Approaching Origen

[alexanderjames]

I recently listened to Ryan Hurd (from the Davenant Institute) on the London Lyceum podcast who has very high views of Origen's interpretation of the Scriptures, but said Origen is extremely difficult to interpret properly himself! It has got me curious.

I realise Origen is an extremely divisive figure and potentially dangerous to read.

Please does anyone have any advice on how best a newcomer would approach reading Origen for profit?

 

[Charles Johnson]

Ryan Hurd is promoting crypto-papist views, including the four-fold sense of Scripture.
Origen is about the absolute last writer someone new to theology should be reading.

 

[RamistThomist]

I recently listened to Ryan Hurd (from the Davenant Institute) on the London Lyceum podcast who has very high views of Origen's interpretation of the Scriptures, but said Origen is extremely difficult to interpret properly himself! It has got me curious.

I realise Origen is an extremely divisive figure and potentially dangerous to read.

Please does anyone have any advice on how best a newcomer would approach reading Origen for profit?

He is relevant as a source of early church information, but that's it. I read De Principiis, but I never saw the appeal. I absolutely hate that type of allegory.

 

[dsanch1120]

I read some of Origen’s commentaries when trying to determine if the early church baptized infants. Origen definitely had some weird views, even the RCC and EO as far as I’m aware don’t consider him a saint.

 

[alexanderjames]

Ryan Hurd is promoting crypto-papist views, including the four-fold sense of Scripture.
Origen is about the absolute last writer someone new to theology should be reading.

I suspected this might be the case in part.

How about someone grounded in reformed theology that wants to explore Origen as part of reading the early church more widely?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Ryan Hurd is promoting crypto-papist views, including the four-fold sense of Scripture.

I noticed the same thing years ago. He is a young man who got too far too quickly. And, before anyone asks, I say that as one of the more Thomas-friendly people on this board, though I agree with Charles that the Aquinas recovery has been too uncritical and unbalanced.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I suspected this might be the case in part.

How about someone grounded in reformed theology that wants to explore Origen as part of reading the early church more widely?

I would start with sounder fathers. If one has already read Augustine, Tertullian, Athanasius, Theodore, Chrysostom, etc, then Origen could be a natural next step in terms of understanding historical developments.

 

[RamistThomist]

I suspected this might be the case in part.

How about someone grounded in reformed theology that wants to explore Origen as part of reading the early church more widely?

Probably. You have to wade through some textual issues. There is some debate on how accurate Rufinus's translation of Origen is. As it stands, it seems that Origen believed in an eternal fall of the soul into man (as well as universalism). The text, though, is corrupted at points.

Contra Celsum is interesting debate that sheds light on early church practices. It's long, though.

 

[Ed Walsh]

I recently listened to Ryan Hurd (from the Davenant Institute) on the London Lyceum podcast who has very high views of Origen's interpretation of the Scriptures, but said Origen is extremely difficult to interpret properly himself! It has got me curious.

I realise Origen is an extremely divisive figure and potentially dangerous to read.

Please does anyone have any advice on how best a newcomer would approach reading Origen for profit?

Greetings to all the Saints, beautified by the indwelt Seed (1 John 3:9) of God following a violent coup d'etat, with Jesus as the victor and new Owner,
Or, just plain "good morning all,"

If you are familiar with Origen's (c. 185–c 253) life's work and some of what we would consider nuts and sometimes even heretical from our better-instructed vantage point. Yet, for all his lopsided views, Origen is among the most important of the Fathers for reasons beyond the present scope. (listen to the Podcast)

Origen favored Universalism that extended even to the Devil himself being redeemed in the end. (Universalism was common in the Early Church)
He (almost certainly) castrated himself as a young man, (Matt. 5:27-31), but I could find no exact age, plus his writings say nothing about the matter. This history is considered 'probably true' and is corroborated by several of Origen's contemporaries.

[BTW – Castration was strongly forbidden by Roman Law and could have led to Origen's exile or death. [Rome was in some sense a fertility cult]​

Nevertheless, Origen is among the class of the most important Church Fathers. Check out several of the five Podcasts about Origen.​

And there are lots more interesting biographical and theological things to learn. Visit the following Podcast for a very interesting, earthy, and comprehensive (with the obvious limitations of space and time) presentation of the highlights of the Early Church–warts 'n' all.

The History of the Early Church Podcast​

by Terry Young

The Story of Christianity from 30 to 451 A.D. –
Covering the great stories of the Apostles, bishops, Saints,
monks and martyrs, from Pentecost to the Council of Chalcedon.​

1. Podcast #23 – Origen: The Early Years: https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/historyoftheearlychurch/episodes/2015-08-16T20_51_56-07_00
2. 24- Origen’s Contemporaries: https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/historyoftheearlychurch/episodes/2015-08-24T21_28_10-07_00
3. 26- Origen at Caesarea: https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/historyoftheearlychurch/episodes/2015-10-11T18_25_59-07_00
4. 27- Origen: The Later Years: https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/historyoftheearlychurch/episodes/2016-01-30T17_53_19-08_00
5. Bonus 3- Origen of Alexandria with Steve Guerra: https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/historyoftheearlychurch/episodes/2019-01-23T19_05_31-08_00
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The whole Podcast (nearly 80 sessions) is found at these sites:

• History of the early church.wordpress.com
• History of the [email protected]
• Facebook.com/earlychurchpodcast

The series on Origen include the following:​

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I knew a guy at work who was really into his writings. The guy at work was a full-on heretic, if that says anything.

 

[RamistThomist]

I knew a guy at work who was really into his writings. The guy at work was a full-on heretic, if that says anything.

It might say something, it might not. Many guys today who are into Origen are simply parroting David Bentley Hart. Few, and I mean very few, actually have done the hard work of reading hundreds of pages of sometimes tortuous argumentation.

 

[MyCrows]

I cannot, for the life of me, understand how universalism is not a denial of the gospel.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I cannot, for the life of me, understand how universalism is not a denial of the gospel.

It is if you ask me, but I suppose in some cases you might have to ask what kind of universalism and how does it practically work itself out. If it's just, everyone is saved full stop, then I believe we have a massive problem.

 

[Phil D.]

He (almost certainly) castrated himself as a young man, (Matt. 5:27-31), but I could find no exact age, plus his writings say nothing about the matter. This history is considered 'probably true' and is corroborated by several of Origen's contemporaries.

To be fair, as you at least alluded to, whether or not Origen castrated himself is not a settled matter. I know there is close to a historical consensus that he did, but the arguments that can be given against such having been the case are considerable.

First, the primary evidence of it is a second-hand account from one Demetrius, a semi-hostile colleague, as later reported third-hand by the church historian Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 6.8.1.ff). However, Eusebius’ account is somewhat contradictory. He claims Origen did it partly to be free from slander (as he was a teacher of both young men and women catechumens), and then says he couldn’t hide it, however hard he tried. But if the reason for becoming a Eunuch was to avoid slander, wouldn’t you make sure everybody knew about it?

Eusebius also claims that in addition to avoiding suspicion while teaching girls, Origen castrated himself because he took Matt. 19:12 too literally. But Origen is probably best known for his allegorical, non-literal interpretation of Scripture.

Perhaps most importantly, Origen himself wrote: “Let us suppose there is a difference between church and synagogue. In its proper sense the church has no spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but is holy and blameless. Into it enters no bastard or eunuch or one castrated.” (On Prayer, XX.1; PG 11:477) Moreover, this was written after Origen had moved to Caesarea, meaning that unlike many of his other writings, it was not subject to having been corrupted by his primary translator into Latin, the notoriously unscrupulous Rufinus.

I of course do not agree with much of Origen’s theology. In terms of universalism, however, it is notable that one of the much revered Cappadocian Fathers, Gregory of Nyssa, taught it as well.

 

[MyCrows]

I of course do not agree with much of Origen’s theology. In terms of universalism, however, it is notable that one of the much revered Cappadocian Fathers, Gregory of Nyssa, taught it as well.

As does the current sitting pope of Rome, and the face of big eva in the US, who sits in Houston.

 

[TheInquirer]

Is ”the juice really worth the squeeze” in light of the fact that: A) life is really short and B) there are doctrinally healthy theologians and the Bible to invest one’s time in”?

Unless you are a church historian, or there is an outbreak of Origen-infested heresy in your immediate vicinity, I have trouble understanding the point when the man‘s legacy is almost entirely negative from what I have gathered. In fact, I have never heard anything good about him from sources I trust.

 

[Phil D.]

As does the current sitting pope of Rome, and the face of big eva in the US, who sits in Houston.

Sure, but with the big difference that Gregory has sainthood status in Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, and Anglicanism alike.

 

[py3ak]

a semi-hostile colleague

Is there any other kind?

 

[Phil D.]

Is there any other kind?

Ha! - fortunately, yes - but point taken...

 

[RamistThomist]

Sure, but with the big difference that Gregory has sainthood status in Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, and Anglicanism alike.

And Gregory's is more metaphysical, if that makes any sense. Wrong, to be sure, but he isn't doing quite the same thing that today's hippies are. They are universalist just because it is edgy. Gregory is diligently, if sometimes mistakenly, working through Plato's metaphysics.

 

[MyCrows]

Sure, but with the big difference that Gregory has sainthood status in Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, and Anglicanism alike.

All that proves is the hastiness and lack of discernment on their part.

 

[RamistThomist]

All that proves is the hastiness and lack of discernment on their part.

It's not quite that simple. Much of what we understand by Nicene Trinitarianism comes from Gregory. And his "universalism" is muted, so to speak. The first time I read through Gregory's entire work, I wasn't convinced he taught it.

 

[kingabben]

Is ”the juice really worth the squeeze” in light of the fact that: A) life is really short and B) there are doctrinally healthy theologians and the Bible to invest one’s time in”?

Unless you are a church historian, or there is an outbreak of Origen-infested heresy in your immediate vicinity, I have trouble understanding the point when the man‘s legacy is almost entirely negative from what I have gathered. In fact, I have never heard anything good about him from sources I trust.

In the vein of Historical Theology, Origen is actually of immense value for his contributions to the recognition and definition of the Trinity. He was the first (unless I am mistaken) to recognize the eternal generation of the Son. Even though he posited a subordinationist view (a lot of theologians did in those days), his writings cast a very large shadow over the discourse at Nicaea and beyond. So for all his errors and aberrant views, he did contribute that.

 

[Ploutos]

I tend to think we should evaluate Origen's doctrine in light of the responsibility accorded to us by virtue of the more thorough development of Christian doctrine since then. But we should evaluate Origen as a person in light of his time. He is one of the greatest and most prolific minds in church history, and if he was guilty, implicitly or explicitly, of subordinationism, universalism, and a host of other strange and errant beliefs, many of the church's stances had not yet been codified yet at the time and he was not consciously rebelling against established orthodoxy. His imagine was far too fertile for his time, and not bounded by the theological guardrails he would have encountered in a later age.

As far as Nyssa goes, not only did he lean toward universalism, but he was a seminal advocate of the synergistic soteriology that has been part and parcel of Eastern theology for the last 1500+ years.

We should read them in that light, with discernment, sifting the good from the false, and not excusing people or movements who latch on to their sub-orthodox ideas. For Gregory, there's the Retrieval Movement, with its decidedly ecumenical and implicitly anti-confessional bent. And, of late, Origen has a bunch of fanboys eager to cross not just the Tiber but the Adriatic under the mantra "what if it was Augustine, not Origen, who was wrong all this time?" Their intellectual credentials are formidable because they've watched at least a dozen YouTube videos by people who really know where it's at and have lots and lots of likes.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Perhaps most importantly, Origen himself wrote: “Let us suppose there is a difference between church and synagogue. In its proper sense the church has no spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but is holy and blameless. Into it enters no bastard or eunuch or one castrated.” (On Prayer, XX.1; PG 11:477) Moreover, this was written after Origen had moved to Caesarea, meaning that unlike many of his other writings, it was not subject to having been corrupted by his primary translator into Latin, the notoriously unscrupulous Rufinus.

I of course do not agree with much of Origen’s theology. In terms of universalism, however, it is notable that one of the much revered Cappadocian Fathers, Gregory of Nyssa, taught it as well.

Hi Phil,

Thank you for your wisely chosen additions; and clear yet gentle corrections. (FYI – Your words were not wasted)

Thanks,

Ed

 

[TheInquirer]

In the vein of Historical Theology, Origen is actually of immense value for his contributions to the recognition and definition of the Trinity. He was the first (unless I am mistaken) to recognize the eternal generation of the Son. Even though he posited a subordinationist view (a lot of theologians did in those days), his writings cast a very large shadow over the discourse at Nicaea and beyond. So for all his errors and aberrant views, he did contribute that.

Thank you, I was not aware of that. Good to hear he did something right .

 

[Polanus1561]

In the vein of Historical Theology, Origen is actually of immense value for his contributions to the recognition and definition of the Trinity. He was the first (unless I am mistaken) to recognize the eternal generation of the Son. Even though he posited a subordinationist view (a lot of theologians did in those days), his writings cast a very large shadow over the discourse at Nicaea and beyond. So for all his errors and aberrant views, he did contribute that.

From what I read... his middle ground on this may have actually held the fort against full blown Arianism sweeping the land... @RamistThomist ?

 

[Simpleton Luke]

How about someone grounded in reformed theology that wants to explore Origen as part of reading the early church more widely?

I suppose this is alright. Like other posters in this thread, I read a bit of Origen while trying to find the historicity of infant baptism, and it seems that Origen along with many of his contemporaries were proponents of baptismal regeneration (removing the taint of original sin), along with other sacramental weirdness, including potentially transubstantiation.
I asked our associate minister about the weirdness surrounding the early church fathers, and he reminded me that even within one year of Paul's preaching, false teachers were creeping into those churches.
Reading the fathers requires a massive grain of salt, since much of their teaching takes on a very different cultural flavor than our own church writings, and they are blatantly wrong about some very basic doctrines.

 

[RamistThomist]

From what I read... his middle ground on this may have actually held the fort against full blown Arianism sweeping the land... @RamistThomist ?

Kind of. If you would have asked someone if the Son and Father shared the same ousia, they might have stared at you blankly. Ousia was often considered to have material connotations, which meant the Father might not have ousia. Moreover, as the Father was absolutely simple, there must be some mediating term between him and the rest of creation. That's how the Logos functioned in Middle Platonism. It's very easy to see how quickly this could become heretical, and in many ways Origen was breaking new ground.

On one hand, Origen's Trinitarianism is inadequate for our tasks. On the other, I do not see him saying what Arius would later say. I recommend Christopher Beeley's On the Unity of Christ.

 

[alexanderjames]

Thank you for the responses.

A valid thought -

Is ”the juice really worth the squeeze” in light of the fact that: A) life is really short and B) there are doctrinally healthy theologians and the Bible to invest one’s time in”?

Unless you are a church historian, or there is an outbreak of Origen-infested heresy in your immediate vicinity, I have trouble understanding the point when the man‘s legacy is almost entirely negative from what I have gathered. In fact, I have never heard anything good about him from sources I trust.

The reason is that I plan to do a serious survey of the early church to be able to teach about the early church and combat errors should they arise. And Origen's influence is too significant to disregard. I find that lamentably believers around me as well as myself are largely ignorant of the history of the church, and I would like to change that.