Celsus was a pagan philosopher, essentially a cultural and religious conservative, who wrote a book attacking Christianity, perhaps around 177-80 (though some have argued that it must be no later than 161).
Decades later, it is not clear exactly why, the great Christian scholar Origen (182-254) wrote a massive refutation of this book, quoting substantial portions of it. This is the eight-book Against Celsus, which was probably written aronud 246-8.
There are many, many interesting things in the book. Here’s a quotation relevant to our present series:
[Celsus writes:] If these men [Christians] worshiped no other God but one, perhaps they would have a valid argument against the others. But in fact they worship to an extravagant degree this man who appeared recently [Jesus], and yet think it is not inconsistent with monotheism if they worship His [God’s] servant [Jesus]. [Origen responds:] I should say to this that if Celsus had considered the saying, ‘I and my Father are one’, and the prayer uttered by the Son of God in the words, ‘As I and thou are one’, he would not have imagined that we worship another besides the supreme God. ‘For the Father,’ he says, ‘is in me, and I am in the Father.’ (Against Celsus 8.12, translated by Henry Chadwick, p. 460, original emphases, clarifying material in brackets and bold emphases added)
What is his argument here? One might jump to the conclusion that Origin thinks the Father and Son to be one god. Thus, his point would be that in worshiping the Son, the Christians worship one and the same god they worship when they worship the Father. But that is not at all Origen’s point. The passage just quote immediately continues,
If, however, anyone is perturbed by these words lest we should be going over to the view of those who deny that there are two existences (hypostases), Father and Son, let him pay attention to to the text, ‘And all those who believed were of one heart and soul’, that he may see the meaning of ‘I am my Father are one’. Accordingly we worship but one God, the Father and the Son, and we still have a valid argument against the others. (ibid.)
Origen starts by denying that Christians consider Father and Son to be numerically identical; no, they are two entities. In the last sentence here, the way the translator has punctuated seems to make the sentence hint that the one God somehow “is” both Father and Son. But it’s clear from Origen’s works as a whole, and from this section, that he identifies the one God with the Father. It should be punctuated like this: “we worship but one God, the Father, and the Son…” Because he is clear that there are two whom Christians worship. First, he makes the point that they think the Son pre-existed his human life. Then,
Therefore, we worship the Father of the truth and the Son who is the truth; they are two distinct existences, but one in mental unity, in agreement, and in identity of will. …we worship the one God and His one Son, His Logos and image, with the best supplications and petitions that we can offer, bringing our prayers to the God of the universe through the mediation of his only-begotten Son. We bring them to him first, asking him who is a a propitiation for our sins to act as a high priest, and to bear our prayers and sacrificies and intercessions to the supreme God. …And Celsus cannot show that there is any discord in our belief about the Son of God. Indeed, we worship the Father by admiring His Son who is Logos, Wisdom, Truth, Righteousness, and all that we have learnt the Son of God to be… (8.12-3, pp. 460-1)
Father and Son “are one” in will, in purpose. That doesn’t show that the Son and Father are, or are parts of, but one object of worship. But it shows that the Son is no rival to the Father. While Origen could be clearer, it is plain that he thinks in one sense Christians worship two, Father and Son, but in another sense, Christians worship one, the Father. As to the worship or honor given to the Son, this ultimately goes to the Father.
I think Origen makes some excellent points, though more can be said about the term “worship” and varieties of worship. and he’s clearly right about John 10:30 (compare with John 17:11).
Now step back to look at the big picture:
- Does Origen defend the monotheism of Christians by urging that the one God is the Trinity, the tripersonal God, and so when one worships any of those persons in the Trinity, or is worshiping the one God? And does he affirm the absolutely equal worship of there such “persons” internal to the one God? (trinitarian)
- Or does Origen assert the one God to be the Father, and argue that in a sense, only he is worshiped, although in another sense Christians also worship God’s Son. (unitarian)
Pingback: “Subordinationism” (Dale) » trinities
“I see humanitarian unitarians and subordinationist unitarians as two species under a genus – Christian unitarians”
And yet, not all subordinationist unitarians can be grouped together under one “species” either, as there is an important difference between understanding that the prehuman Son was created by God (according to Scripture as “the firstborn of all creation” and “the beginning of God’s creation” – Col 1:15, Rev 3:14, and as such with an origin from early times – Mic 5:2) or believing he was somehow mysteriously eternally generated.
Pingback: trinitarian or unitarian? 6 – Origen’s Against Celsus – Part 2 (Dale) » trinities
Dale,
I have been arguing your take on “trinitarianism”, “unitarianism” and “subordinationism” since I started commenting on this blog of yours … 😉
MdS
MdS,
Excellent – now we’re arguing. Thanks for looking those up. I have to run now, but will respond later. This probably deserves a post of its own.
Dale
@ Dale
You are correct at least in one point: that the problem is with your … er … “extended” definition of “unitarian”. I will simply ignore your articles SEP > Trinity (where Subordinationsim is not even mentioned) and SEP > Unitarianism (nearly half of which is spent on “Subordinationism”), for the obvious reason that you have a vested interest in them.
Here are some standard dictionary definitions:
[subordinationism] the doctrine that the first person of the Holy Trinity is superior to the second, and the second superior to the third. (© Random House, Inc. 2013)
[subordinationism] either of two interpretations of the doctrine of the Trinity, often regarded as heretical, according to which the Son is subordinate to the Father or the Holy Ghost is subordinate to both (Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009)
[subordinationism] the theological tenet of progressively declining essence within the Trinity. (-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc.)
[subordinationism] a doctrine in theology: the second and third persons of the Trinity are subordinate (as in order or essence) to the first person and the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Son (© 2013 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated)
Oh, and BTW, this is what we read in the Encyclopedia Britannica:
“[Origen‘s shows himself to be one of the most] original and profound of speculative theologians. Neoplatonist in background, his system embraces both the notion of the preexistence of souls, with their fall and final restoration, and a deeply subordinationist doctrine of the Trinity—i.e., one in which the Son is subordinate to the Father. ”
Take care.
MdS
MdS,
Sorry, but you have not refuted either of my definitions – of “trinitarian” or Christian unitarian. Instead of just endlessly stating your outrage and incredulity, you should give reasons why one or both is mistaken. I’m not going to respond to hot-headed demands.
I see humanitarian unitarians and subordinationist unitarians as two species under a genus – Christian unitarians. You’re certainly entitled to your view that the former view is correct, but I don’t see the point of huffing and puffing that the latter are not REAL unitarans. They just are, by my definition.
Is that giving them too much, in your view? I’m not giving them anything – I’m just classifying views with an aim towards understanding them, and comparing their merits.
I am very much interested in the truth of the matter, and in which one of those gets the Bible right. I’m just not on those subjects at present.
@ Dale
So here we are again.
You are trying to convince us that, because Origen (ca. 184 – 254) was not “trinitarian” in the full sense of Constantinople, in the sense of the Cappadocian scoundrels (how could he possibly be?), he was … “unitarian”.
In trying to prove the “unitarianism” of Origen, you follow the specularly reverse approach to that of Augustine, when the latter realized how difficult, nay impossible, it is to trying to harmonize John 17:3 with “trinitarianism” (for my exam of Augustine’s dishonest prestidigitation, see John 17:3 and that little squirmy thing, Augustine @ community.beliefnet.com)
You keep pretending that such expression as “unitarian subordinationist” is not your self-serving expression, intended to support your peculiar POV whereby, unless “trinitarianism” is “co-equal, co-eternal” it has nothing to do with … “trinitarianism”.
By doing this, you render the Arian Controversy entirely senseless.
Worse, you don’t explain where the “pre-existent Son” and/or the “personal Spirit” would have come from, in Patristic though. Actually you refuse to realize that the problem lies precisely there.
A disaster …
MdS
Comments are closed.