with Him were all things; with Him, by Logos-power, the Logos Himself also, who was in Him, subsists. And by His simple will the Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father. Him (the Logos) we know to be the beginning of the world. But He came into being by participation, not by abscission; for what is cut off is separated from the original substance, but that which comes by participation, making its choice of function, does not render him deficient from whom it is taken. For just as from one torch many fires are lighted, but the light of the first torch is not lessened by the kindling of many torches, so the Logos, coming forth from the Logos-power of the Father, has not divested of the Logos-power Him who begat Him. I myself, for instance, talk, and you hear; yet, certainly, I who converse do not become destitute of speech by the transmission of speech, but by the utterance of my voice I endeavour to reduce to order the unarranged matter in your minds. And as the Logos, begotten in the beginning, begat in turn our world, having first created for Himself the necessary matter, so also I, in imitation of the Logos, being begotten again, and having become possessed of the truth, am trying to reduce to order the confused matter which is kindred with myself. For matter is not, like God, without beginning, nor, as having no beginning, is of equal power with God; it is begotten, and not produced by any other being, but brought into existence by the Framer of all things alone.
Taitian the Syrian - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0202.htm

“from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father's will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled.” Justin Martyr http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01283.htm
“…Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed.” Ignatius of Antioch - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm
“For the divinest prophets lived according to Christ Jesus. On this account also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace to fully convince the unbelieving that there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, and who in all things pleased Him that sent Him.” Ignatius http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm
The writings of the Apostles themselves in specifying the baptismal formula to be used:
“And concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” The Didache - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm
Or how about Jesus himself saying essentially the same thing as the Didache in Mattew 28:20?
Or, getting back to the thread, as Origen (and other early Fathers and Christian writers) describes John’s opening expression of the nature of God in his Gospel.

Nowhere is this made more clear than in the writings of Justin and Origen, where "one God" and "inseparable" are used alongside express denials of consubstantiality.

You have not yet demonstrated the truth of your assertion here. As we have already shown, insisting on a distinct Person (distinct as opposed to just another name for God – ie Jesus) and expressions of subordination to individual Persons along side expression of One, Inseparable God are hardly a denial of the latter. To say otherwise is to label Origen (and anyone writing that way) crazy. It is illogical/irrational to write a denial of something while at the same time adamantly defending it as true.
In the case of Origen, he does this in the same paragraph. Prove Origen was crazy. It is only when one confuses where the writer makes the distinction between essence/substance/nature and person or the existence of a Person that one can make such outrageous claims. It also helps your case to make quotes like the Origen one you made earlier in this thread omitting parts of a single paragraph to make it appear Origen supports your opinion of his beliefs. (overlook/omit his giving the very definition of consubstantial and focus only on subordination)

I'm afraid one can't gloss over the conflict by saying that "some subordination language" doesn't conflict. This entirely avoids the issue that the "subordination language" used by the ECFs before Nicea DOES conflict. The subordinationism expressed by them is one where the Word is inferior in essence to the Father, who alone is "the God", autotheos . The Subordinationism under examination is completely incompatible with the concept of co-equality, and hence the entire Trinity doctrine.

Co-equality is but one part of the Trinity doctrine that developed and as we repeatedly have attempted to point out, co-equal and consubstantial are not the same thing. Expressing co-equal directly addresses subordination and limits it. All three terms apply to the Trinity and the later two can both be proper expressions of what is going on within a consubstantial Trinity. Even when improperly expressed, subordination does not deny that the author is thereby denying consubstantial (One God). In Origen’s case he explicitly denies that the two cannot be understood together. It could be a denial of co-equal, but it is not clear to me here that Origen even considers that.
What is true is that the Latin Fathers meticulously avoid speaking in subordinate terms because people had taken it to extremes by their day. What is not true is that the Creed those same Fathers developed expresses no subordination or that we cannot properly express subordination today and still be considered orthodox (as already explained).
In fact, the more we read Origen, at least the versions we have (even the less friendly ones) the less I feel he makes the error to the degree you wish to attribute to him. Clearly he and other writers attributed independent action of a Person, and that in itself takes the concept of subordination too far. But you have yet to show how Origen’s doing so violates any point but co-equal expressed later by the Fathers. We do not deny Origen was wrong on that level of subordination. We deny that such expressions invalidate what Origen (and other writers) clearly says is a consubstantial God in Three Person.

When scholars say that Subordinationism was the "ante-Nicean orthodoxy", they are contrasting pre-325 AD orthodoxy with what became orthodox later. If the new "language" was compatible with what came before, there would be no such comparison. Just saying, "well, there are some forms of subordination language that are OK", does not change the fact that there is a core contradiction between the earlier Christology and the later one.

We are talking about the development of a doctrine, one that took place over several hundred years. Co-equal addresses an error in the earlier expressions of subordination. You want to say that because the Latin Fathers closed a loop hole that people were using to divide God into gods (and using subordination in earlier writings to support the division) that we should therefore believe the early Church also did not believe in consubstantiality. You (and perhaps some of these scholars you mention) apparently base that solely on the issue that co-equal limits the expression of subordination.
Since Origen repeatedly gives us the very definition of consubstantial I find it outrageously funny that any one would seriously accept as “scholarly” anyone claiming Origen did not believe in consubstantiality. He expresses both consubstantiality and subordination. Was he wrong about one? Well some say he did go to far with subordination, but clearly the Latin Fathers agree with him on consubstantiality.

Originally Posted by DrBubbaLove
First of all, lest not paint a false picture. Not all the people we are quoting are “Fathers” or “Doctors” of the Church. Some are considered ecclesiastical writers. Some fell away from the Church. Even so, these writings are treasured for the truths contained, even if some thoughts reflect or easily lead to error.

Fortunately for the orthodox heritage, the winners of theological debates get to determine which theologians are preserved for history and promoted as correct, and which are to be burned at the stake along with their writings. So far, we've only examined writers who are considered mainstream by the later (established) orthodoxy.

Guess this is another attempt at a slander against the Church. Stake burning came much later than the events we have been discussing.
Am not sure why we would talk about people on the fringe or where orthodox people walked on the fringe in a discussion about whether or not the early Church writers we have been quoting were monotheistic. Also one cannot be “orthodox” or heterodox on a particular issue that has not been fully defined by the Church. So it is incorrect to be thinking of subordination as “unorthodox” or heterodox in Origen’s day as the Church had yet to fully define a Trinity dogma and certainly not co-equal (which would limit any error in expressing subordination/appropriation).
BTW consubstantial and monotheism would go together and clearly Origen would be on the monotheism side of those debates. Since they had those debates before and after Origen, and his works were used by the Church to defend against such heresies afterwards am not sure what your point is here. The fact his works could be used in that manner further support my contention in this thread and that his views as expressed in regards to the nature of God supported orthodoxy.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Even excluding any one particular writing that can be dismissed as heretical, in the aggregate a very consistent picture emerges. Even more startling, is that this same picture is visible even in the ante-Nicene "orthodox" Fathers.

What is your point and what writing are we talking about? Since the LDS church teaches the Church had long since apostatized beginning in the first century am not sure why we are going here in this thread.
Where you must see a picture of corruption of an Apostolic deposit of faith, I see a picture continuity. Again, to borrow a phrase you like to over use, most scholars today believe the Didache represents a very early Christian writing summarizing what the Apostles were teaching. The consubstantiality we see expressed in that statement is congruent with both Origen’s and that of Latin Fathers as well as orthodox Christianity today. That is a very solid picture of continuity through all ages.

Originally Posted by jeffC
Which contemporary idea expresses the thought that Jesus consists of only a portion the Divine substance?

None, but that is not the definition of subordination or a question of whether Origen was monotheistic or not. Again people are allowed to make mistakes, just as you would (and have) said a J Smith did.

On the contrary, this is precisely the ontological Subordinationism I have been discussing that is seen in the ECF. And although the words in this case are Tertullian's, the sentiments are shared by Origen.

Again this is an assertion you repeatedly make without backing it up, (that is called an opinion). As already repeatedly shown, Origen clearly believes in One God (monotheism) that is a Trinity of Three Inseparable Persons. Yes, the subordination he expresses may be later termed unorthodox (if he is understood and if we have conflict with co-equal as later developed by the Latin Fathers). However it does not conflict with Origen’s expression of One God (monotheism) or his saying Father and Son are Inseparable.

I'm OK with mistakes; we do all make them, especially as we try to work out our thoughts in writing. However, the theology we are discussing is the core Christology of the first 300 years of Christianity. Again, if one or two people were making these "mistakes", then it would be excusable from the Trinitarian POV. However, when everyone is making the same "mistake", I think that no longer qualifies as a mistake. It was the accepted and taught theology, which changed.

The Jews repeatedly fall into a “mistake” of idolatry and your “scholars” want to make them polytheistic (or in your more PC words “not strictly monotheist”). The Church has repeatedly defended doctrine against many of the same heresies over and over again. Inevitably some one repeats the errors every several hundred years, but the Church uses the same defense today as did in Origen’s day.
Were some people taught a degree of subordination in error in the early Church? Am certain of it. Did the Church correct that? Yes, they did and have repeatedly defended it since that correction.
Without going further off track here, saying people taught an error and claiming that as proof that the Church changed or contradicted it’s theology (or the Apostles) are too different things. There is no clear distinct statement made by the Church on a Trinity for several hundred years, so to claim Church doctrine that has not yet been defined some how changed before it was ever defined is an unnecessary distraction in this discussion and another poor attempt at slander against the Church.
We are discussing a progressive development of a dogma, not a change or corruption of Church dogma or theology. One cannot corrupt or change something that does not have an agreed upon understanding/definition, much less an declarative official one. These writers are not Apostles. Everything they said is not automatically a deposit into Church faith. Where as anything that could be shown or proven as being taught by an Apostle would be. That Apostolic revelation for mankind ended when John died. So all any could do after that was further develop using our reason and logic to develop what they gave us. None of the issues we have been discussing were explicitly detailed for us by the Apostles or Jesus.
By comparison the development of the first LDS “Apostle” Smith clearly goes from monotheism expressed in the Book of Mormon to later several stages of polytheism. Those would indeed be contradictory statements of faith. Am assuming from what I have been told that LDS would hold an Apostle’s teaching to be a statement of faith, and as such it could not change. Going from subordination to co-equal is not an example of this, as neither were explicitly defined for us by an Apostle or Jesus.

Originally Posted by jeffC
Which contemporary idea expresses the notion that Jesus is of the same "kind" of substance as the Father?

Originally Posted by DrBubbaLove
One in Being as expressed in the Creed covers this. But you probably focused on “same” and “kind” as in comparing one human person with another, same nature, same kind. Since these same writers clearly state there is only One Nature, when they say same, it means just as we say today, everything the Father is (God), so is the Son (God) and the Spirit (God).So just saying same in that context is much more than just placing the Three in a similar group (like all people being human).

There is a difference between "the same substance" and the "same kind of substance"; the difference being that the former can be either consubstantiality or not, but the latter specifies the "not". Just one more reason why the context infered above does not actually exist in the writings of Origen.


Call me slow, but help me out here. This is post is getting way too long. Start another post and point out where you think Origen says clearly says (as above) that Father and Son are One in both nature and essence, but he really means just the same kind and not really One, Inseparable God as he clearly says elsewhere.

Originally Posted by jeffC

Which contemporary idea specifies that Jesus is "other in ousia" from the Father?

None, except LDS and some other liberal Christians, non-Trinitarians. As Origen says they are One in Essence am not sure the relevance of the question.

It is Origen who says that Jesus is "other in ousia". More on this below, but allow me to repeat Hanson, as scholarly conclusion should carry more weight than either of our opinions: "Origen never says that the Son comes from the substance of the Father; ... it [should be] clear that the likelihood of Origen having described the Son as consubstantial (homoousious) with the Father is very slim. This might have committed him to saying that he had the same ousia as the Father, a view which he actually disowned, and would have suggested to him that the Father and the Son were of the same material, an idea which he was anxious to avoid." [The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381, p68-69]

Given your previous taking Origen out of context to make him say something he did not say I have strong doubts about this quote of this Bishop’s work. So to the Bishop Harrison quotes, cannot comment on his opinion as expressed in your quote without reading that in context.
Having not read it myself and am also going to guess that you did not read his book either. Without reading this quote in context, I can only reply that given what we have already agreed that Origen said (and to my knowledge you have not denied the authenticity of those quotes) we cannot reach the conclusions which you suggest this Bishop does regarding Origen’s beliefs. If wiki can see it any way but Orthodox one would expect it to be expressed there, yet they do not. (again see wiki note on hypostasis).

Originally Posted by jeffC
Which contemporary idea specifies that Jesus is eternally subject to the Father?

Saying Jesus is the Word implies the idea of expression, the expression of thought, ideas. Whose ideas? God the Father. In that sense the idea belonging to God the Father is necessarily expressed by the Word, Jesus the Son. In creation, the Father is Creator of everything that is, His thoughts can create. But the expression of those thoughts is through the Son. In that sense then, there is subjection being expressed. Just as saying, Son and Spirit owe all that they are to the Father, expresses subjection.

That's not the kind of subjection that is discussed. Rather, the ECFs frequently comment on 1 Cor. 15:22-27, which specifically states that the Son receives His power and authority from the Father. Furthermore, at the end, the Son is in some way "made subject" again to God. There is an evolving relationship, not the sort of thing that the Trinity absorbs very well.
1 Cor. 15
27 Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him [Christ], it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Actually again, everything that both the Son and Holy Ghost are, is from the Father. Father speaks, The Word creates – command and execution. Through the Son He creates everything. And saying everything the Son has, including His Power (which is God’s Power) comes from the Father is in keeping with the Latin Fathers. The Father creates thru His Word (the Son) – another way to express that is to say “the Father commands creation, the Son obeys” in creating. These are example of subordinate language that can be orthodox even today. Am not sure what the difficulty you have here with the idea that it does not have to be either consubstantial or subordinate. These two expressions do not address/modify the same aspects of God. Co-equal and subordinate do.

Here we should warn you not to read too much into such language regarding the distinction of Persons. Especially when the same writer so adamantly stresses One God and no separation of Father and Son. You consistently appeal to simplicity, yet your argument requires we omit and even deny (as if these writers were schizophrenics) that they claimed both subordination and consubstantial. That hardly seems simple.

Also as to your implication in quoting 1 Cor 15, see Orthodox commentaries (our version of course and not LDS or liberal or unorthodox) for these verses. You will find those sources indicate these versus describe the subjection of Christ the Man to God. His humanity is subject to God. Has to be or else He is not fully Man. In the orthodox Christian view Christ has two natures Divine and Human, a hypostasis of God and Man. Nothing wrong with Paul expressing that a man be subject to God, even when the Man is Christ our Lord Himself.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Reply to your reply part II – your words in blue.

I would accept that most of the Apostles never spent a lot of time contemplating the nature of God or fully understood Jesus Words in that regard. Having not fully formed those ideas, I do not agree that it follows those ideas were later changed.

The conflict of Subordinationism with the later Trinity doctrine (co-equal and consubstantial) disagrees with the notion that the later ideas were not changed. I for one do not agree with the supposition that conclusions of later philosophers should be given more weight than the original words of Apostles. At the very least, those who disagree with the conclusions of the philosophers should not be ostracized from the Christian community for giving priority to the Revelation.

Again subordination and co-equal conflict directly, not so subordination and consubstantial. Show us where the Apostles define a Trinity and perhaps your supposition would have an ounce of creditability.

To me it is harder to argue against comments Jesus, Paul, John and Peter made, the form of Baptism in use (from the Didache)…etc, (which all support the later views expressed) and all to suggest that everything starts to drastically change less than a generation after the last Apostle dies. At the very least one would expect John would complain about these upstarts that you would have to claim are changing everything about the Deity. We do not see that in the evidence we have.

On the contrary, the historical evidence is very clear that everything did change drastically within a generation of the death of the last Apostle. On the contrary, John (for one) does complain about the upstarts who are bringing heresies into the Church (we will recall that Paul specifically warned against Greek enmity against corporeality, but many other examples could be listed - particularly close to 100 AD). Even if one does not accept that things changed for the worse, it is a matter of historical record that beginning about 150 AD the "Apologists" began defending Christianity in terms of the Greek religion. It was there express purpose to Hellenize the Church's teachings. That is a drastic change, even if they thought they were correct in doing so.

Assertions and opinions without merit or support. The Didache was composed by the Apostles and our Mass with Baptism show continuity, not drastic change. The early writer’s descriptions of Mass show continuity not change. Just as the development of the Trinity doctrine shows continuity, not drastic change. Unlike the LDS Apostle Smith, these men were not Apostles, so we should expect in matters of faith they could get some things wrong. Until it becames a declared dogma of our faith, which it does not for hundreds of years, one would be free to give opinions of subordination all day without being a heretic or unorthodox.

You made the claim about what Paul was warning us about. We again reject the implication you take from those verses and suggest there are alternative views (several in fact) that do not make the leap you do. See any orthodox commentary on those verses.

You are also talking about some of the greatest philosophers humanity has ever known. Why would Christian theologians and philosophers NOT wish to use and build on this treasure of human (God given) logic and reason in fully developing a doctrine? Especially when what they are given is not fully developed? Logic and reason are tools. Tools given to us (and the Greeks) by God. He gave these to us to use, not ignore.

I find it harder to argue that Jesus, Paul, John, and Peter, the latter of whom had direct access to revelation, were given a "dumbed down" version of the Truth that only the wise could resolve over the next 500 years by appeal to established Greek thought, and various philosophical innovations. I just don't see how any of that can be reconciled with Paul's express warning to the Galatians.

Again you would have a point and some credibility here if you could show us where Jesus, the Apostles or scriptures gave us FULLY either our version or your version of the Trinity. You cannot do either.

So while you may find it hard to accept, Truth is truth, whether it is understood fully or not. In order for you to make the assertions you make, you would need to show where Jesus, the Apostles and scriptures express FULLY these points and THEN claim it was changed later. These assertions are not backed up by the facts.

Jesus tended to give people exactly what they needed. These Apostles were with Him about 3 years yet many of them failed to FULLY understand many of the things He told them until long after His Ascension (if they all did so at all before being killed or dying). That does not mean they were given something “dumbed” down. They were given what they needed. Faced with heresy against what they were given to PROTECT from Jesus and the Apostles, the Church would have to defend those teachings by (among other things) further developing the deposit of faith. Am guessing but probably more often than not these efforts were to better define dogma against what a particular dogma did not mean, rather than just sitting around wondering what it did mean. IOW, someone claimed a belief supported by the Apostles that was in error and the Church in response further developed the teaching to hopefully avoid future repeats of the same error. And this never happened over night, but generally after years of discussion (and even fighting over it sometimes – see Acts for the first great council).

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Originally Posted by DrBubbaLove
Besides, you have not shown subordination to be a “bedrock” principle...

I mentioned earlier that I would provide scholarly sources on request, in addition to the examples from Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Origen, Tertullian, and Irenaeus (and more) that we have already considered. I suppose here is as good a place to do it as any, as Origen provides the quintessential example of a Subordinationist Christology. The similarities of his descriptions with so many of the other ante-Nicene Fathers make Origen an excellent test case for the conclusions of these Biblical Scholars.

The following is taken from a discussion of Ante-Nicene Subordinationism on CF awhile back, here.

"...until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology." Hansen, R., "The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD", in Williams, R., ed., The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in honour of Henry Chadwick, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989,) p. 153.

"If such was the teaching of Athanasius and his allies [i.e. homousis as numerical unity of substance, rather than ‘the same kind of being’ in the three persons of the Godhead] , at least three types of theology found shelter at different times in the anti-Nicean camp. The first, indefinite, on occasion ambiguous on the crucial issues, but on the whole conciliatory, reflects the attitude of the great conservative 'middle party' [i.e. the majority].... It's positive doctrine is that there are three divine hypostases [persons], separate in rank and glory but united in harmony of will. [J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, Revised ed., (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1978) 236, 247-248]

"All informed, honest scholars know that the particular doctrine of the Trinity held to by most, but not all, Evangelicals was not developed until after the Council of Nicea. Bettenson writes, "'Subordinationism', it is true was pre-Nicene orthodox." David Waltz, quoting Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers (London: Oxford University Press, 1978), 239.

"It [subordinationism] is a characteristic tendency in much Christian teaching of the first three centuries, and is a marked feature of such otherwise orthodox Fathers as St. Justin and Origen…Where the doctrine [of the Trinity] was elaborated, as e.g. in the writing of the Apologists, the language remained on the whole indefinite, and, from a later standpoint, was even partly unorthodox. Sometimes it was not free from a certain subordinationism." [FL Cross and EA Livingston, editors, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd edition, (London: Oxford University Press, 1974), 1319, 1394. ]

"In this connection there must be recalled the fact, established earlier (p. 125), that every significant theologian of the Church, in the pre-Nicene period, had actually represented a Subordinationist Christology." (The Formation of Christian Dogma, An Historical Study of its Problems; Martin Werner, p234.)

"There is no theologian in the Eastern or the Western Church before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy [in the fourth century], who does not in some sense regard the Son as subordinate to the Father." (The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, R. P. C. Hanson, )

It is very telling that the so-called semi-Arians, the great "middle party" Kelly refers to (anyone who didn't tow the later party line was discredited by association with Arius), were the ones who supported homoiousios (similar kind of being/substance, rather than the same being/substance ) at the Council of Nicea. It was a relatively few influential individuals, like Athanasius and Hosea of Cordova, who -backed by the Emperor- were in favor of homoousios. And even though they were eventually convinced to accept homoousios, it was only because they found ways (or at least, they quickly found ways) to harmonize it with homoiousios!

Again we appreciate that you wish us to consider your opinion, as well as your opinion of these other scholar’s opinions. Since we cannot verify these other sources, we reserve our opinion of your claims regarding those opinions.

And again you make an excellent case that many ECFs saw some level of subordination WITHIN the Trinity. The orthodox can see some level and still be orthodox even today. Since even the Church and all Catholic historians, theologians and scholars readily acknowledge subordination was expressed in the early Christian writers, even expressed to a degree that WOULD be LATER an unorthodox extreme; we are not sure why this should be a great revelation to anyone.

What you have failed to do is show that in expressing subordination that Origen is not a monotheist. Indeed, if he and his audience were not monotheist then one wonders why any would fear that “they may be proclaiming two Gods”.

That fear would be rational ONLY if Origen and his audience were strictly monotheistic.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Jeffcc, to save space I have avoided quote. Your original is in black and Origen in blue as you intended. All my new is in red.

The following is in response to your suggestion to take Comm. John 2:2 line by line. Origen's words are in blue; your line-by-line is quoted in the relevant spot, in cases where I responded directly to it.


And perhaps it was because he saw some such order in the Logos, that John did not place the clause "The Word was God" before the clause "The Word was with God." The series in which he places his different sentences does not prevent the force of each axiom from being separately and fully seen. One axiom is, "In the beginning was the Word," a second, "The Word was with God," and then comes, "And the Word was God." The arrangement of the sentences might be thought to indicate an order; we have first "In the beginning was the Word," then, "And the Word was with [the] God," and thirdly, "And the Word was God," so that it might be seen that the Word being with God makes Him God.
let us first take note of the context of the first sentence in 2:2 (below), replicated above as the final paragraph of 2:1. Two points are important:
1) The Father is identified in the verses listed as "the God", or the "autotheos". The Word is called "God", without the article. Origen goes on to explain this distinction;


Actually “autotheos” Very God or “God of himself” is not part of the original greek of John. These are correct and orthodox names/ideas however. We can see why you (not Origen) introduce this idea here, whereas Origen brings up the distinction between Very God (the Father) and Jesus later.

We also correct you, in that neither John nor Origen say Jesus is “called” God. John says “Jesus is God”. Origen does later say that it would be a false and wicked error to say this in the sense that Jesus is called God because he is seen as just another name for God, the Father. So perhaps you are confusing error with truth.

2) The Word is not the "autotheos"; He is God by virtue of "being with" the Father. IOW, if the Word were to be separated from the Father, he would no longer be God.

You make a case here of distinction of Persons in point 1, which we do and Orgien agrees, the Father is not Jesus, Jesus is not the Father. However, your conclusion in point two is unsupported by what Origen says above. Origen says Jesus is God (not a god) because it is said (by John an Apostle) that He is with the Father in the beginning, not that Jesus is “made” anything by being there. “makes Him (Jesus) God”, carries the connotation of “drawing the conclusion that” or “means that”. So Origen is saying John indicates Jesus is God by saying Jesus was there in the beginning (eternal), not that Jesus is somehow “made” (created or turned into) a god or called god by that statement.

And this understanding comes from context. If Origen meant and Christian of the day believed that John 1:1 indicates Jesus is in any sense “made” (created) a god, then there would be no need in the following section to address why people would take that idea and worry about there being two gods. Clearly if John is saying it “makes Jesus God” in the sense of Jesus being created or made “a god”, then there would indeed be two gods and neither Origen nor these people would not presume to see proclaiming two gods as an error or anything to be feared. You would then be correct in your polytheism theory of ECFs/early Church. But you have a problem in that Origen clearly says that is an error to think that way, a false and wicked error.

We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God.

Originally Posted by DrBubbaLove
This is interesting in that today, the main detractors from interpreting this verse as traditionally done by Origen (and almost 2 millennium of people since) is apparently the same argument today as it was in Origen’s day

What I find interesting is that Origen's argument is the SAME as the "main detractors" today. Origen is not discrediting this reasoning, he is making it!

So Origen notes that "the God" is reserved exclusively for "the ", i.e. the Father; the article is deliberately not used in scripture when the Son is named God. Here we have a foreshadowing of Origen's claim that only the Father is truly God, and any others are "named" god.

Nice try. My point was that in breaking down the opening of John chapter 1, Origen uses the same argument that all orthodox have used since then to avoid the wicked and false doctrines (one of which you make) that arise from misunderstanding the meaning behind these same verses. The LDS and non-Trinitarian both use the articles in John 1 to rationalize an understanding of those verses that commits the same errors Origen here calls false and wicked.

When Origen speaks of “named God” here he is specifically referring to God where John omits the article, which is where the last phrase would read “The Word (Jesus) is God”. And Origen clearly says that God in that phrase is distinguished from the prior phrase where it would then properly read Jesus (the Word) was with the Father (“the God” or very God, God of Himself). This is good and very logical; since it makes little sense to say John that meant “God is with Himself”.

You jump ahead so we will too. (orthodox) The Father is the uncreated cause of all things including the Son. But note later in John (and Origen here) that everything is created by the Son, (nothing made without him) yet both God (no article) and the Father (the God) is said to be the creator of everything. IOW Jesus is God. You need to explain those statements in your view. Did Jesus make everything or the Father?

The Father is properly speaking the uncreated cause of all things. He begets the Son, His Word. begets, not made. We could go on to show John clearly saying Jesus (the Logos) is uncreated (without Him nothing is made), which would make no sense in your view of these verses. But we digress.

Does the same difference which we observe between God with the article and God without it prevail also between the Logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the God who is over all is God with the article not without it, so "the Logos" is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos.

This parallel casts additional light on what distinctions Origen understands in the differences between "the God" and "God". There is a distinction between "the Logos" and simply logos (or reason) of men. And though in men God is the source of all reason, this does not imply that logos in men is consubstantial with "the Logos".

And here your point made above in your first section breaks down further as we noted earlier. The “God over all” in Origen (and John 1:1) with the article is God the Father, so the phrase reads as earlier noted “Jesus was with the Father”.

Interestingly you correctly attribute the source of all reason in men to “God” but fail to see that Origen is referring there to Jesus (the Logos) and by implication that the Logos is God (without the article)as John says. Which works in the orthodox view (Origen’s and John’s as well ) as they both say Jesus is God (but He is not the Father).

In fact the whole point of mentioning logs and The Logus appears to be making the case that there was a REAL distinction in his mind between John’s use of “God” and “the God”. Origen is not making a case for consubstantial yet, at least not fully (as he clearly does elsewhere). He is simply saying just like the logos in men is not properly called The Logos, Origen is pointing out that John signified something by indicating “Jesus is God” (without the article). Implied already here is Origen saying that John’s saying “Jesus is God” cannot be referring to the same ‘God” as Jesus being with ‘the God (Father) in the beginning. Which is good a thing, since saying “Jesus is with Jesus” or “God is with God” are both more examples of errors which Origen is about to address.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Again blue is Origen as intended in post #27, my new comments are red. The rest black is the original post.


Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other.

Originally Posted by DrBubbaLove
So Origen has said here that Jesus cannot be separate in his Nature from God, nor is it correct to see Jesus as not distinct, a name only and not another Person while the same Nature. We especially note that Origen clearly sees that the error of seeing Jesus as a completely separate being would DENY his Divinity.

As you noted, the primary concern is that somehow two "autotheoi" could be proclaimed. I will get more into the heart of the above passage later, as it is central to my argument and to the conclusions that have been drawn by Kelly, Hanson, and the others I have quoted, that based on the above, Origen is NOT a consubstantialist. I'm coming back to this at the end so that the entire context of this chapter can be brought to bear. However, briefly:

You keep going back to this and inserting into almost every reply. One cannot claim Origen did not believe in consubstantial when he explicitly gives us the very definition of the word. Nor do we accept your varied and many other quotes as I have no way of verifying those or your opinion of them. In light of the way you first quoted Origen early in this thread (hatchet job), we cannot accept your word that these men indeed conclude as you claim they do.

First let us note that Origen begins this section above indicating sincere Christians (believers) worry about there being two gods in proclaiming that both Jesus and the Father are God (from the preceding section). It should be a given that Father is God (without the article). The Apostle said “The Word (Jesus) is God”. If sincere Christians and Origen believed as you do about these verses and what it proclaims, there should be no fear in their being two gods. It is only if the believers sincerely believe that there is Only One God AND both Father and Son are also said to be that God that the errors described could be envisioned.

Second let me note that I perhaps add to your confusion here in that the order my post above address is backwards from the way Origen presented it. So you are not strictly arguing against what either of us said and that is perhaps my fault. Origen addresses distinction of person first, then separate nature/essence second. I summarized his comments in reverse (nature and then person) to make the point about the divinity of the Person Jesus (His nature if seen as separate denies the Divinity of the Person, Jesus). Sorry about the confusion.

1) You say, "Origen has said here that Jesus cannot be separate in his Nature from God..."; yet Origen says the opposite: those who err "deny that the Son has a distinct nature".

Actually, no. See my comment above about the reversal of my summary.

We are confusing Nature, Essence and Person here. So some definitions are clearly needed. We also have to understand that unfortunately and for various reasons (as wiki indicates), person, essence and nature were often used indiscreetly and so easily misunderstood. Something that would be cleared up long after Origen, but it obviously still contributes to our confusion today.

These terms essence and nature are indeed two facets of the same thing. Essence is a reference to the nature of something that really exists. In the case of the life, the existence of any reasoning being, the being can be named and properly called a person. The name properly identifies the being, so the being has a personage. The name of that person distinguishes that existence from another person. A nature or essence characterizes what the thing is, what it can do…attributes...etc. We could not speak of an essence of something that does not exist. We could imagine a nature of it. Once existent, it is then proper to ask what is it? What is it’s nature? Which is more precisely it’s essence.

Orthodox Christianity (and Origen) holds there can be only One Divine Nature, One God. Orthodoxy (and Origen) holds that God is infinite and eternal, clearly no room in that understanding for two. This explains Origen indicating sincere believers would fear suggesting a theology/doctrine that proclaims there are two gods. There would be no need to fear saying that if all sincere believers believed there are two gods (or that God was not infinite or eternal). So a proclaiming of two gods is feared because it would be false claim (and Origen adds wicked).

Origen says the first error (a result from that fear of proclaiming something false) is making Jesus just another name for God; or as he puts it; they make “the Son to be God all but the name”. The fact that Origen ends the description of this error by saying this error would make Jesus just another name for God tells us we must be talking about Persons. Nature or my essence, do not have personal names. We all have human natures. So my “distinct nature” would have to be that which distinguishes me from all the rest of us. Which is my Person; answers who I am and is indicated properly by my name.

So in the first error; of denying Jesus a “distinct nature” besides that of the Father, “distinct nature” here refers not to the Divine Nature, but to the particular distinct person, the existence that is named Jesus.

Specifically, the fact the Son exists, means both that he has an essence (or nature), and a “distinct nature”, which is to say His Person, which we call Jesus. Making “besides that of the Father” (Father’s existence, a distinct nature implied) is stating that there is a Person called the Son, and that Person is distinct from the Person called the Father. So a denial of that would be to deny that there are two distinct Persons and instead only one with different names.

So the first error, the first denial is not a denial of Jesus nature. It is a denial of the existence of a Son (a Person) that is distinctly different from the Father (another Person). If the Son is not different (distinct) from the Person called Father, then there are not two Persons here but only one. Remember the fear is in proclaiming two Gods. So these people solve that problem by believing (falsely and wickedly) that Jesus is just another name for God. So when the Apostle said “Jesus is God” he is just saying it is another name for God. Problem (fear) solved but it is a false and wicked solution.

By your above comments and reading Origen the way you wish to understand him, we would have Origen saying the first error is about nature. Divinity is another way of saying the Divine Nature. So this section would then be saying that some people error in denying that the Son has a distinct DIVINITY (a nature not a distinct existence) separate from (besides) the Father’s divinity (nature), such that Jesus is God all but in name only. But reading it that way it does not work. If they are denying a distinct nature and not denying distinct Person, then there would be no way to say Jesus is God in name only (ie just another name for God). If Jesus and the Father have the same nature, then Jesus is God, not just in name. So the first error cannot be understood as an error involving nature/essence. While understood this way it does solve the fear of proclaiming two gods (as consubstantial/Origen does), it cannot then relate to Jesus being just another name for God which Origen says is the result of the error.

2) Ostensibly, the one committing this second error holds adamantly, like Origen, that there is only one Autotheos, the Father.

But there is only One Father in both Origen and orthodoxy. So, yes Origen naturally agrees with that. Both Origen and orthodoxy have always held that Jesus and Father are God. Father is properly called creator of all and yes Origen calls Father, Very God, creator of all things. Nothing unorthodox about that.
Think it would be rather silly to claim Origen holds adamantly to something he has just said is an error that is “false and wicked.” Words mean things.

The second error concerns nature, not personage. Again we know this from context. With Origen and with continuity down to orthodoxy today, the Divine Nature is God and Divinity is just another way of saying possessing a Divine Nature. I am that I am. Unlike anything else, His existence is His Nature. The Nature of God is Divine. Origen begins describing the second error as a denial of the divinity of the Son, ie that Jesus is God. So out of fear of proclaiming two gods in this theology of a Trinity expressed by Saint John, these people error in denying that Jesus is God (see Arius).

And how does Origen say these people deny the Divinity of the Son, deny that Jesus is God?
Origen speaks of the second error as believing a “sphere of essence” falling outside of each other. Another way to say that is; that “something exists separable/independent from the existence of something else”. For such two things, the meaning of their ‘being’ then is independent. Such things are then not One in Being, but two separate beings. So how do these people, out of fear of proclaiming two gods deny the Divinity of Jesus?
Origen says these people do this by denying both Father and Son are One in Being. So if they are not One in Being, Origen concludes (correctly) that this error is making the Son therefore not Divine, and is therefore not God. So the 2nd error is denying Father and Son are One in Being, which denies Jesus Divinity, which avoids the proclaiming of two gods, which these people fear they would be doing if they proclaimed the opposite of these two errors in professing a belief in a Trinity.

And what is the opposite of the errors that Origen says these people make?

The opposite and what is being proclaimed is that Jesus, the Logos is eternal – as John says He was there in the beginning and all things were made by Him, no thing that was made was made without Him.
By implication of that first, Jesus was not made, not created.
Jesus was with the Father. When? In the beginning, which would have to be prior to any thing that was made. Both are therefore eternal. God is eternal.
Jesus is God. So He is Divine. Father, the creator of all is God (by def Divine).
Jesus and the Father are two Distinct Persons. Both exist.
Jesus and the Father are Inseparable. To separate them denies the Divinity of the Son. One in essence (Being)
So there is One God. Jesus is God. Father is God. Jesus is not the Father. Father is not the Son. Father and Son are One in Being. One God.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The Son's divinity then is "by participation" with the Father, just as is the case with "other gods beside Him".
But that is not the whole picture and misrepresents what Origen says. As we showed above, Origen is saying Jesus is Divine. Jesus is God. Father is God. God is Eternal. Father and Son are Eternal.

He now goes on to address the fears of the two groups he just described above. People who are wishing (fearing to) NOT to be seen as believing in two gods and commit the errors Origen just described. One cannot read Origen’s response to those fears independent of that intro or the implications and truths of the opposite of the errors, the denials these people made.

It is clear that consubstantiality is not implied for two reasons: a) it was just explicitly rejected in #1, and b) it is not that they are literally inseparable, but that to separate them is "unthinkable". Origen goes on to specifically expand what he means by "making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father".

As already shown point #1 was discussing the existence of distinct person not a divine nature and therefore consubstantially is not even the point, so it can hardly have been rejected. Besides, given Origen elsewhere states a belief in the very definition of consubstantial (true he does not use the term) we can hardly accept that Origen rejects it here. You cannot make such assertions without addressing the obvious contradictions within Origen’s works that such presumptions make.

Am not sure what distinction you are making between unthinkable and literally inseparable, nor do I see Origen making your distinction.

To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, John 17:3 "That they may know You the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article).
Note that Origen's primary response to those who think his doctrine, whatever it is, proclaims two Gods is not "they are three in one", but that only the Father is "the only true God"; only the Father is "Very God, Autotheos, God of Himself". ALL beyond that is divine only by participation. Origen is arguing that two beings (and more) though they have different substances may both be called god, but there is only one Being who is truly God. This is Origen's defense of monotheism.

We first note you agree Origen defends monotheism, which if nothing else was the point of this whole thread. We would thank you and end this, but somehow suspect this was not your intention or the point. You will probably reply you meant polytheism (which makes no sense in this context of fear of proclaiming multiple gods). Am going to call a spade a spade and refuse to allow you to describe polytheism as not “strictly” monotheistic.

Secondly, Origen is just getting started here and it is a little premature to jump to the conclusions and the bold assertions you do, never mind you do not support them. You need to slow down and not get ahead of yourself. Origen is building a case against the fear of these people and the two error they make in looking at God, seeing Jesus and Father as distinct Persons, each existing as separate Persons while both still as Divine, One God, One in Being.

So to address the people making the errors he presented he first looks at God the Father, who is the Creator of All, God of Himself (read orthodoxy). He states first that God is the Father (interestingly the reverse of Father is God). So God is the Father. Yes, another name for the Father is Very God. Am not sure why you have a problem with that. We note you gloss over the fact Origen states in the first sentence that God is Very God, which is the same as saying God is the Father
.
He goes on to mention Jesus calling God the Father (who Origen has just correctly said “is God) the “only true God.” Why you would presume to think any orthodox from Origen to present day should have a problem with Jesus saying this we are not sure. The more important question and to the point is why did Origen feel the need to say it.

Again he is building a case. Each line is not an all inclusive statement of doctrine. He is presenting it piecemeal. All Origen has stated here is that God is the Father, Jesus called the Father the only true God (which is also good and fine since Origen just correctly stated “God is the Father”). But he goes on.

Next he establishes that no one else, no other ‘being’ may properly be called God the Father (Very God). Wow! Another truth of orthodoxy! Jesus is not the Father. Father is not the Son. They are distinct Persons remember. And this naturally flows from the last section as the beginning of Origen’s addressing the first denial; recall that the first denial was that Jesus is not a distinct Person from the Father (is God), and the error then being making Jesus just another name for God.

He goes on to explain why no other being can be called Father, Very God. Because all that is made is from the Father. So Jesus is not the Father and all that is made is from the Father (who is God remember – God is the Father, Jesus is not the Father) Wow, more orthodoxy! But he goes on.

He says anything called God (ie that is God or for you is a god, another way of saying is Divine) is called so because participation in the Father’s (who is God) Divinity. Further Orgien says such a being cannot be called the Father (Very God) – he relates this back to the opening of John’s Gospel where Very God, the Father would have an article in the first verse. So again, Origen is recalling the rendering of the first two phrases; “In the beginning was the Word (Logos, Jesus, Son of God), and Jesus was with the Father (Very God).

And then Origen introduces the beginning of an address to the second error, by implication that Jesus being Divine is God, but quickly pulls back to addressing distinction of Persons noting that is God without the article.

Note he begins the section stating God is the Father (Very God) and ends by saying all that is Divine (other than or after Very God, the Father who creates all) cannot be called Very God, the Father (God with article in John’s gospel) but should be called God without the article. So Origen just established any other being one could call divine, must be a distinct person from God the Father (who is God) and could only be called God (without the article – but again note he has already said God is the Father). So since John said Jesus is God (without the article), Origen has (without fully getting to it yet) just completed two legs of the Orthodox Trinitarian model;. Jesus is not Father, Father is not Son, God is Jesus, God is Father, Father is God, Son is God. He specifically addresses Christ Divinity next, but it is implied here primarily by St John saying “Jesus is God” and Origen’s reflection on what that means to leave out the article.

And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken and called the earth."
Now note that Origen includes the Word, as the first of all God's works, in that ALL. Because He is with God, he also "attracts" divinity to Himself. One must ask how a substance that is homogeneous within itself "attracts" divinity from one portion to another.
You say “now” like this is a new section or some change of direction. Again this a continuation of a response to people who have either denied the Son is a distinct Person (existence) from the Father or have denied Christ is Divine (is God). Slow down.

Origen has just addressed who the Father is, now he address the Son. Since this is also commentary on John, we need to keep in mind the context and meaning of the section of that Gospel Origen is concerned with. It begins by saying Jesus existed in the beginning and concludes saying no thing that is made is made without Him. So Jesus cannot be “made” and Jesus is eternal (existed with the Father before anything was made).

“Attracts to Himself divinity” can also be understood in another way. From the last section we looked at, we stopped where Origen was stating everything divine is divine because of God the Father (and remember God is the Father). He goes on now to address the first being, the first born, the first to be “with” God.

The language in the phrase attracts to himself is modifying the prior qualification, the first to be with God. Origen here is saying nothing more than what all orthodox from 1st century to today would say and what John says in the opening of his gospel concerning Jesus. The Word was with God (first to be with God – God is the Father) and Jesus is Divine (is God). “Attract” here can be seen as an awkward (for our time) way of saying “having” the attribute. So we have Origen saying Jesus was the first to be with God and first to have the attribute of Divine (besides God, who is the Father of course). He is introducing Jesus and his attributes slowly against the errors previously described.

Since the denial of Divinity of the Word, Logos, Son of God, Jesus; that denial was one the second error, Origen begins with establishing two things. Jesus is eternal (with God in the beginning) and Divine. There would be no need here as you suggest for Origen to be understood as directly addressing the Oneness of the Trinity here. He is addressing Jesus and His Divinity. Clearly Origen (see first page of thread) says there is no “portion” in regards to the Divinity of the Son, so that cannot be implied here either. How do you come up with these assertions about what Origen means without addressing the conflict it makes with his other writings?

Origen began this section saying this is how he would handle/address people committing the two errors previously mentioned. We must presume at the onset that there is One God, not two gods, else these would not be errors. They fear they may be proclaiming two gods in understanding of John’s opening. Which part? That Jesus, the Logos, “the Word is God”. Instead of re-assuring these people that there is only One God, in speaking of “portions” you would have Origen here attacking that presumption instead of re-assuring these people. Again you jump to a conclusion without looking at the whole writing.

It makes no sense to understand Origen in sequence saying, John said Jesus is God (without the article). People fear in trying to understand the teachings on this verse, fear that they may be proclaiming two gods, which obviously is referring to Jesus and the Father. (Presumption here must be everyone believes there is only One God or there would be no fear). So from that fear Origen says they fall into “false and wicked” beliefs. Those being either denying Jesus is a distinct person from the Father, thus just another name for God (so not two gods) or they deny Jesus is God at all (not Divine) by claiming he is totally separate from God (so not two gods). Then to re-assure these people you would understand Origen to be endorsing the very error he has just said is “false and wicked” – separate Jesus from God the Father. That makes absolutely no sense.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Secondly, with the Word in the category of beings that "attract" divinity are "the other gods beside Him", that is other gods beside the Word. Note that the Father is God over all these lower gods, including Jesus.

Again, you obviously do not understand what Origen is doing in slowly building a case against the errors he has just said were false and wicked. He cannot be re-assuring people’s fear by committing the same error. Nor do you understand the language or manner of expression common in their day.

Attraction in context of a discussion about whether or not Jesus is Divine, which addresses the second error, should be understood as “having an attribute”. He is merely beginning a section addressing Jesus’s Divinity and is saying Jesus is the first to have Divinity. As noted earlier, saying Jesus is not Divine denies that He is God, which solves the fear of proclaiming two gods. Again Divine Nature is Divinity and is God. He exists. He is His Nature and the only being about which that can be said.

Nor could we understand Origen’s reference to “other gods” here as endorsing a belief in many gods. Why? Because the premise of the whole section begins with John saying “Jesus is God” (without the article – which Origen and already you have agreed God without the article is God, who IS Very God the Father) and the fear of believing that verse (Jesus is God) is some how going to make Christians proclaim there are really two Gods, Jesus and the Father instead of One God. Clearly that fear would only be present if Origen, his audience and all Christians believed in only One God.

BTW, once again the statement that Father is God over All, is orthodox. So would be the sense that this would apply to both Jesus and Spirit in that everything they are comes from Him. “Other gods” here can only be understood as anything else, specifically but not necessarily restricted to “beings’, to which we might attribute any degree of divinity. The clue that this must be the case is in the next few lines where he addresses where anything else can, in any sense, be said to “get” it’s divinity. More below.

We will note that the other ECFs and the Bible itself frequently refer to the Father as Jesus' God (e.g. John 20:17).

Agree this could be considered a beginning of subordinationist language, (that Jesus is subordinate to the Father), however it is not unorthodox to say this much. The Word is from the Father. And clearly the Man is subject to the Father. So there are many orthodox ways to express subordination in that relationship. And this has nothing to do with understanding the section you just quoted.

Here is the key to Origen's theology: as Jesus is of more exalted rank than "the other gods beside him", so is the Father of more exalted rank than the Son.

Do you have a problem saying Jesus is higher than the rest of creation? Or that in some sense a Son is subject to the Father?
More to the point, remember context of all this. These are not standalone declarations of doctrine. John’s opening, creation, Jesus there, God makes everything, no thing made without Jesus (last two -implied Jesus is God), addressing an error, specifically the error denying Jesus is Divine which is done by claiming Jesus is a separate in Being from the Father.

BTW, in that rational beings are in a sense created in the Image of God, speaking of them as ‘gods’ in a discussion of divinity is acknowledging the source of whatever can be spoken of as being divine in those beings.

Origen says that the Son and the Spirit are divine 'by degree' [quoted in Kelly, 131]. So, you were correct when you said that "Clearly indicating that the way or level of 'participation' that Origen sees in the Son is clearly far beyond any other beings (gods...)". However, Origen takes this observation one step further and applies the same relationship between the Father and Son. The Father transcends the Son.


You cannot make a claim and insert in the middle of discussion on a particular passage of
Origen’s to help bolster your point without giving me a better reference or time to read that in context. So you have not proven these assertions and we must ignore your references for now. Everything I have given you can be referenced online.

Thirdly, neither is Jesus' status of being "with" the Father entirely unique; the entire realm of spiritual beings were also co-eternal (even before matter was created) with the Father.

No where in this discourse does Origen make this claim concerning a “realm of spiritual” beings. Another unsupported assertion and we reject the notion. In fact elsewhere the ECFs (even long before Origen) absolutely claim creation was from nothing (something else you have misquoted and attributed to later Fathers). So there can be no understanding of this discourse of Origen which has him presupposing the existence of “other gods” or spiritual beings present in the beginning as John says Jesus was.

In fact Origen goes on here later (below) to specifically mention how things can be said to be/receive divinity, just as John does about all created things, it comes from Christ, Our Lord. Through Him, God the Father created all, no thing created was done without Jesus. John says nothing made (which must include spirits) is made without Jesus. So in this discourse to imply Origen is contradicting an Apostle in discussing that Apostle’s Gospel is absurd.

Thus, by participation with the Father - just like the Word, but in lower rank - they were gods.
Again, Origen is addressing Jesus, His Divinity and the source of that divinity. So in this context it would be understood that any “degree” of divinity in a being allows one to speak of such a being as “gods”. Origen is orthodox here in saying Jesus is Divine and above all other created beings. The focus here is Jesus, no one else. He is addressing errors about Jesus, the errors, all stemming from misunderstanding of John saying “Jesus is God”. It is not a dissertation on the nature of all things.

Now, no one is going to try and claim that the "spiritual realm" was also consubstantial with the Father. Why? Because centuries later there is no one to read that preconceived idea into Origen's words. Yet their deity exactly parallels the deity of the Word. More from Kelly:

No one does, nor does anyone agree with your assertion of Origen speaking here of “gods” in existence before creation.

Again, I do not have a copy of Kelly’s work to know whether you have misrepresented him here or not. It does not appear to matter however in this discussion. We don’t have to worry as we already have an alternative, in my opinion a reasonable and acceptable explanation for Origen’s reference to the divinity of “other gods”.

Besides, as we already stated, it would make no sense in this discourse for Origen to be attempting to alleviate the fears of people denying the Divinity of Jesus by proclaiming a doctrine of many “gods” of which Jesus is just One. John says “Jesus is God”. More than one God is the very fear that leads to the false and wicked doctrines. How would demonstrating many gods in a discourse of John’s gospel, specifically that “Jesus is God” alleviate those fears?

The obvious question raised in any believers mind from that verse and the source of this fear lies in asking in what sense can we say the Father is God and also Jesus is God without at the same time seeing that as proclaiming a theology of two gods. These are the fears Origen addresses here.

Fourth, we note that this is why to separate Jesus from the Father results in denying the Son's divinity. Jesus was "the first" and the greatest to "attract to Himself Divinity". But just as no other being called God is "truly god" without being connected to the Father, so it is with Jesus too, in Origen.

Actually John says “Jesus is God” (without the article) which is the root of the fear in Origen’s discourse.

Pre-summed in this entire discourse is that all orthodox believers hold “Father is God” (without the article). Orgien has just said God is the Father (Very God). So if the people read John “Jesus is God” (without the article) and fear somehow that believing that verse proclaims two gods, we must consider that in all our understanding of Origen’s response to those fears rather than trying to break down every line and claim Origen is promoting doctrines that do not even address the errors in questions, or worse should aggregate or reinforce the error (which he said are false and wicked).

Of course Jesus is not Very God, that is orthodox (Father and Son are distinct Persons). The connection to the Father comes from the fact that He is the source of EVEYTHING, again an orthodox statement. Divinity and in any sense that we could say something has it, would also have to come from the Father. Still orthodox.

Hence, only the Father is "the God" and "ALL" other beings owe their divinity to the Father. And the Word is only Divine because He is always WITH the Father (not consubstantial with the Father).

Actually you jump ahead of Origen. In the next section below he quite clearly says the opposite of what you just said. The divinity of any thing else besides Jesus is from Jesus, not God the Father. And this in keeping with orthodox and John’s saying no thing that is made is made without Jesus. (note implication Jesus is not made). And since Jesus is God, the fact he creates all else is also orthodox.

You also make the mistake here of switching the wording to make your point. In this discussion, God with the article is Very God, God of Himself, the Father. Origen has already stated that God (without the article) is the Father. In his language, your statement above is only that the Father is Very God (God with the article) which no one has denied. And orthodox do call the Father the creator of All. We also acknowledge, just as the Apostle and Origen do, that Jesus is creator of All. Two statements resolved only by the orthodox Trinity, ie Jesus is God, Father is God. God (without the article) is creator of All.

Origen and John do not say Jesus is Divine because he is with the Father. John said “Jesus is God” which begs the whole question and leads to the errors and this whole discourse. Where Origen said “makes Him God” referring to Jesus, he is saying that fact Jesus was there in the beginning means that Jesus is God (because He is eternal and not created). Jesus is not made, not created.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Blue is Origen quote from Jefcc original post #27

It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype.
It is by participation with divinity that they "became gods", the same type (if different rank) of participation that the Son enjoys; they "have a share of God". Therefore Origen declares in the next chapter that the God of the universe "is the God of these beings who are truly Gods." Again, we have to admit in this scenario that Origen is not strictly monotheistic by modern standards.

We already presented an alternative, acceptable, orthodox understanding of Origen’s mentioning other gods, and this excerpt from the next paragraph is no exception. And unlike your explanation, this alternative explanation does not make a mockery of everything else Origen has said concerning the Trinity and the nature of God. On the first page of this thread, Origen says the Son and Father are invisible and inseparable, Father has no body, the Son is not a portion, they are One in nature, and Origen gives us the very definition of consubstantial still in use today (definition not the word).

Those expressions and even this discourse addressing false and wicked doctrines cannot make sense in your explanation of Origen. Again, say my fear is that John saying Jesus is God causes me to fear that this makes me a believer in two gods. That fear drives me to imagine (falsely and wickedly Origen says) either that Jesus is really just another name for God (not a distinct existence from the Father) or that Jesus is totally separate from the Father and therefore not God (not Divine). How in the world can we then understand Origen as addressing my fear by saying he is telling me here that not only are there indeed two gods (Jesus and Father), there are many, many gods? That makes no sense.
.
But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.

This final sentence is the capstone describing what Origen means by becoming "separated" from the Father. First, the metaphor is one of contemplation, not a direct statement of "one substance".

No, we have direct statements of Origen from elsewhere in the beginning of thread where he gives us the very definition of consubstantial. Unless you are prepared to deny the authenticity of those statements or declare Origen crazy, you have given us no reason to accept your understanding of Origen in this text. Your explanation contradicts what Origen says elsewhere.

There are two errors being addressed by Origen here. Two that he proclaims are false and wicked. One involves no distinction (just another name for God) the other total separation of Father and Son, which denies His Divinity. This is his summary, and he again addresses both errors. A third implied error is that any should believe there is more than one God. Jesus is God (“at all times”) addresses His Divinity, yet Jesus is separate, a distinct existence (Person) from the Father that He is with in the beginning (“not continuing to be God).
So Origen addresses both errors again. Divinity of Jesus by reason of His being with the Father, eternally from the beginning. {One in Being – which Origen clearly states elsewhere) And yet also a separate distinct Person, not just another name for God. (with the Father, Divine, yet at the same time not the Father (distinct) except in the sense of his contemplation of the Father).

Origen’s last line here reflects perfectly where he elsewhere defines how/why Christ is Divine (God), the Perfect Image of the Father (God is the Father afterall) because the Son knows (uninterrupted contemplation) the Father Perfectly(archetype. One cannot take snippets of his texts and toss everything else Origen has said on the topic without proving Origen is craxy or rejected what he said elsewhere. You have failed to show either.

Next, Jesus does not "possess" Divinity of himself; he is dependent on the Father for it.
Orthodox – All that Jesus and Spirit are, comes from the Father. Yet neither Spirit or Son are created beings, as Origen so correctly says.

He only continues to be God by continuing to remain with the Father.
Your understanding of Origen here conflicts absolutely with what he explicitly says elsewhere. You must explain this before making such an assertion. The continuation statement refects a distinction of Persons, which directly addresses the false and wicked error denying that separate existence. Your rendering of this also makes no sense as a response to alleviate the fears of those people misunderstanding the implications of John saying “Jesus is God”.


But note that Origen considers it possible, if unthinkable, for Jesus to "not continu[e] to be God" if he were to separate from communion with the Father.
The word unthinkable here is not found in this text. The phrase, “if we should think of this” directly goes to seeing the Son as a separate Person from the Father, yet still God. Which once again, addresses what Origen says he is addressing.

It is not a matter of "one substance", where such a scenario is impossible to even consider, but a true unity where the Son is united with the Father.

Can you please stop with the “true union” LDS/anti-trinitarian mantra. Our union is True and Origen clearly gives a definition of consubstantial. Yet you wish to ignore where he very EXPLICITLY says that elsewhere and claim he does not believe it here because you can see no other explanation for these words.

It is the Son's Divinity that is inseparable from the Father in the absolute sense, not the person of the Son Himself.

Where do you get this? One cannot separate the essence of something from a person. It is either part of their nature or it is not. If we believe something exists, say Jesus and also that His Nature is Divine (God), then it makes no sense to speak of Jesus as no longer having that nature, loosing his Divinity. A person can not lose their essence. One could deny Jesus really exists, which was the first error.

And this disproves what you just claimed. The fact that Orgien says it would be a wicked and false doctrine to separate the essence of the Father and Son, such that Jesus “sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father”. He is talking about NATURE, the essence of two existing Persons. So yes, if it were true that they are separate (obviously Origen sees it as false and wicked for them to be so) then believing that would necessarily deny Jesus’s Divinity. Which is why Origen says it is false and wicked.

The Divinity is lost by seeing them as separate, not because of Jesus proximity to the Father. The Nature of God is the Divine Nature. Divine Nature is a label for everything that God is. In a sense it is what makes God, God. Denying Jesus Divinity then, is denying that Jesus is God. Origen has already said there can be only One God, so one essence. Origen (John and orthodox) said God is the Father. So then the Father has a “sphere of essence”. If Jesus is outside that sphere, then Jesus is separate in nature, cannot be God. It denies his Divinity.

It is the fact that John says Jesus was with God before any thing is made, there from the beginning that we conclude Jesus is God. That conclusion is not that it means Jesus is “made” Divine because he is next to the Father. It is the fact that He is said to be there at all. His presence there means Jesus uncreated, and like the Father timeless, eternal. So it means (makes) Him Divine, God.

A reminder from Origen; “in their nature and essence they are one, and in them is the fulness of divinity.”

Hence, to try and make the Son out to be God co-equally or in the same sense as the Father is God in truth denies the Divinity of the Son, for there is in truth only one Autotheos.


We have already said, as Origen, that it is orthodox that there is only one “God the Father”, Very God. God of Himself (meaning first cause essentially). This is true. Jesus is not “of Himself” in that He is the Word, or Wisdom, the Knowledge, the Perfect Image of He (the Father) who is God of Himself. All of that is orthodox. None of that is the same as saying there is only one true God and that is ONLY the Father which is essentially what you are trying to make Origen say.

Second, note that in the same way that lesser "gods" are such because they are "images", reflections, of the Son, in that same way is the Son god by image and reflection.

Am not sure orthodoxy is correctly understood here. Any rational being, which basically (to our knowledge and the point here) includes all angels and mankind is correctly called an image of God and as such can properly be said in some sense to contain a portion of divinity. It is what gives all humans our dignity and why we should protect all human life (including the unborn). Without His holding us (and all things) in existence we and everything would cease to be. So since, God is the reason then for existence. His Divinity, God is holding everything in existence. In that sense, one can say that everything (animate and inanimate) participates in that Divinity. For without it, nothing would be.

Orgien clearly distinguishes Jesus, essentially as the Perfect Image of God, the archtype of all else.

Besides, elsewhere Origen acknowledges there is only One God, “who created and arranged all things,” yet he also says (as Saint John does) that Jesus made “all things.” How would an understanding of those two quotes and this text be possible if Origen did not hold that Jesus was God? So in your view did Jesus make everything or God?

So, whatever you interpret Origen saying about all other "gods", must be the same way that Origen interpreted the godhood of the Word.

As you should have seen now, it is. Only like Origen and all orthodox, we give Jesus much more Divinity than you do. And how else could we interpret “generous measure” and “archetype” in light of all Origen’s other statements concerning the Son and Father?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Originally Posted by DrBubbaLove
"2. In What Way the Logos is God. Errors to Be Avoided on This Question"

From the portion omitted in your paste comes this sentence;
"They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other."

Note Origen sees these things as errors. How can anyone reading that say Origen sees the error and then makes the same error himself in the same paragraph?

Mostly, my analysis of the second error is completed in the previous post. Origen did view it as possible that the Son be "separable", just unthinkable that the Son would be. This is no endorsement of consubstantiality. More to the point, Origen expressly denies the possibility. In post 16 I detailed some reasons why.
Actually all you primarily did in post 16 is quote a bunch of other people giving your opinions and your opinion of their opinion, none of which we can verify as either authentic or in context as conveying what those authors intended. And none of those quotes in post #16 addresses the contradiction the allegations of Origen’s denial of consubstantiality make in light of his giving us the very definition of what consubstantial means. You cannot have it both ways without explaining why Origen would contradict himself.

Here, I'll just focus on two of them: Origen's statement that the Father and Son differ in Essence (in error #1 quoted above) and Origen's statement that the Father "transcends" the Son.

Origen states that heretics "deny that the Son has a distinct nature (hypostasis)".
And again you misstate the error. It is not about nature, it is about Person. Quite simply it makes no distinction between the Person called Father and that called Son, so to avoid (from fear) having two gods result from an Apostle saying Jesus is God, these people render Jesus as being God in every way but name. Said another way, it makes Jesus just another name for God. Again, when speaking of names, the result of the error, one cannot be understood to be speaking of nature. My nature does have a name, human. My “distint nature”, that which makes me “besides” any one else is what makes me, me. Which is my person, which is identified by my name.

Rouch, Kelly, and Hanson all point out that hypostasis and ousia were originally synonyms, and specifically that Origen uses the term "hypostasis" in this original sense (I quoted Rouch to this effect in post 16). Hypostasis is actually a scriptural term, the most theologically meaningful of which is found in Heb 1:3 where it is translated "Nature" or "Being" ("being" in my Catholic Bible, "nature" in the NASV, "substance" in the ASV).

Again cannot comment on these people’s works and deny you have “shown”, “proven” or “demonstrated” anything. You have given opinions not proofs. Stating what someone says without giving me the work or a link to it cannot be refuted or supported and is just an opinion. IOW we have to take your word for it. Given what you did in post #16 (and you did claim it was your work) to Origen work, which I remark on in post #17, you give us no reason to believe that any of these men actually say what you claim they say.

Wiki addresses the very same issue, and specifically mentions Origen bluring the distinction. But we don’t need all this to realize what Origen is talking about when addressing these errors. A name always refers to Person, Divinity to nature.

So any assertion that Origen is recognising only the distinction of "the Persons" is not based in the word "hypostasis", but in the word "distinct". IOW, on the assumption that Origen shared a particular perception about what was "distinct" in the trinity.

You might be agreeing with me but not sure. Whether it is distinct nature or distinct Persons in this passage does not hinge on the use of the particular word as does context. Since the result of the first error (concerning no “distinct nature”) makes Jesus God in all but name, any conclusion other than Origen referring to Person here is obviously flawed. The name of Jesus applies not to a nature, whether that is called “nature” “essence” or “hypostasis”. It applies to a Person.

But on the contrary, it is the "nature", "real existence, or essence" or "substance" of the Son that is "distinct". This in contra-position to the frequent assertion in the course of this dialogue that Origen confesses only "one Nature", "one Essence". Origen means that they deny that the Son is a distinct entity. In every writing that exists in the Greek (i.e. was not "sanitized" by Latin translators), the only unity that Origen suggests between Father and Son is one of love, will, and action, never a consubstantial union.

Again, one cannot understand Origen here as meaning “distinct nature” refers to consubstantiality, one nature, or One Essence. He says the error being discussed makes Jesus “God in all but name”. Names refer to Person, not nature. So saying that this error is seeing Jesus as not a “distinct nature” “besides that of the Father’s (distinct nature) is explicitly saying Jesus and Father are the same Person. Which means Jesus is just another name for God (God in all but name).

Note again the conclusion of Hanson: "...the likelihood of Origen having described the Son as consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father is very slim. This might have committed him to saying that he had the same ousia as the Father, a view which he actually disowned, and would have suggested to him that the Father and the Son were of the same material, an idea which he was anxious to avoid." [The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381, p.68]

Again, we have unverifiable quotes of other people’s opinion. Since Origen is not here discussing consubstantiality, but rather whether Jesus is a distinct Person from the Father, am not sure what your point is other than to admit your confusion.

Next, note the definition of transcendence: "transcendence is a condition or state of being that surpasses physical existence, and in one form is also independent of it." Clearly a state of being which "surpasses" another cannot possess identically the state of being/physic of the second. Now, on to Origen's own words:

Another simpler meaning of transcendence is to be above something else. A position that many ECFs saw in the relationship of the Persons in the Trinity. Again, since this has nothing to do with Logus (John commentary book 11.2) section of the passage (which we point again you omitted when you first quoted this section) am not sure why it is mentioned here. No one has argued that early Christian writers including Origen did not believe in some form of subordination, even to the degree it opposes co-equal. Neither co-equal, consubstantial nor subordination were orthodox in Origen’s day as the Church had not definitively spoken on these issues. People were obviously talking about and teaching these things but that is not the definition of orthodox in the Church and certainly not of dogma.


There was God with the article and God without the article, then there were gods in two orders, at the summit of the higher order of whom is God the Word, transcended Himself by the God of the universe."[Comm. John, II.3].

Subordination is not really the topic of this thread. Nor is it in the above quote where we point out that Origen could not mean what you said he meant in post #16. Which you have yet to address.

It appears your desire is to demonstrate that some level of subordination expressed in any of Origen commentary on John nullifies any possibility that Origen believed in One Being, One Essence, a consubstantial God. Since Origen elsewhere, see first page of this thread, give us the very definition of consubstantial (not the word), it would not be possible to support your claim without addressing why Origen would give us a definition he did not believe in.

Let’s get more to the point of the particular passage in question. Since Divinity, the Divine Nature of God, when one truly thinks about the orthodox view of God’s Nature; that being eternal, which is necessarily infinite, then it is simply not possible to divide that Nature. Which is why Origen would say it is a false and wicked doctrine to do so (second error from this section – denied Jesus Divinity by saying he is separate from the Father).

A claim of separation that did not deny Christ divinity would only be possible in Origen (and by extension his audience) if they held something like the LDS view. The nature of the LDS god is not eternal and not infinite. But if that was really the belief then believing in such a god would negate the whole point of this entire dialogue and Origen would be speaking nonsense. If it is true that these people (including Origen) were polytheist, then every god is divine. So why would seeing Jesus as a separate being from the Father deny his Divinity?

Note the hierarchy of Origen: God the Father transcends all other gods, including the Word (Origen specifically points out). Below the Father, there are Gods of two orders. The "higher order" is the one that the "other gods", the sons of god, belong to. At the summit of this order is the Word. What we have Origen saying is that the Son is transcended by the Father and belongs to a different "order" of godhood than the Father, the same order to which belong the saved of the saints of God (who are called the sons of God, and named gods themselves). This is not a system that is compatible with the concept of "one substance", even if it had been introduced in the East by this time (the only way in which it had been was through Sabellianism; it might be said that this same tendency is what produced the orthodox trinity).

And this is your opinion. Unsubstantiated for us is that Origen held anything but a subordinate view, which is expressed here. Father is over Son. Everything the Son and Spirit are, come from the Father. These passages concerning subordination are perfectly understandable in an orthodox view. And we can do that without claiming such language negates what Origen specifically says about the nature of God, giving us the very definition of consubstantial. Which you have yet to explain. If we are to understand your view of this passage at all, you would have to explain Origen contradicting himself, especially before you jump to saying he contradicts the later Fathers in anything but co-equal.

All you have perhaps done here is make a strong case that Origen did not hold what LATER became an orthodox view of co-equal. And again, no has denied that. Even as co-equal Trinity of Three, the orthodox view did abolish all expression of subordination. The Creed developed by the same fathers who addressed the Arius (Jesus is not Divine) debate at Nicea expresses a degree of subordination.