{"id":4446,"date":"2013-03-09T06:26:57","date_gmt":"2013-03-09T11:26:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=4446"},"modified":"2015-08-19T16:18:47","modified_gmt":"2015-08-19T20:18:47","slug":"trinitarian-or-unitarian-5-origens-against-celsus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/trinitarian-or-unitarian-5-origens-against-celsus\/","title":{"rendered":"trinitarian or unitarian? 5 \u2013 Origen’s Against Celsus – Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"number-one-\"<\/a><\/em>Celsus<\/strong> 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).<\/p>\n

Decades later, it is not clear exactly why, the great Christian scholar Origen<\/strong> (182-254) wrote a massive refutation of this book, quoting substantial portions of it. This is the eight-book Against Celsus<\/em>, which was probably written aronud 246-8.<\/p>\n

There are many, many interesting things in the book. Here’s a quotation relevant to our present series:<\/p>\n

[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\u00a0i<\/strong>nconsistent with monotheism<\/strong> if they worship His [God’s] servant [Jesus]. <\/em>[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<\/strong>. ‘For the Father,’ he says, ‘is in me, and I am in the Father.’ (Against Celsus<\/em> 8.12, translated by Henry Chadwick, p. 460, original emphases, clarifying material in brackets and bold emphases added)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What is his argument here? One might jump to the conclusion<\/strong> 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,<\/p>\n

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<\/em>), 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,<\/em> the Father<\/strong> and the Son, and we still have a valid argument against the others<\/em>. (ibid<\/em>.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Origen starts by denying that Christians consider Father and Son to be numerically identical; no, they are two<\/em> entities<\/strong>. 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,<\/p>\n

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.<\/strong> …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 <\/em>in our belief about the Son of God. Indeed, we worship the Father by admiring His Son<\/strong> who is Logos, Wisdom, Truth, Righteousness, and all that we have learnt the Son of God to be… (8.12-3, pp. 460-1)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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<\/strong>. As to the worship or honor given to the Son, this ultimately goes to the Father.<\/p>\n

I think Origen makes some excellent points, though more can be said<\/a> about the term “worship” and varieties of worship. and he’s clearly right about John 10:30<\/a> (compare with John 17:11<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Now step back to look at the big picture<\/strong>:<\/p>\n