Is Origen "not strictly" monotheistic?

[DrBubbaLove]

Claims have been made elsewhere that the early Christian Fathers did not see the Trinity as we do today. The claims are all similar, and basically it would be that in some sense they saw something closer to a council of gods acting together, perhaps so closely they are considered as one.

Here is Origen on the Trinity and the Nature of God, who lived in the late 2nd century and early third.
All of these quotes are taken from complete manuscripts of the original writings online at newadvent.org.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

There is One God:

“First, That there is one God, who created and arranged all things,”

Jesus is God incarnate (not a god):

“"For by Him were all things made"—He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit:”

Jesus is God

“For the Lord of those who are "ambassadors for Christ" is Christ Himself, whose ambassadors they are, and who is "the Word, who was in the beginning, was with God, and was God."

“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 God," and thirdly, "And the Word was God," so that it might be seen that the Word being with God makes Him God.”

God is a Spirit, invisible, without a body;

“Moreover, John, in his Gospel, when asserting that "no one has seen God at any time," manifestly declares to all who are capable of understanding, that there is no nature to which God is visible: not as if, He were a being who was visible by nature, and merely escaped or baffled the view of a frailer creature, but because by the nature of His being it is impossible for Him to be seen.”

Common union of deity of Father and Son;

“Whatever, therefore, is a property of bodies, cannot be predicated either of the Father or of the Son; but what belongs to the nature of deity is common to the Father and the Son.”

Father begets Son, but not in any biological sense (generated);

“And who in his sound senses ever sought for form, or colour, or size, in wisdom, in respect of its being wisdom? And who that is capable of entertaining reverential thoughts or feelings regarding God, can suppose or believe that God the Father ever existed, even for a moment of time, without having generated this Wisdom?...................... And therefore we must believe that Wisdom was generated before any beginning that can be either comprehended or expressed.”

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Nature of God being Indivisible and so Jesus in Inseparable from God the Father;

“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. Rather, therefore, as an act of the will proceeds from the understanding, and neither cuts off any part nor is separated or divided from it, so after some such fashion is the Father to be supposed as having begotten the Son, His own image; namely, so that, as He is Himself invisible by nature, He also begat an image that was invisible.”

Son like the Father has no beginning;

“Let him, then, who assigns a beginning to the Word or Wisdom of God, take care that he be not guilty of impiety against the unbegotten Father Himself, seeing he denies that He had always been a Father, and had generated the Word, and had possessed wisdom in all preceding periods, whether they be called times or ages, or anything else that can be so entitled.”

The Spirit given the same dignity of the Father and Son (ie because they are One Trinity);

“From all which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all, i.e., by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and by joining to the unbegotten God the Father, and to His only-begotten Son, the name also of the Holy Spirit.”

Like the Father and Son, the Spirit has no beginning;

“For if this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the Unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit.”

Father and Son Inseparable;

“Seeing God the Father is invisible and inseparable from the Son, the Son is not generated from Him by "prolation," as some suppose.”

Son is not a portion of God the Father’s substance;

“For 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, i.e., beyond His own substance, so that there once was a time when He did not exist; but, putting away all corporeal conceptions, we say that the Word and Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal without any corporeal feeling, as if it were an act of the will proceeding from the understanding.”

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The Father and Son are one in essence;

“As light, accordingly, could never exist without splendour, so neither can the Son be understood to exist without the Father; for He is called the "express image of His person," and the Word and Wisdom. How, then, can it be asserted that there once was a time when He was not the Son? For that is nothing else than to say that there was once a time when He was not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life, although in all these He is judged to be the perfect essence of God the Father; for these things cannot be severed from Him, or even be separated from His essence. And although these qualities are said to be many in understanding, yet in their nature and essence they are one, and in them is the fulness of divinity.”

Even when the Son is Incarnate He is not separate in essence;

“After these points we shall appropriately remind (the reader) of the bodily advent and incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God, with respect to whom we are not to suppose that all the majesty of His divinity is confined within the limits of His slender body, so that all the "word" of God, and His "wisdom," and "essential truth," and "life," was either rent asunder from the Father, or restrained and confined within the narrowness of His bodily person, and is not to be considered to have operated anywhere besides; but the cautious acknowledgment of a religious man ought to be between the two, so that it ought neither to be believed that anything of divinity was wanting in Christ, nor that any separation at all was made from the essence of the Father, which is everywhere.”

The Nature of the Trinity is One and incorporeal;

“For it is one and the same thing to have a share in the Holy Spirit, which is (the Spirit) of the Father and the Son, since the nature of the Trinity is one and incorporeal.”

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Though separate the Three are of One Divine Nature

“But, as we have already said, the primal goodness is to be understood as residing in God the Father, from whom both the Son is born and the Holy Spirit proceeds, retaining within them, without any doubt, the nature of that goodness which is in the source whence they are derived.”

Christians are to pray to God as learned from Jesus to ask Him to lead us to Him through His Son who is God;

“But a Christian, even of the common people, is assured that every place forms part of the universe, and that the whole universe is God's temple. In whatever part of the world he is, he prays; but he rises above the universe, "shutting the eyes of sense, and raising upwards the eyes of the soul." And he stops not at the vault of heaven; but passing in thought beyond the heavens, under the guidance of the Spirit of God, and having thus as it were gone beyond the visible universe, he offers prayers to God. But he prays for no trivial blessings, for he has learned from Jesus to seek for nothing small or mean, that is, sensible objects, but to ask only for what is great and truly divine; and these things God grants to us, to lead us to that blessedness which is found only with Him through His Son, the Word, who is God.”

An error to think God the Father and Jesus as not distinct Persons, but also to think of them as Seperable;

“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.”

 

[jeffC]

Claims have been made elsewhere that the early Christian Fathers did not see the Trinity as we do today. The claims are all similar, and basically it would be that in some sense they saw something closer to a council of gods acting together, perhaps so closely they are considered as one.

Here is Origen on the Trinity and the Nature of God, who lived in the late 2nd century and early third.
All of these quotes are taken from complete manuscripts of the original writings online at newadvent.org.

Claims have been made elsewhere that the early Christian Fathers did not see the Trinity as we do today. The claims are all similar, and basically it would be that in some sense they saw something closer to a council of gods acting together, perhaps so closely they are considered as one.

Here is Origen on the Trinity and the Nature of God, who lived in the late 2nd century and early third.
All of these quotes are taken from complete manuscripts of the original writings online at newadvent.org.

Hi DrBubbaLove,

What would be indication sufficient to demonstrate that Origen (or Justin in the other thread) failed to meet the standard of strict monotheism? How about we agree that they completely rejected Sebellianism and consider whether or not they expressed belief in a consubstantial Triad? If the answer is negative, would not the conclusion then be, whatever their other statements, that they believed in three distinct Beings each of whom could be called God, even if only one was called "the God" (and, how about that as a working definition of a quasi-monotheism)?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Hi DrBubbaLove,

What would be indication sufficient to demonstrate that Origen (or Justin in the other thread) failed to meet the standard of strict monotheism? How about we agree that they completely rejected Sebellianism and consider whether or not they expressed belief in a consubstantial Triad? If the answer is negative, would not the conclusion then be, whatever their other statements, that they believed in three distinct Beings each of whom could be called God, even if only one was called "the God" (and, how about that as a working definition of a quasi-monotheism)?

In what way could you possibly squeeze inseparable into that definition?

 

[jeffC]

In what way could you possibly squeeze inseparable into that definition?

There are many ways to be inseparable. We are inseparable from the love of God. The unity we may have with God is "just as" inseperable as is Jesus unity with the Father (John 17:20-24). The only question to answer is, must inseparable mean consubstantial? The answer is no.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

There are many ways to be inseparable. We are inseparable from the love of God. The unity we may have with God is "just as" inseperable as is Jesus unity with the Father (John 17:20-24). The only question to answer is, must inseparable mean consubstantial? The answer is no.

So you believe we would have unity with God in Hell? That seems pretty separate to me.

And when is the last time you spoke of an attribute of one person being completely inseparable from that of another? Does that sound like just another way of saying the persons are really close to you? Yet that is exactly the language Origen, Justin and Turtellian use.

A unity that is separate or separable hardly sounds like a true unity to me.

And if we say a monotheism is the belief in the existence of only one God, then no. Because separate means there is more than one god, which removes one completely from the realm of monotheism so defined. Am not sure in that definition how one could be quasi.

 

[jeffC]

Hello again, DrBubbaLove.

I hope you and yours had a good Thanksgiving.

So you believe we would have unity with God in Hell? That seems pretty separate to me.

No, I'm refering to the unity of those who are saved with the Father in his Kingdom, who become sons of God, and heirs to the riches of His blessings. We can have unity with God in this life as well, but only in part.

And when is the last time you spoke of an attribute of one person being completely inseparable from that of another? Does that sound like just another way of saying the persons are really close to you? Yet that is exactly the language Origen, Justin and Turtellian use.

I hear it all the time. God the Father and the Son are examples of perfect inseperability. One example would be the union of marriage, which union is ideally insepperable. Origen uses this example to describe the union of the Father and the Son. Whenever Origen discusses the unity of the Father and Son it is one of love, will, and power, not actual substance (though he says it is the same "kind" of substance).

A unity that is separate or separable hardly sounds like a true unity to me.

What kind of unity do these verses describe?
[bible]John 17:20-24[/bible]

And if we say a monotheism is the belief in the existence of only one God, then no. Because separate means there is more than one god, which removes one completely from the realm of monotheism so defined. Am not sure in that definition how one could be quasi.

Monotheism proper is the scenario you have presented, where no other gods exist at all. However, if monotheism's scruptural foundation is in the declaration that there is "one God", then as soon as there are scriptural variants to the interpretation of "one God", there are also varying degrees of monotheism. That is unless one wants to say the Bible is not necessarily monotheistic. Since the Bible in my understanding is still closer to monotheism than any other modern term, that is why I think "quasi-monotheism" is as good a descriptor as any.

 

[BrendanMark]

In De Principiis IV. 3:15, he writes: ‘But the substance of the Trinity, which is the beginning and cause of all things, “of which are all things and through which are all things and in which are all things [Rom. 11:36], must not be believed either to be a body or exist in a body, but to be wholly incorporeal.’
Quoted from Widdicome, Peter – The Fatherhood of God From Origen to Athanasius [Oxford Theological Monographs, 1994, 2004, p. 19-20]

The threefold activity of the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is matched by a corresponding threefold response of the soul in its journey to the knowledge of God.
Widdicome, Peter – The Fatherhood of God From Origen to Athanasius [Oxford Theological Monographs, 1994, 2004, p. 20]

Purification in the Spirit, leads to wisdom in Christ and thence to participation in the life of the Father as the ultimate goal/experience of life and death. Origen’s thought may not have been in complete accord with the Cappadocians he inspired through St Gregory Thaumaturgus, nor even his Alexandrian successor and devotee Athanasius. Yet many of the theological concepts and methods foundational to Nicene Trinitarianism are clearly present in Origen, either pre-developed or given his personal touch. For instance, apophaticism was already crucial to his great and revered teacher, St Clement of Alexandria, and remained a consistent thread through the Trinitarian debates and critical to their resolution.

The ongoing exploration and experience of the mystery in the life of the Church and individual believers requires some knowledge of the background in which the concepts were expressed, and our lack of even the basic terminology in which the Fathers worked hampers easy understanding of their thought. Our inability to grasp the essentials of the Unity in Trinity is as much as result of educational choices (prejudices, some may contend) as a lack of spiritual life, but both factors doubtless contribute substantially.

It would appear that for Origen the fact that God is Father is a given datum of the Christian faith. Although he nowhere states that this is the case, such a supposition accounts for the fact that while references to the Father abound in his writings and his writings are replete with biblical quotations in which God is called Father, he never engages in an attempt to establish the reality that God is Father. He does not discuss the nature of the divine fatherhood in abstraction from either his doctrine of the Trinity or his doctrine of salvation. The issues that arise for Origen concerning God’s fatherhood mainly pertain to how that fatherhood is to be thought about in the light of two other accepted realities of the Christian faith: the generation of the Son and the adoption of Christians as sons.
Widdicome, Peter – The Fatherhood of God From Origen to Athanasius [Oxford Theological Monographs, 1994, 2004, p. 63-64]

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Jeffcc,
We move off topic, back to the OP(s).

Before we got sidetracked on what it means to be separate or united, you wanted to say the ECFs could maybe be described as seeing Three distinct Beings, each of whom could be called God.

How can a man who clearly says it is an error to think of Jesus as having an "existence separate" from the Father or in any way separable be understood elsewhere to be saying they are in some way separable as in distinct Being?

We can reach such conclusions only if we interchange and see as equvalent their speaking of nature and persons. They clearly saw Distinct Persons but spoke of only One Divine Nature. If those terms (nature and person) were synonymous then such language makes no sense.

They cannot be both Three Distinct Beings and also only One Being or alternatively Three Distinct Divine Persons and also One Divine Person. This is why I keep insisting words mean things.

Divine and divinity describe God's nature which answers the question of "what is it". Personhood describes and answers the question "who is it". So when someone makes the statement there can be only One indivisible Divine Nature, the fact they can talk about Three Persons being distinct does not address or any way alter what they said about the Divine Nature.

It is the same idea as saying my nature is that of a human. My person would tell everyone which human. With God, if we say there is only One Divine Nature, that would be the equivalent of saying there exists only one human (note that still doesn't address who that human is). However, the ECFs were also saying that Divine Nature has Three Distinct Persons, whereas we are created with only one person.

Being made this way it is perhaps easier for us to think of something having multiple natures as opposed to persons.

 

[jeffC]

Jeffcc,
We move off topic, back to the OP(s).

Before we got sidetracked on what it means to be separate or united, you wanted to say the ECFs could maybe be described as seeing Three distinct Beings, each of whom could be called God.

How can a man who clearly says it is an error to think of Jesus as having an "existence separate" from the Father or in any way separable be understood elsewhere to be saying they are in some way separable as in distinct Being?

<snip>

In the interest of returning to the OP (and leaving the debate on what separable means), I'll only briefly answer your latest points. If you'd rather return to this issue, that is fine; just let me know. Jesus is not seperable from the Father in that their wills are one, as are their power and authority. They are infinitely more one than distinct; none of this changes if their substances are not identically one.

Returning to the OP, my question was which criteria should be used to determine whether Origen fits the monotheistic mold. I have put forward consubstantiality as that criteria. Do you agree?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Jesus is not seperable from the Father in that their wills are one, as are their power and authority. They are infinitely more one than distinct; none of this changes if their substances are not identically one.

Thought we returned, but cannot let this slide. At best you can claim equal power and authority if you are also going to claim they are separate. One cannot be ALL of anything if there is also at the same time something else that is also ALL of that same thing. They can be equally powerful and authoratative, but not ALL because the other is just as.

And two things being so close as to be united in will, yet separate are still separate. If Satan was also formerly "at one" with this will, then how tight can this "one will" really be?
(Another reason having the SAME WILL is a better position than just being really, really tight.)

Returning to the OP, my question was which criteria should be used to determine whether Origen fits the monotheistic mold. I have put forward consubstantiality as that criteria. Do you agree?

Clearly from his own words Origin believes the Three are of One substance, which is to say one essence, a way of describing their Nature. So yes, that would make him in agreement with the Persons of the Trinity having One Nature, consubstantial. Which is fortunate BTW, because it puts Origen in agreement with St Irenaues hundreds of years earlier stating the same thing, who must have gotten that from St John who was taught by Jesus Himself.

As I have tried to explain before, they saw no problem/conflict (yet) with consubstantial and the idea of a hierarchy WITHIN that One Nature. Read that again please. One Nature and a hierarchy WITHIN. It is not either/or for them, it is both. Consubstantial, but acting in separate roles within that One Nature.

That they could see a hierarchy had to at least been in part to their belief in the assignment or attributing different actions of God to one of the Three working independently rather than seeing all actions as proceeding from God viewed as One. And they presented logical arguments for that view. Ex: No one can "see" the Father, Creator of All without being annihilated. Therefore they concluded that all OT manifestation of God had to have been the action of the Second Person, Jesus. Makes perfect sense on the face of it.

Perhaps the other reason we can see a hierarchy within their works was that they were looking a the Trinity from a different view, one that if not carefully expressed is precarious next to the later Arian heresy. However, it is a view that is as true today as it was then. How so?

Both the Second and Third Person owe everything that they are to God the Father, they derive their existence from Him. Yet none exists without the other.
We express this still today (proceeds from the Father and Son, begotten not made) in the same Creed that was defined hundreds of years after these same ideas were first expressed. The early Fathers expressed this in various terms and scriptures do as well; God commands creation, the Word acts-creates (in a sense can be said to obey); the Father both creates and redeems the world through His Son (Genesis, John, Revelation).

At the same time several of the early Fathers also said how can one see God as being at any point without His Word (Jesus) or Their Love for each other (Holy Ghost). The Three exist together as One or not at all. It makes no sense to speak of a God that is incapable of expressing Himself (His Word). Because God the Father exists, and in fact is the very essence of existence, so do the Son and Holy Spirit exist. There cannot be One with the other Two. The Three exist and have always existed.

That such expression (commands, begotten, proceeds...) lends itself to the idea of a hierarchy should be obvious and without thinking through what that means in regards to One Divinity, one Nature (or there then being parts or shares of Divinity, perhaps unequal portions of Divinity...etc) this language was accepted.

It does not follow that in using these expressions on how the Persons operated that they tossed their CLEARLY expressed belief in One Nature, one essence, One Divine Being in the NATURE of the Trinity. It simply means they did not correctly or explicitly express one facet of the Trinity; that is how the Three Distinct Persons operated and they did not realize the impact of that language on another facet. A facet that they clearly held; specifically there being One and Only One Divine Nature.

We can and do correctly express the exact same ideas today just as the earliest Fathers did. And just as then, some hear this today and probably do mistake these expressions as a hierarchy within the actions of the Three Persons. Just because we talk this way today, it does not follow (just like it doesn't with Origen at least if we are correctly understood), that we do not believe in One Divine Nature.

It is only after the divinity of Christ is directly and repeatedly attacked that the Church is forced to examine these words and utter them much more precisely and in the process correct the earlier Fathers language concerning the actions of the Three Persons.

 

[jeffC]

Thought we returned, but cannot let this slide. At best you can claim equal power and authority if you are also going to claim they are separate. One cannot be ALL of anything if there is also at the same time something else that is also ALL of that same thing. They can be equally powerful and authoratative, but not ALL because the other is just as.

This is not logically true. Power is not a "thing" to be handled, but the capacity to act or cause as one chooses. I'll avoid repeating the arguments made elsewhere since I discussed this at length in the other thread, here.

And two things being so close as to be united in will, yet separate are still separate. If Satan was also formerly "at one" with this will, then how tight can this "one will" really be?
(Another reason having the SAME WILL is a better position than just being really, really tight.)

I disagree completely. A union of will that exists only because a single being is alone is a trivial unity. A union that is formed between multiple beings who each exercise perfect choice by their own rational thought is a true harmony. It is perfect harmony; it could not be tighter or more exact or more meaningful.

It is not the LDS position that Satan was "one" with anything or anyone before he fell. All we know is that he was among the great angels, as was Adam, Enoch, Moses, etc. Also, that Satan fell demonstrates that his will was not ever "at one" with the Divine will. In fact, we only know of two Persons who enjoyed that status, namely Jehovah and the Holy Spirit. Becoming one with God is the end of His designs for His creation, not the beginning. I also don't see exactly what barbs aimed more at LDS thought has to do with establishing whether Origen could have fit the strict modern definition of monotheism. All we're going to catch on that line is a red herring.

Clearly from his own words Origin believes the Three are of One substance, which is to say one essence, a way of describing their Nature. So yes, that would make him in agreement with the Persons of the Trinity having One Nature, consubstantial.

I'll take this to mean you agree that the issue of consubstantiality is a good criteria to measure the question posed by the title of this thread.

One thing to be careful of is to assume that terms always mean the same thing over a 200-300 year period. Definitions do evolve, especially those that are in the midst of heated debate over exactly what they imply. Consider how the concept of separation of Church and State has evolved in 300 years.

In my next post I'll get into why nothing Origen says can be construed to imply consubstantiality. On the contrary, in his view Jesus is characteristically independent of God, and this takes precedence over oneness.

As I have tried to explain before, they saw no problem/conflict (yet) with consubstantial and the idea of a hierarchy WITHIN that One Nature. Read that again please.

Rather, IF they believed in consubstantiality (a big if), then they saw no problem/conflict (yet) with consubstantial and Subordinationism. It very well may be that they did see this conflict (yet) because there was nothing for a Subordinate Christology to conflict with. Clearly, we should expect that the gospel presented by the Apostles did not conflict with itself (whether they recognized it or not).

Think about it. Consubstantiality and Subordinationism cannot coexist within the Christian framework. Judging by the historical record (including the Bible), Subordinationism was with very high probability taught by the Apostles; it is found at every turn irrespective of geography. On the other hand, consubstantiality is invisible; it must be inferred in most cases (certainly in the case of Origen) by those who are expecting it to be there. If one had to judge on the basis of history which of the mutually exclusive options traced back to the Apostles, the answer must be a Subordinationist Christology. To suggest otherwise means either to deny history, or to accept that the apostles put forward a contradictory Christology that needed "fixing" by the philosophers.

One Nature and a hierarchy WITHIN. It is not either/or for them, it is both.

This is your claim, but it must be demonstrated. The pieces of the puzzle also match a scenario with a hierarchy AMONG Persons of the same Divine Nature. And if you look at the development of the Trinity in the East as opposed to the West, it was very much along these lines. It is a Social Trinity that best fits that historical development.

Note: Origen was a central pillar in the East for hundreds of years. Tertullian was influential first in the West. Consubstantiality originated in Latin Christianity. It should not be a surprise when we discover that Origen's Christology did not include consubstantiality.

Perhaps the other reason we can see a hierarchy within their works was that they were looking a the Trinity from a different view, one that if not carefully expressed is precarious next to the later Arian heresy. However, it is a view that is as true today as it was then. How so?
...

That such expression (commands, begotten, proceeds...) lends itself to the idea of a hierarchy should be obvious and without thinking through what that means in regards to One Divinity, one Nature (or there then being parts or shares of Divinity, perhaps unequal portions of Divinity...etc) this language was accepted.

What you have described is a functional subordinationism. While this is the common apologetic method to harmonize otherwise apparent contradictions in Scripture, it does nothing to resolve the conflict of the ontological Subordinationism that was expressed by the theologians who laid the foundations of the Trinity doctrine. If only one or two of the ECFs made this "mistake", then perhaps your point could be taken. However, there are no exceptions and the pillars of orthodox thought preserve the Subordinationist principles most clearly. Subordinationism was systemic, not marginal.

If you're going to claim that such a bedrock principle was a "mistake" made by the ECFs, why should we have any confidence in their ability to produce a "correct" Trinity doctrine?

It does not follow that in using these expressions on how the Persons operated that they tossed their CLEARLY expressed belief in One Nature, one essence, One Divine Being in the NATURE of the Trinity. It simply means they did not correctly or explicitly express one facet of the Trinity; that is how the Three Distinct Persons operated and they did not realize the impact of that language on another facet. A facet that they clearly held; specifically there being One and Only One Divine Nature.

This viewpoint is based entirely on projecting later developments into earlier thought. It is entirely incoherent to assert that earlier theologians in reality had the same ideas in mind, they just couldn't express themselves clearly enough. The Ante-Nicene belief is not clear at all because you must claim that "they did not correctly or explicitly express one facet of the Trinity". And by "one facet" you mean the core and uniquely defining aspect of the Trinity doctrine. Namely, that consubstantiality is not spelled out in most cases, while its polar opposite, Subordinationism, is a ubiquitous bedrock principle in the ECF theology.

"in [the Divine unity] there is no room for any trace of subordinationism..." --Leonard Hodgson, Doctrine of the Trinity, 102

We can and do correctly express the exact same ideas today just as the earliest Fathers did. And just as then, some hear this today and probably do mistake these expressions as a hierarchy within the actions of the Three Persons. Just because we talk this way today, it does not follow (just like it doesn't with Origen at least if we are correctly understood), that we do not believe in One Divine Nature.

Which contemporary idea expresses the thought that Jesus consists of only a portion the Divine substance? Which contemporary idea expresses the notion that Jesus is of the same "kind" of substance as the Father? Which contemporary idea specifies that Jesus is "other in ousia" from the Father? Which contemporary idea specifies that Jesus is eternally subject to the Father?

It is only after the divinity of Christ is directly and repeatedly attacked that the Church is forced to examine these words and utter them much more precisely and in the process correct the earlier Fathers language concerning the actions of the Three Persons.

You are correct that the councils were primarily interested in preserving the Divinity of Jesus. But Jesus was called God from the very beginning in the Scriptures and by the first followers. Why did his divinity start to be questioned from within? A key reason is that divinity itself was undergoing redefinition beginning around 150AD. As Greek definitions of Deity were introduced, the first Christian teachings had to evolve as well. Having redefined Deity, the incipient orthodoxy was able to wield a powerful weapon against their opponents: either they outright denied that Jesus was Divine, against tradition, or anyone who didn't accept the new definition could be accused of denying that Jesus was divine. No wonder Paul was so concerned about the saints keeping to the first gospel as presented by the Apostles.

 

[jeffC]

There are two grounds which in our discussion have been identified as criteria for the claim that an early Christian or Jew might not have been strictly monotheistic. The first is a belief in the existence of other gods, and the second (more critical, I think) is a lack of belief in a consubstantial Trinity. If a triad does not share identically the same substance, then the only alternative is that they have separate substances.

First, did Origen believe in other divine beings called gods, aside from the Most High God? Yes he did. Note that while the Very God is the One God, this does not deny that there are others who are divine (and remember that this is important with regard to Jesus' relationship with God as well).

He [John] uses the article [ho theos], when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God ... all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity. 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, hath 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 [note that Origen includes the Logos here] as it were of Him the prototype. [Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.2]

Now the God of the universe is the God of the elect, and in a much greater degree of the Saviours of the elect; then He is the God of these beings who are truly Gods. [ibid, 2.3]

There are some gods of whom God is god, as we hear in prophecy, "Thank ye the God of gods," and "The God of gods has spoken, and called the earth." Now God, according to the Gospel, Matthew 20:2 "is not the God of the dead but of the living." Those gods, then, are living of whom God is god. The Apostle, too, writing to the Corinthians, says: 1 Corinthians 8:5 "As there are gods many and lords many," and so we have spoken of these gods as really existing. [ibid, 1.34]

He [John] uses the article [ho theos], when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God&#8230;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 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 exalted rank than the other gods beside Him&#8230;[ibid 2.2]

"Men should escape from being men, and hasten to become gods." (Commentary on John 29:27,29)

"Thou shalt resemble Him . . . having made thee even God to his glory." (Refutations 10:30)

Also, note that Origen believed that each individual was co-eternal with Christ as Christ was with the Father, and was created spiritually before mortality. Thispre-existence established a system of "lords many and gods many". Closely related to Origen's beliefs are those of his teacher, Clement of Alexandria:

"But such a good conscience preserves sanctity towards God and justice towards men; keeping the soul pure with grave thoughts, and pure words, and just deeds. By thus receiving the Lord's power, the soul studies to be God." [Clement of Alexandria,Stromata VI.14]

"And the perfect inheritance belongs to those who attain to &#8220;a perfect man,&#8221; according to the image of the Lord....To the likeness of God, then, he that is introduced into adoption and the friendship of God, to the just inheritance of the lords and gods is brought; if he be perfected, according to the Gospel, as the Lord Himself taught." [Clement of Alexandria, ibid]

"Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god." (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks 1)

"If one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God.... His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes a god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, 'Men are gods, and gods are men.'" (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 3: 1)
​

An admission of other gods (and man's divine potential) does not follow the modern definition of strict monotheism. So on this fact alone we must admit that Origen and many of his fellows were not strictly monotheistic. We must also admit that for Origen, just because a being is called "god" does not imply consubstantiality.




Next, does Origen specify consubstantiality directly? No, just the opposite.

For Origen only the Father is "the God". We noted above that the Word was grouped with the other gods who are in the image of the uncreated God. What does this imply for consubstantiality? First, since the other gods are clearly not consubstantial there is great reason to conclude that neither was the Word. "And thus the first-born of all creation [the Word], 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".


Next, a God who is "one substance" with the Father must be a God of the same order as the Father. But not for Origen: "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." [Commentary on John, 2.3]. As the Word is of a superior order (highest summit) to other gods, so is the Father a God of superior order to the Son (based on the articles). Ultimately, the Father "transcends" the Son, he goes beyond Him. This is describing anything but consubstantiality; rather an express ontological distinction.


Next, consubstantiality assumes that the separate wills are a simple unity, as you have said yourself (also note that the "three wills" of Social Trinitarianism frequently bring the accusation of tri-theism). Yet, for Origen the will of the Son is independent. From no less of an authority than J.N.D. Kelly: "For Origen the oneness of the Son with the Father is important, but His independence is theologically prior." [Early Christian Doctrines, 130]


For Origen, the Father and the Son differ in ousia. If they are different in substance, they cannot share the same substance. W.G. Rocsh (conservative Lutheran scholar) observes: "At the same time, Origen wished to indicate the distinction between the Father and the Word. He insists that the Son is other in subsistence than the Father. They are two things in respect to persons (On Prayer 15.1; Cel. 8:12). The Father and the Son differ from each other in hypostasis (The commentary on the Gospel of St. John 2.2.10). Originally hypostasis and ousia were synonyms, the former Stoic and the latter Platonic, meaning real existence or essence." [William G. Rocsh, The Trinitarian Controversy, 14].

Again, from R.C.P. Hanson: "Origen does not like the concept of three hypostases united in one substance, as too much verging towards Stoic materialism, so he substituted for this a model of intellectual or noetic generation producing postases of different sorts, divine, angelic and human, the divine distinguished from the rest by possessing immutable existence not subject to the change which is induced by the operation of free will. The Father had the basic principle of existence (arche), the Son shared this by participation (metousia), and the Holy Spirit by meditation from the Son.... Origen never says that the Son comes from the substance of the Father; ... The foregoing account should have made it 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]



Your argument for Origen so far has rested on two claims, primarily. 1) That Origen called Jesus God while also professing belief in the one true God; 2) that the Word is "inseparable" from the Father.

We've seen how Origen called many beings God, not just the Son, and how the Son's divinity is derivable from the Father's, not independent of it. Your reason #1 falls, as the one True God is the Father ONLY for Origen. Other Gods exist, so Origen is not strictly monotheistic. Finally, the Word is inseparable from the Father, not because they are the same substance, but because in separating from the Father the Son would cease to be God (of course this is "unthinkable"). For Origen, inseparability is what preserves the Divinity of Christ, just as it would preserve the divinity of the other gods besides Christ. It is not a declaration of consubstantiality. Therefore we have Origen describing three actual Gods, not of the same substance, yet the Monarchy is preserved as the Father is the one True God, the fountainhead of all Divinity. Yet this is not strict monotheism.



I haven't addressed each of the quotes in your OP individually because we could haggle over any one of them indefinitely, and I'm sure accusations would fly back and forth of projecting our pre-conceived ideas into the text. I'm willing to take a look at any of them that you feel is most important to your case, but I feel all of them need to be examined in light of the larger picture of Origen's express denial that the Father and the Son share the same material. Also, you should be aware that in many cases, those passages that seem most to suggest consubstantiality (including a few of the better ones above) are only extant in Rufinus' translation, where he projected his views into the text (this is well admitted). You might want to ask why Rufinus felt the need to do this for Origen. A final thought from Kelly:

One must be careful, however, not to attribute to Origen any doctrine of consubstantiality between the Father and Son. Appeal is often made to a famous passage in which, after deducing from Wisdom 7:25 that the Son is 'a breath of the power of God, a pure effluence of the glory of the Almighty', he seems to point out that 'both these illustrations suggest a community of substance between the Father and the Son. For an effluence would appear to be homoousious, i.e. of one substance with, that body of which it is an effluence or vapour'. But this text, and several others expressing the same or similar ideas, remain open to grave suspicion because they survive only in Rufinus's whitewashing Latin translation. In works which have been transmitted in the Greek original Origen always represents the union of Father and Son, as has been noted, as one of love, will and action. [JNDKelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p130] ​

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Jeffcc,
Whomever you are copying those Origen texts from has an agenda, specifically to present Origen in the way you wish to see him.

The first section omits significant portions of the paragraph from which it is extracted. Read in its' entirety it is clear what Origen is saying, and nothing like what is being implied in the chop/paste of your post. In fact the section first quoted comes from a paragraph that in this online version has the banner

"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?


Do you still wish now to claim Origen, in speaking of Jesus agrees with the writer you are quoting?


Also in the omitted text is a clearer explanation of what Origen means by "gods", specifically that everything that is made reflects His Image, not that everything is a god. And in that category he correctly points out the difference between everything else in creation and the First Born (elsewhere he adds Only Begotten - as not made).

By the way, as indicated elsewhere, we have no problem with Origen correctly stating that everything the Son is (Divine, and it follows the Spirit), is owed to the Father. Properly understood, that does not mean what Kelly or whomever you are quoting or that you think it means.


Before we continue and given the obvious bias (that's polite - hatchet job is more like it) of the very first quote of Origen in your post, we wish to give you the opportunity to read those quotes in full and in context to see if you would like to edit any of the proceeding post.

Otherwise, we will proceed to correct the hatchet job of Origen it appears to represent. Here is a link

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

 

[jeffC]

Jeffcc,
Whomever you are copying those Origen texts from has an agenda, specifically to present Origen in the way you wish to see him.

I haven't quoted from any one person or article. The quotes I have are based on my own collection over the years I have been reading the ECFs alongside books and articles on them. I have read each quote presented here in context.

Jeffcc,
"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?



Do you still wish now to claim Origen, in speaking of Jesus agrees with the writer you are quoting?


Also in the omitted text is a clearer explanation of what Origen means by "gods", specifically that everything that is made reflects His Image, not that everything is a god. And in that category he correctly points out the difference between everything else in creation and the First Born (elsewhere he adds Only Begotten - as not made).

By the way, as indicated elsewhere, we have no problem with Origen correctly stating that everything the Son is (Divine, and it follows the Spirit), is owed to the Father. Properly understood, that does not mean what Kelly or whomever you are quoting or that you think it means.


Before we continue and given the obvious bias (that's polite - hatchet job is more like it) of the very first quote of Origen in your post, we wish to give you the opportunity to read those quotes in full and in context to see if you would like to edit any of the proceeding post.

Ad hominem in lieu of rebuttals against arguments that decimate your position is not persuasive.

There is no need to wait, as I have already re-read the The Commentary on John 2.2 as I prepared the arguments above. I anticipated your reaction to the "errors", and provided two clues in my first response that you will see lead to the conclusion that Origen, in condemning the two errors as you quoted above, is expressly condemning your position: consubstantiality!

I don't have the time now to respond in full today (Sunday), but perhaps you would like to take the time to re-read and understand the arguments that have been presented. You should especially re-read the quotes from Kelly. Look him up. He is a Christian scholar of the highest caliber, errs on the conservative side of arguments, is very interested in defending the Trinity doctrine (to a fault, in some more liberal eyes), and is generally well respected. Simply discounting his opinion won't do. Perhaps you should open yourself to the possibility that you are wrong about Origen. (Remember, he was anathamized by the Catholic Church due to his Christology and belief that all gods were co-eternal with the Father just as Jesus is.)

To give you time to re-examine the arguments, I won't respond in detail to your latest post until Tuesday (time permitting).

 

[DrBubbaLove]

This is not logically true. Power is not a "thing" to be handled, but the capacity to act or cause as one chooses. I'll avoid repeating the arguments made elsewhere since I discussed this at length in the other thread, here.

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 disagree completely. A union of will that exists only because a single being is alone is a trivial unity.

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

A union that is formed between multiple beings who each exercise perfect choice by their own rational thought is a true harmony. It is perfect harmony; it could not be tighter or more exact or more meaningful.

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.

I'll take this to mean you agree that the issue of consubstantiality is a good criteria to measure the question posed by the title of this thread.

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.

One thing to be careful of is to assume that terms always mean the same thing over a 200-300 year period. Definitions do evolve, especially those that are in the midst of heated debate over exactly what they imply. Consider how the concept of separation of Church and State has evolved in 300 years.

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.

In my next post I'll get into why nothing Origen says can be construed to imply consubstantiality. On the contrary, in his view Jesus is characteristically independent of God, and this takes precedence over oneness.

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. And my last post already comments on why nothing in your prior posts construes anything about what Origen believed.

Rather, IF they believed in consubstantiality (a big if), then they saw no problem/conflict (yet) with consubstantial and Subordinationism.

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?

It very well may be that they did see this conflict (yet) because there was nothing for a Subordinate Christology to conflict with. Clearly, we should expect that the gospel presented by the Apostles did not conflict with itself (whether they recognized it or not).

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.

Think about it. Consubstantiality and Subordinationism cannot coexist within the Christian framework.

We resent the implication that we have not thought about it. Clearly these early writers thought these ideas coexist because they held to both. As we still speak in subordination terms today, obviously we feel some subordination language is acceptable.

Judging by the historical record (including the Bible), Subordinationism was with very high probability taught by the Apostles; it is found at every turn irrespective of geography. On the other hand, consubstantiality is invisible; it must be inferred in most cases (certainly in the case of Origen) by those who are expecting it to be there.

Only if we overlook their comments regarding consubstantiality.

If one had to judge on the basis of history which of the mutually exclusive options traced back to the Apostles, the answer must be a Subordinationist Christology. To suggest otherwise means either to deny history, or to accept that the apostles put forward a contradictory Christology that needed "fixing" by the philosophers.

since these early writers showing subordination views also held to consubstantiality, we are not the ones denying history or claiming contradiction that needed “fixing”.

This is your claim, but it must be demonstrated. The pieces of the puzzle also match a scenario with a hierarchy AMONG Persons of the same Divine Nature. And if you look at the development of the Trinity in the East as opposed to the West, it was very much along these lines. It is a Social Trinity that best fits that historical development.

Actually doubt the orthodox in the East would agree with you, and it is not just my claim, it is what they said.

Note: Origen was a central pillar in the East for hundreds of years. Tertullian was influential first in the West. Consubstantiality originated in Latin Christianity. It should not be a surprise when we discover that Origen's Christology did not include consubstantiality.

Perhaps co-equal and “Spirit proceeding from both Father and Son originate in the West, but not consubstantial.
Consubstantial - of one and the same substance, essence, or nature
Or see Origen in my posta #3 and #4 in this thread.

What you have described is a functional subordinationism.

Well finally we get you to admit these early writers were attempting to explain how Three Persons would function in One Nature, One Being.

While this is the common apologetic method to harmonize otherwise apparent contradictions in Scripture, it does nothing to resolve the conflict of the ontological Subordinationism that was expressed by the theologians who laid the foundations of the Trinity doctrine.

Not sure what your point is here. We agree these writers have written what could be called the foundation of the same Trinity doctrine which the Latin Fathers later refine with co-equal. It is your position that this foundation is different from the later Fathers not mine, so we are confused at your admission here.

If only one or two of the ECFs made this "mistake", then perhaps your point could be taken. However, there are no exceptions and the pillars of orthodox thought preserve the Subordinationist principles most clearly. Subordinationism was systemic, not marginal.

If you're going to claim that such a bedrock principle was a "mistake" made by the ECFs, why should we have any confidence in their ability to produce a "correct" Trinity doctrine?

People make mistakes. The Church does not make mistakes in doctrine. Besides, you have not shown subordination to be a “bedrock” principle, nor have you shown we exclude it entirely today. In fact we showed the Creed itself can be viewed as having subordination language. We agree you seem to think this is bedrock and that somehow you feel we can ignore everything else these same subordination writers wrote about One Essence, One in Being, One God, Inseparable, Same Nature (not equal nature - and certainly all these “bedrock” principles given the number of times they repeat it), you claim this all because they mention subordination. People would later (hundred years or so) take subordination to an extreme (as you apparently do), but those people going to that extreme would NEVER talk in terms of One Essence, One Being, One God, Inseparable. These early writers did. So we hardly see the problem you see with their expression of subordination. Certainly some of these writers crossed a line in suggesting the Three could act independently, but at the same time they insist on the same One in Being that we do today.

This viewpoint is based entirely on projecting later developments into earlier thought. It is entirely incoherent to assert that earlier theologians in reality had the same ideas in mind, they just couldn't express themselves clearly enough. The Ante-Nicene belief is not clear at all because you must claim that "they did not correctly or explicitly express one facet of the Trinity". And by "one facet" you mean the core and uniquely defining aspect of the Trinity doctrine. Namely, that consubstantiality is not spelled out in most cases, while its polar opposite, Subordinationism, is a ubiquitous bedrock principle in the ECF theology.

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.
As to me inflicting later views, since yours comes much, much later and you choose to ignore every quote of these same writes saying absolutely that they believed in One God, Three Persons with One Essence, we wonder who is “projecting” here.

“in [the Divine unity] there is no room for any trace of subordinationism..." --Leonard Hodgson, Doctrine of the Trinity, 102

Obviously he does not consider “proceeding from” or “begotten” in the Creeds to indicate any degree of subordination. We do and always have, which is one reason these early writers speculated on the same. We agree with Hodgson in that one must be careful how far to take that idea.

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

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).

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.

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.

You are correct that the councils were primarily interested in preserving the Divinity of Jesus. But Jesus was called God from the very beginning in the Scriptures and by the first followers. Why did his divinity start to be questioned from within?

Why? Well for one, because people could not fathom a mere Man being God. Like all of us, the ability to fully grasp knowledge of God is not within our capability. Also, the idea of Three Person being One Being is foreign to our existence (one nature, one person). So it is easier to reject something foreign in favor of something familiar (multiple gods, all divine – just like people).

A key reason is that divinity itself was undergoing redefinition beginning around 150AD. As Greek definitions of Deity were introduced, the first Christian teachings had to evolve as well. Having redefined Deity, the incipient orthodoxy was able to wield a powerful weapon against their opponents: either they outright denied that Jesus was Divine, against tradition, or anyone who didn't accept the new definition could be accused of denying that Jesus was divine. No wonder Paul was so concerned about the saints keeping to the first gospel as presented by the Apostles.

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.
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.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I haven't quoted from any one person or article. The quotes I have are based on my own collection over the years I have been reading the ECFs alongside books and articles on them. I have read each quote presented here in context.


Ad hominem in lieu of rebuttals against arguments that decimate your position is not persuasive.

There is no need to wait, as I have already re-read the The Commentary on John 2.2 as I prepared the arguments above. I anticipated your reaction to the "errors", and provided two clues in my first response that you will see lead to the conclusion that Origen, in condemning the two errors as you quoted above, is expressly condemning your position: consubstantiality!

I don't have the time now to respond in full today (Sunday), but perhaps you would like to take the time to re-read and understand the arguments that have been presented. You should especially re-read the quotes from Kelly. Look him up. He is a Christian scholar of the highest caliber, errs on the conservative side of arguments, is very interested in defending the Trinity doctrine (to a fault, in some more liberal eyes), and is generally well respected. Simply discounting his opinion won't do. Perhaps you should open yourself to the possibility that you are wrong about Origen. (Remember, he was anathamized by the Catholic Church due to his Christology and belief that all gods were co-eternal with the Father just as Jesus is.)

To give you time to re-examine the arguments, I won't respond in detail to your latest post until Tuesday (time permitting).

Anyone that would quote Origen out of context, chopping up and ommitting relevant amplifying sentences within the same paragraph in order to suggest that Origen is saying something that he explicitly is not saying cannot in any sense be understood as trying to understand Origen.

Let's take the section you first quoted above, line by line.