|
Listen to this post:
|
Of all the ancient catholic “fathers” I’ve read, Origen (c.185-254) is the most impressive as a scholar.
It’s not that I usually agree with him – any non-Platonist is going to choke on many of the dishes he’s serving, and I think that most today would take issue with some his ways of interpreting the Bible. But he has vast knowledge, he makes pretty careful distinctions, he knows how to argue, and is just a much more developed and original thinker than most. Any contemporary who was going to square off with him either did or should have considered him a formidable opponent.
He wrote, or rather dictated, a vast amount – evidently, he did little else. Some think he may have been the most prolific person in antiquity. We still have a fair number of texts from him.
He’s historically important for many reasons, but for this post, what’s most important is that in the 3rd century he was considered a stalwart of mainstream (“catholic”, or “proto-orthodox”) Christianity.
Lately I’ve been reading Origen’s Commentary on John, as translated by Ronald E. Heine, who by way, I have found very helpful. He too is a first-rate scholar.
Evidently, passage here is directed against certain monarchians who thought (or at least, were alleged to think) that the Father = the Son, i.e. that the Son is the Father himself and vice versa. This passage struck a nerve with me, as it reminded me of conversations I’ve had.
The references in brackets are from Heine’s footnotes.
Those, however, who are confused on the subject of the Father and the Son bring together the statement, “God… raised up Christ…” [1 Cor 15:15] and words like this which show that him who raises to be different from him who has been raised, and the statement, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” [John 2:19]
They think that these statements prove that the Son does not differ from the Father in number, but that both being one, not only in essence, but also in substance, they are said to be Father and Son in relation to certain differing aspects, not in relation to their reality. For this reason, we must first quote to them the texts capable of establishing definitely that the Son is other than the Father, and we must say that it is necessary that a son be the son of a father and that a father be the father of a son.
After this, we must say to them that it is not strange for him, who admits that he can do nothing except what he sees the Father doing, and who says that whatever the Father does, the Son likewise also does [Cf. Jn 5:19], to have raised the dead [cf. Jn 11:43-44] (which was the body), since the Father, who we must say emphatically has raised Christ from the dead, grants this to him. Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Books 1-10, sections 246-7, pp. 309-10).
Ah, modalism bashing. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel, no? Both relaxing and fun. And there’s no chance that bullet will ricochet back.
Let’s make it more interesting. It’s abundantly clear from all of Origen’s works that I’ve seen, that he doesn’t believe in a tripersonal God. Rather, the one true God, Yahweh of the Old Testament, is none other than the Father of Jesus. (In the present book, see pp. 41, 79, 83, 302-3.)
Thus, Origen’s passage above is also an argument that Jesus isn’t God.
Yes, he thinks Jesus can be called “God”, and is in some sense “divine”. Many a latter-day reader seizes on these undisputed facts, and adopts the comforting reading that Origen is an almost-trinitarian, or a trinitarian with a few unseemly subordinationist elements. But he’s not a trinitarian at all – he’s a unitarian. The one God just is a certain self (the Father), and so is “unipersonal”, as many nowadays put it.
(Did I mention that he thinks the Holy Spirit to be created by God through the pre-existent Christ? (pp. 114) This may be an eternal process, but Origen may think that about the material cosmos as well.)
Back to Jesus, for Origen, he’s most certainly not the one God himself, the Almighty. (As for the differences between them – he’s very consistent – but that’s another post. In brief, only the Father is divine independently.)
I’ve seen the sorts of arguments Origen refutes here many times.
- The argument goes like this: Text 1 says God did X. Text 2 say that Jesus did X. Therefore, God and Jesus are one and the same (numerically one, numerically identical).
- This, as it stands, is an invalid argument.
- Thus, the more careful add: And surely X is something which only God himself could do.
- Now, the conclusion follows. (Also, this makes the premise that God did X unnecessary – do you see why?)
- But Origen knew this conclusion couldn’t be true, as some things are true of one, which aren’t true of the other. Also, he knew the premise to be false – you don’t have to be God to raise the dead – a man empowered by God can pull that off!
- Thus, assuming the texts to be consistent, Origen finds a way in which both God and Jesus did this action (raising Jesus from the dead), but in different senses. In essence, his point is that the Father did it through the Son – the Son is the instrument of the ultimate agent (i.e. God himself), being empowered by God, and freely cooperating with him.
So he’s made a common philosopher’s move – making a distinction, to get away from a contradiction. And note that his distinction arguably isn’t ad hoc; it’s well motivated – even apart from this issue, there is abundant reason (in the Gospel of John alone) to think that Jesus’s miraculous acts are empowered, enabled by the Father, who works through him.
It’s hard to find anything wrong with his impressive refutation of the claim that Jesus is God himself. I told you he was a pro!
Note that his core point (that it is false that f =s) doesn’t depend on his unitarianism. A present day “social” trinitarian like, say, William Lane Craig, can, would, and should agree with Origen about that. Where Craig, et. al. would disagree is on whether Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, is numerically the same as the Father. (Origen would have plenty to say about that!)
Pingback: trinities - THE EVOLUTION OF MY VIEWS ON THE TRINITY – PART 8 (DALE)
Hi Dale,
I’m wondering about one of the consequences of your proposed terminology. For example, subordinationist unitarianism implies a divine dyad or triad. Also, humanitarian unitarianism could include a divine dyad. Consequentially, does this leave us with “unitarian bitheism” and “unitarian tritheism”? This appears to be the case. But awkwardness includes that unitarian bitheism or tritheism is somehow monotheism. I myself could live with this 🙂 while I admit its awkwardness.
I learned a lot from my conversation in this thread (thank you Dale and Dave), which includes a better understanding of some ideas of Origen. On biblical grounds, I strongly disagree with Origen’s eternal subordinationist emanation of the Son, while I appreciate that Origen’s metaphysics of the emanation appears plausible, despite my strong disagreement with it. However, somebody might have an argument against the metaphysical plausibility that might change my mind. 🙂
Dale, maybe somebody already pointed this out in the comments (too lazy to read each one), but the painting of the guards melting away in front of the resurrected Christ – um, only Matthew records the posting of the guard, and he says that they were scared of the (singular, in Matthew) angel, not the Christ. So it’s at best a conflation or conjecture and at worst unhistorical/unbiblical, no?
“A scholar I much respect, Larry Hurtado, has argued that 2nd temple Jewish monotheism is basically ancient med. polytheism which has been demythologized (e.g. the highest god lacks a wife).”
Ironically, during the 1st temple, to the chagrin of the biblical prophets, sometimes the highest god Yahweh had his Asherah.
“If Arius was a bitheist or tritheist, then so were Justin Martyr, Hippolytus of Rome (who was actually accused of bitheism by Callistus, Bishop of Rome), Basil the Great, and many others.”
Hi Dave,
I concede that if Arius was a bitheist or tritheist, then all subordinationist such as the Logos theologians were. But why to you say that Basil the Great would be included in this category?
James – my proposed terminological standards are not widely accepted, which in my view is partly why there’s so much confusion about all of this.
So, if you use “sub. un” or “hum. un.”, you had sure better define them.
Yes, it does, to put it mildly. A scholar I much respect, Larry Hurtado, has argued that 2nd temple Jewish monotheism is basically ancient med. polytheism which has been demythologized (e.g. the highest god lacks a wife). I think this is not right – and mean to get around to writing about it. There’s a lot of confusion out there in theological realms about monotheism, I think.
Oh, you covered my question well in your supplement “Unitarianism.” 🙂
Hi Dale,
I am wondering about the consensus of your standards. For example, if I wrote an academic paper and I referred to “humanitarian unitarianism” and “subordinationist unitarianism,” then would I need to define those terms or are they an academic standard in all theology and philosophy circles?
“Yes, he believes in a divine triad, but God is one of them! The same holds for all the late 1st – early 2nd c. catholic ‘logos theologians.'”
They believed in a unified divine triad and the one true God was one of them. This has some resemblance to ancient Mediterranean polytheism apart from the unity and a self-existent God. This is a theological category all by itself.
“One more comment: the difficulty of defining what counts as ‘monotheism’ is bedeviling both sides. Both trin. and unit. are supposed to be by def. monotheistic. But it seems that some in each camp believe in more than one self which is in some sense divine, and which can be called “a god” and addressed as ‘God’.”
Hi Dale,
Given your above qualification, I agree that you have a consistent and simplified system of classification that I understand.
Both sides would like to claim Origen as in, or near, their camp. Hence, universally trinitarians think of him as a deviant or almost-there trinitarian. And most unitarians insist that he’s a unitarian (or, close to one, if by “unit.” you mean humanitarian unitarian).
I say, let’s use a helpful, heresy-neutral labels. A unitarian holds the one true God to be a self. A trinitarian holds the one true God to (in some sense) be three selves.
On these sensible definitions, it seems to me the unitarians are basically right here. Origen should be described as a subordinationist unitarian. Yes, he believes in a divine triad, but God is one of them! The same holds for all the late 1st – early 2nd c. catholic “logos theologians”. Some trinitarians, like Moreland and Craig, recognize that this logos theology is fundamentally out of step with (their social) trinitarianism, and basically say it was a big mistake, a dead end. But more typically, folks attempt to spin it as part of the inevitable march towards Constantinople.
There’s a tendency by trinitarians to think that so long as the Son and Spirit are elevated in status, so as to be in some sense divine, then the view in question is trinitarian. But that’s just a mistake, perhaps based on the recent (demonstrably false) assumption that either one holds that Jesus is “just a man” or else he’s “fully God”.
Dave: wow. I wish I had more time to comment on your interesting historical stuff.
James: Your “broadest sense” plainly encompasses many unitarians. Which is to say, this use of the term is not helpful. Compare: using “liberal” in a way that encompasses both Ralph Nader and Rush Limbaugh.
It’s important, in my view, to have standard terms, as much as possible, which are descriptive labels. “Unitarian” (capital U) has been pretty much ruined by Unitarian Universalism, and historically, it refers to denominational unitarianism. I prefer the term “humanitarian unitarian” for those who hold that Jesus, though the Son of God, had only a human nature (no pre-ex).
Compare with the recent use of “pentecostal” to refer to Pentecostals (i.e. those in the historic Pent. denominations), Vineyard folk, and non-Pentecostal charismatics.
Speaking of labels, “Arian” is a poor one, invented, as I understand it, by Athanasius, to tar his enemies with the proper name of one who’d been condemned (then vindicated, then condemned etc. by a series of councils). But the so-called “Arians” were not, really, his school, followers, or disciples. Sheer repetition made it stick. They would’ve insisted that they were the true catholics, the truly apostolic upholders of tradition, and I think most didn’t give a fig about defending the honor of Arius.
Pedantic, yes. But I’m a professor, so it’s to be expected.
One more comment: the difficulty of defining what counts as “monotheism” is bedeviling both sides. Both trin. and unit. are supposed to be by def. monotheistic. But it seems that some in each camp believe in more than one self which is in some sense divine, and which can be called “a god” and addressed as “God”.
“James, you will need to explain what you mean by ‘trinitarian’, because right now your use of the term isn’t making a lot of sense to me.”
In the broadest sense, trinitarian belief refers to the Trinity as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This, however, leaves open doors for tritheism and modalism.
I see that I primarily thought of unitarianism in the common narrow sense. I suppose that I tended to avoid the broader use of unitarianism because that includes bitheism and tritheism. But, hey, I am also referring to a broad sense of trinitarianism that includes tritheism and modalism. 🙂
James, you will need to explain what you mean by “trinitarian”, because right now your use of the term isn’t making a lot of sense to me.
Unitarianism is simply the belief that God is one person, not two or more. Justin Martyr falls into this category, as do the other ontological subordinationists.
Unitarianism does not preclude the pre-existence of Christ per se, thus even Arius was a unitarian (strictly speaking). However, the term is now more commonly associated with those of us who deny a pre-existent Christ.
When writing, I usually distinguish between the two positions by using a lower case “u” for unitarians who accept Christ’s pre-existence, and an upper case “U” for those who don’t.
Thanks, Dave. You fit along the lines of what I call unitarian, which includes the rejection of belief in an incarnation of a preexistent divine person.
I distinguish between unitarianism and subordinationism. I will keep my eye on how Dale continues to develop his case for the historical existence of subordinationist unitarianism, but I hold that Tertullian and Origen were subordinationist trinitarians. Also, I suppose the classification gets sketchier before Tertullian coined the term “Trinity.” Additionally, I concede that all systems of classifications are ultimately discretionary.
James:
John 1:1-14 refers to the creation of the world by the Father, through His divine logos (word/reason/plan; take your pick using any good lexicon). Jesus is the “light” (also “light of the world”, John 1:4-5, 7-9) which was within the logos (John 1:4). Needless to say, this does not require pre-existence.
God’s work reaches a crescendo when His logos becomes a person: Jesus Christ (John 1:14). Note the obvious parallels with Genesis 1, where God speaks and creation comes into being.
I addressed John 1:1-14 in my debate with Rob Bowman (see the post here, and scroll down a bit until you reach the relevant section).
John 1:18 is a disputed text, which cannot be relied on as evidence for the deity of Christ. I addressed it in my debate with Bowman. You’ll find a brief analysis in the main article here; just scroll down until you hit John 1:18, or run a word search for it on the page.
I Corinthians 8:6 defines the Father alone as God, and the Son as Lord (without any reference to the Holy Spirit). Paul refers to the natural, old creation (“from” the Father) and the spiritual, new creation (“through” the Son).
I covered this verse in my debate with Bowman (see the post here). Colossians 1:16 (another new creation verse) is addressed in the same place.
James:
You are correct. Tertullian is one of those who said that the Son somehow existed “within” the Father before his “generation.” This is explained in Adversus Praxean, chapters 5-8. Note that the Son has no independent existence apart from the Father until he “proceeds from God.”
Tertullian also puts the words of “Wisdom” from Proverbs 8:22 into the mouth of the Son, directly equating the two. As he says in Chapter 7:
Dave,
I’ll need to take a closer look at Justin’s theology proper and Christology, which won’t happen in the short term because of other projects. I just reread the first three chapters of Tertullian’s _Against Hermogenes,_ and I’ll need also need to look at more of Tertullian’s work.
I know some around that time said that the Logos always existed inside God, and then the Logos became beside God. This might have something to do with Tertullian’s context in _Against Hermogenes,_ but I don’t know for sure. I believe in an essentially dimensionless Trinity, so this idea of being inside and then beside is all foreign thought to me anyway. 🙂
May I drift more from the subject of Origen’s alleged subordinationist unitarianism? I ‘m curious. I don’t understand your (Christdelphian) view of the Son in creation per John 1:1-18, 1 Corinthians 8:6, and Colossians 1:16. In this thread, I’m not looking for a defense but a mere brief description. And a web link would do.
James:
There is a difference, though its full significance may depend on what you mean by “subordinationist.”
I can’t comment, as I’m not familiar with Hasker’s theology. But if that’s what he implies, it’s blatantly tritheistic.
There’s more than just one sentence. Justin explicitly describes Jesus as numerically and ontologically distinct from the Father, but refers to them both individually as “God” (or “another God”, in the case of the Son).
He has no doctrine of consubstantiality or eternal co-existence, and the concept of “another person of God” is alien to his theology.
James:
The Arians would never have defined their Christology in such crude terms, yet from what I have read, they never denied the substance of what you are saying here.
Some attempted to distinguish the Son from other creatures, but with limited success. The biggest problem for the Arians was that although they found it easy to define what the Son is not, they had great difficulty defining what he actually is.
I agree. It is abundantly clear that this is what they believed, regardless of how they chose to define and describe it.
James:
No. Arius had always taught that the Son was created outside time. As far as I can tell, he did this because it allowed him a sort of philosophical halfway house between “the Son did not always exist” and “the Son has always existed.”
Personally, the whole contrivance strikes me as intellectually dishonest.
At any rate, this belief was still held by the Arian community after Arius’ death. But as the Christological controversy wore on, Arians began to express themselves in terms barely distinguishable from Nicene Christology.
The 5th Arian Confession (AD 344) said in part:
The explicit rejection of the phrase “There was once when He was not” is clearly intended to appease the Nicenes. Yet even this statement is qualified by an assertion that the Son was generated “apart from time” (a phrase borrowed from Arius himself). It’s all smoke and mirrors, but the continued dependence upon Arius’ original teaching is clear.
The so-called “semi-Arians” went further, with substantial modifications to their Christology. Many of them were eventually won over by the three Cappadocians (particularly Basil, who shared some sympathy with their doctrine).
For an explicit, verifiable statement that the Son did not always exist, we must go back a few years to Tertullian, who said:
(Against Hermogenes, Chapter 3).
James:
There is no concrete evidence that Arius ever said there was a time when the Son did not exist. As Hall has observed:
(Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church, 1994).
Arius’ own beliefs certainly evolved over time, and Arianism developed even further after his death. But the idea that the Son had been created outside time is indisputably an original teaching of Arius himself:
(Arius; Letter to Alexander of Alexandria , as quoted by Athanasius in De Synodis, 16).
Correction:
Gregory of Naziannzus not Basil the Great said that the Son had a beginning in eternity.
Hmm. I suppose history is correct in that Arius initially said that there was a “time” when the Son didn’t exist. But after Arius died, his followers got more sophisticated and said that the Son originated before all ages and didn’t always exist. Or perhaps Arius revised his view after his initial announcement that there was a time when the Son didn’t exist. In either case, this set the stage for Basil the Great when he made his name great by saying something like, “The Son had a beginning in eternity and always existed, so why don’t you Arians sign on the dotted the line.” Then many Arians abandoned the doctrine that the Son had a beginning in eternity and didn’t always exist. Does this sound like an accurate recap of church history?
Did any or most Arians reject that they believed in a created co-creator? Even if some denied that, I still hold that they believed in a created co-creator.
Anyway, I see a categorical difference between subordinationists who say that the Son always existed versus those who say that the Son didn’t always exist. I also understand somebody such as Willaim Hasker may imply that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit always existed possibly as three Gods who act harmoniously as one God. (I cannot shake the idea from my mind that Hasker proposes an eternal Mexican standoff, but I suppose that’s an unfair characterization of his theology. Or is it? 🙂 )
Justin Martyr definitely made at least one sentence that appears inconsistent with monotheism, but I doubt that if he were pushed that he would say that the Father and Son are two Gods. He might have implied that the Son is something along the lines of another person of God, but since he didn’t make many statements like this, and I’m unsure of what he meant. (I also see I confused some criticism of Justin with what he wrote.)
Athanasius goes on to complain that the Arians’ use of “unoriginate” does not correspond to the three accepted definitions of this word. Instead, he says, they have invented a fourth definition to suit themselves:
(De Decretis, 7.28, 29).
Here’s another attack by Athanasius. In this passage he explicitly identifies the Arian belief in a created creator:
(De Decretis, 7.28).
James:
Ah, that’s the sneaky part. The Arians believed the Son was created “outside time.” This allowed them to affirm that there was no time when he did not exist, while simultaneously denying that he was unoriginate. Cunning, eh? 😀
Athanasius attacked the Arians on this point, correctly recognising the inherent dangers of their terminology:
(Against the Arians, 1.34).
“But those who say,
(2) and that there was a time or age when He was not, the Catholic and Holy Church regards as aliens.”
Okay, now I’m confused. If I correctly understand this Arian confession, it says that there never was a time or age without the Son. Does this merely imply that the creation of the Son began all ages?
The previous quote from the 5th Arian Confession affirms monotheism in opposition to polytheism, and denies that the Son is ingenerate.
The following quote from the 6th Arian Confession (AD 351) affirms Christ as co-creator, and asserts that he has an origin (or his deity has an origin, if you prefer):
James:
Yes I do. From the 5th Arian Confession, AD 344:
I have more, but this will do for now.
Pollard (Johannine Christology and the Early Church, 2005) argues that Arius’ Christology stemmed from a desire to preserve monotheism without compromising Jesus’ divine status. He is not alone in this.
Pollard refers to “the extreme monarchianism of Arius”, arguing that “Arius’ monotheism is closer to [the Antiochine tradition] than to the pluralistic monotheism of Origen and his ‘subordinationism’ is of an entirely different kind from that of Origen.” This is an important distinction.
Please bear in mind that I am no apologist for Arianism, and consider it heretical.
James:
There is nothing Trinitarian about Justin Martyr. The minimal qualification for Trinitarianism is three eternal persons sharing the same essence of deity, comprising one being. But Justin doesn’t even come close to this.
He explicitly refers to Jesus as “another God” in a numerical and ontological sense, and describes the Holy Spirit as a type of angel. I see no evidence that he believed Jesus had always existed ontologically as God.
You can’t include ontological subordinationism as a property of Trinitarianism. It’s got to be one or the other.
James:
Given that Justin explicitly identifies Christ as the Logos of John 1, it is difficult to see how you can say he excludes Christ from the act of creation. I know he only ever reserves the title of “Creator” for the Father, but I’m not sure this is enough to prove the point. Do you believe the Holy Spirit was a co-creator with Christ?
Note that Justin says the Son emerges from the Father as one torch lit from another, clearly affirming homoousios (albeit not using that exact word).
Is it possible to share the Father’s nature without sharing deity? Can you explain why Justin refers to Jesus as “God” and “another God”?
Don’t worry, Origen is perplexing to everyone. 😀
“Like Origen, the Arians had no difficulty referring to Christ as ‘God’ in the sense of a divine being ontologically distinct from the Father; to their minds, it did not compromise monotheism. This is why they were happy with the gloss ‘only begotten God…’ in John 1:18.”
Dave, Do you have any ancient sources on Arians defending monotheism while holding that Christ was a created creator? Unfortunately, as we all know, Arius and his writings were mistreated, so we don’t know most of his approach.
I’ll also clarify that given the assumption that Martyr held that Christ always existed ontologically as God but subordinate to the Father while there is only one God, then Martyr held to what I call subordinationist trinitarianism.
“Martyr is a subordinationist but Arius is a bitheist or tritheist? Seriously? Arius is no less a subordinationist than Justin. They are both ontological subordinationists.”
Hi Dave,
I’ll first clarify that I’m primarily looking at the “criteria” for classifying the beliefs of Pre-Nicene Church Fathers while I’m currently not looking to pin down particular beliefs of particular Fathers.
Given that, assuming Martyr believed that Christ was nothing more than an archangel-human who didn’t help to create the physical universe, then Martyr held to what Dale says is “subordinationist unitarianism.” But if somebody such as Arius says that Christ was a created co-creator of the of the universe, then that’s polytheism.
Origen is more perplexing to me because he evidently said that nobody created a cyclic universe.
I initially reject the classification of “subordinationist unitarianism,” but now I suppose that Martyr might fit that description while Arius doesn’t. I’m still debating Origen’s classification while I’m not jumping to pin him down, if that were at all possible with only one life to live. 🙂
Dale, thanks for those quotes from Origen. Tertullian uses similar language, particularly in Adversus Praxean.
I concur with your analysis.
In essence, if you think there was a time when the Son was not, you’re saying that God wasn’t always a father. (So? Would that make him less perfect somehow?) And, you’re saying that God used to be less than wise – because his wisdom didn’t exist yet!
But this is a ridiculous argument – at the start of I.2.2 he’s emphasized that the Logos really is a self – not a merely attribute of God, but a substance and a “living being”.
Analogy: Bob’s kid is his pride and joy. So, before that kid existed, Bob was without either pride or joy. Poor guy!
Looking now at my hard copy of the new translation, one might think that he understands divine eternity in terms of omnitemporality – being at all times, not at no time.
Thus, about the pre-human Son (Logos), Origen says that he is “clearly older than” anything that was created. (p. 104)
But the crucial part, I think, is what he says later: “there was no time when the beginning [i.e. God, the Father] was without the Word.” (p. 129)
In De Principiis I.2.1 (old trans p. 246) he says, to paraphrase, that God’s generation of the Son is “before” all time – which i take to mean, timelessly. He argues for this point – he thinks that it is contradictory to think that a perfect being doesn’t generate Wisdom – ’cause then he’d be either unable or unwilling to do so.
It is clear there that he has in mind what would later become the favorite Arian text – Wisdom speaking in Proverbs 8, say that the Lord created (=Logos?) her. Here’s Origen’s Platonist take:
In short, Platonic “forms” (aka universals, ideas, properties) reside in the eternal Logos – because she contains these, Wisdom says she’s the “beginning” (i.e. source) of God’s creation.
Yep. Which puts him in the same boat as Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, Tatian, and many others.
Justin openly refers to Jesus as “…another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also called an Angel” (Dialogue with Trypho, 56). Examples could be multiplied.
His theology of the Holy Spirit is poorly developed, but there is sufficient to demonstrate that he believed the Holy Spirit to be a separate being from the Father and the Son, just as the Son is a separate being from the Father.
Any decent academic authority on the subject will confirm it. And again, you have the testimony of Callistus, Bishop of Rome.
Martyr is a subordinationist but Arius is a bitheist or tritheist? Seriously? Arius is no less a subordinationist than Justin. They are both ontological subordinationists.
I believe Justin’s first impulse would be to refuse the Creed. If pushed, he would probably reinterpret it to suit himself, and signed it under the guise of orthodoxy (as Eusebius of Nicomedia and nearly all of his fellow Arians did).
Personally, I don’t believe he was a bitheist or tritheist. I would call him a binitarian at most. But if your logic leads you to believe Arius was a bitheist or tritheist, Basil becomes equally heretical by default.
Basil denied that the Holy Spirit is homooúsios with the Father and Son (similar to the Pneumatomachi, whom he ironically opposed). His writings also betray a deep reluctance to describe the Holy Spirit as “God.”
Basil’s Cappadocian colleagues downplayed these idiosyncrasies, privately making allowance for his reticence while publicly condemning others with equal or similar views.
Even Athanasius supported Basil against his critics, though this is more easily understood when we remember that Athanasius was working to win over the semi-Arians at this time, and needed to maintain a conciliatory public profile.
Amusingly, the three Cappadocians were accused of bitheism and tritheism by their contemporaries. By contrast, Arius was merely trying to sustain an older Christology which had ceased to be fashionable.
This is well documented by Hanson (The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381, 1988), McDowell (Arius: A Theological Conservative Persecuted?, 1994) and Williams (Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002) to name just a few.
Arian clearly taught that the Son is a creation of the Father and that the Son created the physical universe, which designates the Son a distinct god. I need to read more about Hippolytus of Rome to have any conclusion about his views. Martyr was a subordinationist, but I don’t know how he would’ve responded to the Nicene Council. And I’m mostly sure that Basil the Great was a monotheist.
That’s a novel conclusion. How do you arrive at it?
If Arius was a bitheist or tritheist, then so were Justin Martyr, Hippolytus of Rome (who was actually accused of bitheism by Callistus, Bishop of Rome), Basil the Great, and many others.
“Yes – I call his brand subordinationist unitarianism – another species of s.u. would be 4th c. “Arian” views.”
Hi Dale,
I’m still making up my mind about Origen, but Arian was a bitheist or tritheist, so I have my doubts using the term “subordinationist unitarianism.”
Hmm. I can see what he’s saying, but it’s a pretty weak proof text!
His extant works are vast. But I thought his main proof-text would probably be this, and a quick online search confirmed this. Notice the crucial Platonic assumption here – still held by many – that God must be somehow timeless, or “outside of” time. (It’s none too clear when you’re looking at this webpage, but this is a passage from Origen’s commentary on the Gospel of John, the old translation.)
Hi reality checker,
I have not found any Scripture cited by Origen as support for the eternal generation of the Son. Either he never tried to do this, or he did and I just haven’t found it yet! But it seems more likely that the former is true.
Origen was a staunch neo-Platonist, and his theory of “eternal generation” appears derived from the neo-Platonic concept of “eternal emanation.” It’s a nifty philosophical sidestep, allowing him to describe the Son as increate without compromising the Father’s unique status as autotheos.
Note that Origen is careful to delineate “begotten” as distinct from “made” or “created.” This distinction becomes increasingly vital to the Christological theories and debates of subsequent centuries.
Hi Dave!
I appreciate your input about Origen. From your study of Origen, have you come across any Scripture CITED by Origen as presumed scriptural support for his belief that the Son is ETERNALLY generated? I have read, I think either in Lamson’s Church of the first 3 Centuries’ or in Rowan Williams ‘Arius Revisited’ that Origen justified his belief in the Eternal generation of the Son mainly philosophically, on the presumption that the Father could not be eternally Father if the Son were not Eternally Generated by the Father. In fact Lamson indicated that Origen had a similar concept concerning creation’s eternity, since according to his reasoning, God could not be eternally Creator if creation was not also eternally in process of creation from the Father. I’ve also read that Ireneaus also had a similar doctrine of Eternal Generation but haven’t known where to look.
You’re absolutely right. It’s interesting that Origen’s Christology provides some of the terms and definitions which Arius would later use, and for which he was regarded heretical.
Note the idiosyncratic reference to ‘two gods’ below:
Origen: Is the Father God?
Heraclides: Assuredly
Origen: Is the Son distinct from the Father?
Heraclides: Of course. How can he be Son if he is also Father?
Origen: While being distinct from the Father, is the Son also God?
Heraclides: He himself is also God.
Origen: And do two Gods become a unity?
Heraclides: Yes.
Origen: Do we confess two Gods?
Heraclides: Yes, [but] the power is one.
(Dialogue of Origen with Heraclides and his Fellow Bishops on the Father, the Son, and the Soul).
Origen goes on to explain that the Father and Son are ‘one’ in the same sense as Adam and Eve, citing Genesis 2:24 & Matthew 19:5. He adds the proviso that Adam and Eve are ‘two in one flesh’ but ‘not two in one spirit’ or ‘two in one soul.’
Citing I Corinthians 6:17, Origen says ‘the just person and Christ are “one spirit”… Yet when a just person is united to Christ the word is “spirit” and when Christ is united to the Father the word is not “flesh” or “spirit” but the more prestigious word “God.”‘ This is how Origen understands John 10:30 (‘I and my Father are one.’)
Arius inherited much of his Origenist Christology from Lucian, with some variations.
On one hand, he rejected Origen’s belief in the ‘eternal generation’ of the Son. On the other hand, he appreciated Origen’s description of Christ as ‘a second God’ (Contra Celsum, 5:39), and endorsed Origen’s teaching that the Father alone is autotheos.
Like Origen, the Arians had no difficulty referring to Christ as ‘God’ in the sense of a divine being ontologically distinct from the Father; to their minds, it did not compromise monotheism. This is why they were happy with the gloss “only begotten God…” in John 1:18.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses use the same gloss in their New World Translation, which also refers to the logos as “a god”, not “God” (John 1:1).
Re. Calvin & autotheos: I’ve only just begun scratching the surface of this topic, but would welcome the opportunity to contribute a guest post when I’ve compiled my findings into a coherent form.
😀
Hey Dave,
Yes – I call his brand subordinationist unitarianism – another species of s.u. would be 4th c. “Arian” views.
I think some hear “anti-trinitarian” when I say “unitarian”, but of course, Origen couldn’t be that. A “unitarian”, as I use it, isn’t necessarily rejecting or reacting against anything – they just hold that f = g, that is, the one who true God (or Origen would say – the only god with no other god above him) just is the Father.
I’d be interested in that Calvin ref. Or, let me know if you have enough thoughts to do a guest post.
Origen is one of my favourite early church fathers; a towering intellect combined with a profound spirituality and an unwavering faith. The scale of his literary output beggars belief, and I suspect there are many mainstream Christians today who now regret that the church destroyed most of it.
Origen argues powerfully that the Father alone is autotheos, while the Son’s divinity is necessarily derived from the Father (Commentary on John, 2.2; De Principiis, 1.2.6, 11, 13). As you say, this theology is essentially unitarian, notwithstanding the pre-existence element.
Incredibly, Calvin believed that all three persons are autotheos, which is de facto tritheism at best, and fully blown tritheism at worst!
Comments are closed.