Dale Tuggy

Dale Tuggy is Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Fredonia, where he teaches courses in analytic theology, philosophy of religion, religious studies, and the history of philosophy.

4 Comments

  1. villanovanus
    March 11, 2013 @ 4:37 pm

    I’ve still got my shirt on, don’t worry …

    … and, in the meantime, I’ve posted a comment on your OP here … 😉

    MdS

  2. Dale
    March 11, 2013 @ 9:39 am

    Pre-scheduled post – keep your shirt on. Relevant one is coming.

  3. villanovanus
    March 11, 2013 @ 7:50 am

    Dale,

    I wonder if you intended this to be the “post of its own” that you anticipated at “Origen Against Celsus – Part 2” (#4, March 10, 2013 at 8:36 am). It certainly is a “post of its own”, but it is totally irrelevant as an answer to my objections.

    Anyway, let’s look at the new post. Let’s concentrate on the quotations from Origen, in particular the parts of that you have bolded.

    [a] There is nothing in the doctrine which is not fitting or appropriate to God, that He should cause the existence of an only-begotten Sonof this nature. (Against Celsus 8.14, trans. Henry Chadwick, pp. 461-2, bold added)

    [b] We affirm that this person is Son of God – yes, of God to whom, if we may follow Celsus’ words, we pay very great reverence; and we know His Son who has been greatly exalted by the Father.

    [c] But we may grant that some of those among the multitude of believers take a divergent view, and because of their rashness suppose that the Saviour is the greatest and supreme God. But we at least do not take that view, since we believe him who said: ‘The Father who sent me is greater than I.’ Consequently we would not make Him whom we now call Father subject to the Son of God, as Celsus falsely accuses us of doing. …the Son is not mightier than the Father, but subordinate. …We affirm that the Saviour… is Lord of all that has been subjected to him… but not that he is also lord of the God and Father who is mightier than he. …It is not our purpose to worship any merely assumed God, but to worship the Creator of this universe and of all else which is not sensible or visible. (8.14-5, pp. 462-3, bold added)

    [a] Origen is clearly referring to the doctrine of the “eternal generation of the Son”, and identifies that eternal “only-begotten Son” with Jesus

    [b] When Origen speaks of the Son being “greatly exalted by the Father”, he clearly refers to Jesus’ glorification with and after his Resurrection and Ascension (Acts 2:32-36; Phil 2:9-11).

    [c] In spite of your sarcasm on the “confused Christians”, you have clearly failed to recognize that this is, on the part of Origen, a polemic against the Sabellians/modal-monarchianists who affirmed that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirits are three “modes” or manifestations of the one God, and that, consequently, “the Saviour is the greatest and supreme God”. Contrary to this, Origen affirmed the real subsistence of three hierarchically subordinated hypostases.

    … does Origen argue that Jesus deserves worship, even though he is not God himself, but is (eternally) caused to exist by God, so that God is greater than his Son? (unitarian)

    However many times you repeat and vary your question, this is “unitarianism” ONLY within your peculiar nomenclature.

    MdS

  4. Helez
    March 11, 2013 @ 7:38 am

    Thanks Dale, I enjoy these series.