On First Principles Part Two

[David]

We are working our way through part two of Origen's On First Principles

If anyone has anything that jumped out at them, that you want to discuss, feel free. Make sure to note which section it was in (such as Book 2, chapter 1, paragraph 4 or 2.1.4) so we can find it.

In chapter 10 of book 2 he discusses hell which is interesting since he in book 1, and in the first chapter (and second chapter) of book 2, says that all things will be restored to their original state. I assume he expects us to remember that he said that, but I am surprised he made no effort to connect the two points right there in his hell discussion. I think he opens himself up to accusation of contradiction (though, full disclosure, I have not read chapter 11 yet and maybe he speaks on it there).

Here's one quote about restoration of all things:
And for this reason   we think that God, the Father of all things, in order to ensure the   salvation of all His creatures through the ineffable plan of His word   and wisdom, so arranged each of these, that every spirit, whether soul   or rational existence, however called, should not be compelled by   force, against the liberty of his own will, to any other course than   that to which the motives of his own mind led him (lest exercising free-will should seem to be taken away, which certainly would produce a change in the nature of being itself) - 2.2.2
I really liked how much Origen emphasized the importance of bodies, clearly in opposition to Gnostics. This is important to note as he spends a lot of time arguing that the God of the OT and the God of the NT are the same being. IF you forget the context in which he is writing this will make less sense, I think. Though this is still an issue today, so perhaps we want to discuss this?

I love what he says about the incarnation, such as this:

"we see in Him some things   so human that they appear to differ in no respect from the common   frailty of mortals, and some things so divine that they can   appropriately belong to nothing else than to the primal and ineffable   nature of Deity, the narrowness of human understanding can find no   outlet; but, overcome with the amazement of a mighty admiration, knows   not whither to withdraw, or what to take hold of, or whither to turn."2.6.2

He says there is a soul in all living things (2.8.1). Thoughts?

There is also stuff in here that pertains to Origen's belief in the pre-existence of the soul. It seems he believed all souls existed with freedom, some rebelled and then the rebellious souls were placed in bodies of sinful people while souls that did not rebel were the holy people. This summary is based on one reading so I'd need to go back and read a bit closer on it if anyone wants to discuss.

It seems an interesting solution to the problem of evil.

[Joshua]

I really like Origen.

Gnosticism is becoming quite popular these days. It's an easy out I think to explain God's apparent emotional outbursts.

I really do struggle to understand how the impassibility of God is even a concept. I'm sure it's a relic of Greek philosophy. It's nice to see Origen address it so succinctly in chapter 4 part 4.

Clearly God is filled with strong emotion.

I also really enjoyed his discussion on justice and goodness. It should be basic teaching these days I think. Humanism has done great damage to this biblical concept. So many, in my experience think of God as being universally benevolent inasmuch as they consider Him good. But goodness in truth must respond to evil as light repels darkness. I think of this often with my children. That to be a good parent necessitates correction of the child, albeit a painful process for both of us.

Chapter 5.3

"When He killed them, they sought him." Psalm 78 juxtaposed with Peter's discourse on the gospel being preached to those wiped out by the flood! wow.

It's so encouraging to me to see these things were taught by Origen in the early church.

[Joshua]

Anyone else find it fascinating that Origen presents a cosmology including something very similar to the Hindu concepts of reincarnation and karma?

[Peter]

I have a general comment that doesn't apply to any particular section.

I have been impressed that Origen is reading and talking about the same Bible that I read. For example:

(1) He talks about the Gospels (plural)
(2) He talks about the Gospel (singular) as the overall message of good news
(3) He profusely quotes Paul and the Gospel of John
(4) He assumes the reader knows what he is talking about in these quotations and that the reader understands about Christ's conversation with the Samaritan woman or Paul's talk about the Jewish mind (and those continuing in unbelief) being veiled
(5) He uses the common New Testament metaphor of light and darkness
(6) He bases his arguments on scriptural quotations
(7) He doesn't have to justify which scriptures he's using and why. He expects the reader to know them.

This underlines for me how early the New Testament writings were accepted as authoritative by people who followed Christ. It reminds me that the later decisions to officially decide which books were to be included in the codex which we call the New Testament was really just confirmation and affirmation of standard church practice from before Origen's time.

[David]

Good point Peter. How might a skeptic respond, do you think?

Might they say that this is because Origen's writings were orthodox enough to survive a later purge? In other words, 100 years or so after Origen when Constantine was emperor all heterodox stuff was destroyed but Origen survived?

Two problems - one is that there is no evidence of such a purge and two, Origen was not orthodox in everything. THere were huge controversies later in regards to his writings, even Arius thought he was being faithful to Origen.

It seems that all fringe groups were always that, fringe. There may have been other books whether other gospels or writings that some group here or there cherished, but the NT (at least about 22-25 of the books) had a totally unique, universal and early accceptance that others could not compare with.

[Peter]

Good questions David. One can always make a conspiracy argument from silence when one doesn't have any data. I guess in the end proof happens in a person's mind. Needless to say I find those arguments unpersuasive.

Your last point is interesting. We as lay students are often not given the numbers and led to believe that some of these spurious texts are more numerous than they really are. I remember reading one scholar (I don't have a reference) who pointed out even in the Egyptian finds that produced the many Gnostic texts that are now so popular, the conventional biblical texts still numerically outnumbered the Gnostic texts, but were not as interesting to academics because they were the same old texts. In my experience academia is always biased toward the new and (can I say?) bizarre. One can't get a doctorate reaffirming what everyone already accepts.

[Erick]

I am a rather staunch defender of orthodoxy; that being said, it isn't always easy to say who was and wasn't orthodox in the early centuries. Apparently, the gnostic Valentinus died a member of the church and was only subsequently considered a heretic. That was pretty much the same case with Tatian and Bardesan; both were considered orthodox for most of their lives. When, and if, they were ever heretics depended on who you asked. It is interesting that a lot of the supposed heretics were either native Greek, Coptic or Syriac speakers; coming from the locales of Syria or Egypt.
Often, the history of the church is full of those kinds of examples of people that did not raise eyebrows in their own day but did only at a later date. Theodore Of Mopsuestia was seen as a defender of orthodoxy until people like Cyril of Alexandria singled him out as an unorthodox Nestorian. To this day there is still much ambiguity in what actually qualified someone to be a Nestorian and what they actually believed according to Syrian proponents and Alexandrian opponents. Same goes with Monophysitism.
I think most of the orthodox pre-nicene fathers indicate their orthodoxy by clear allusions to creedal points. There can be room for disagreement as long as the creeds are maintained I think. Origen, I believe, maintained the creeds.