Origen - First Principles Part 3

[Jana]

I've just read up till "Chapter 1. On the Freedom of the Will, With an Explanation and Interpretation ..." but I thought I would start a discussion on Origen's account of free will for part 3. From my understanding (and please feel free to correct me or add to my breakdown!) his argument contains the following:

1. Man is rational, and rational animals are capable of distinguishing right from wrong and choosing which to do.

2. Regardless of what happens to us that is beyond our control, we choose how we react or respond to our circumstances.

3. God treats everyone equally, but everyone responds in different ways: out of one identical action, some receive Him, some reject Him. Thus, He can claim to give a fleshly heart to some and harden the hearts of others (like Pharaoh), without causing the obedience or the sin.

5. God gives to each what he/she as earned/deserves. (“God, which equitably administers all things, governs also immortal souls on the justest principles, (conferring rewards) according to the merits and motives of each individual; the present economy of things not being confined within the life of this world” 17)

6. If God does not cause obedience or sin and each person receives an eternal destiny according to his/her deserts, God does not totally cause eternal reward or eternal punishment. (“… while the rain falls in kindness and impartiality equally upon the whole earth, yet, by one and the same operation of the rain, that soil which is cultivated yields with a blessing useful fruits to the diligent and careful cultivators, while that which has become hardened through the neglect of the husbandman brings forth only thorns and thistles.” 10)

7. Our eternal salvation or damnation is a combination of our efforts and God’s. He gives us the “stuff” of rationality and free will, we freely react to what He gives us, and He gives to us according to our choices and behaviors.

So it seems as though Origen claims we have free will, and that there are eternal consequences to our choices, indicating the existence of hell in his theology? We have a part to play through our free will in where we end up, but our salvation will only be secured with God’s help.

My thoughts (I know you’re all dying to know):
• As some have said before, it seems like Origen claims there is a hell now, of the torment variety. This is a definite departure from earlier. Am I misreading this?
• If salvation is due in part to us and in part to God, then eternal damnation must be dependent on both, as well. On some level, does this suggest God damns His creation?
• Origen refers to the fact that we react to God’s movements according to our individual “pre-existing state” – does this refer to the time before we were born (thus, invoking a bit of deterministic Calvinism) or does this merely refer to our state prior to a specific action of God (aka, our current mindset/heart that has resulted from our choices up to that point)? I am not clear on this.
• I do like how Origen emphasizes individuality in how God deals with each individual, sometimes withholding His truth or grace until the time when each person would be most receptive.

Thoughts? What else is significant to consider? Do you find Origen's defense of free will compelling, and is his account consistent with what he has argued before?

[David]

Thanks for getting this going, I've been a bit behind. I'll chime in soon.

[Rod]

I don't think Origen has given thoughts to how the entire Biblical account fits together. He's partially trying - but maybe he's asking the wrong questions: Like

Does God love everyone?
How is all of existence about Jesus?
What is the point of angels and demons?
Is God just collecting nice people for his heaven?
What is the point of election?

And the weirdest question: Since God has NOT done absolutely everything he can to reveal himself to AND save everyone - Why not?

I haven't read much Origen so i'm just going off Jana's thoughts.

[Joshua]

Jana wrote.

Our eternal salvation or damnation is a combination of our efforts and God’s. He gives us the “stuff” of rationality and free will, we freely react to what He gives us, and He gives to us according to our choices and behaviors.


My understanding of Origen from previous discussions is that he comes from the perspective that this life is just a part of our existence. Who we were before we were assigned to this body influences who we are now. In a similar fashion who we will be is shaped by our choices in this life.

To Origen the process of salvation is bigger than this lifetime. Our choices guide our growth. I don't think Origen would say eternal damnation in the sense we understand it, rather, as we step into eternity we are judged according to our works. Except of course those who are in Christ.

Throughout eternity God continues to work as Peter testified in his writings regarding the spirits who were previously rebellious.

[Jana]

Joshua wrote: "Our choices guide our growth. I don't think Origen would say eternal damnation in the sense we understand it, rather, as we step into eternity we are judged according to our works. Except of course those who are in Christ.

Throughout eternity God continues to work as Peter testified in his writings regarding the spirits who were previously rebellious."

Ah, I think I see. So is Origen saying that the final judgment point comes only once an individual reaches Heaven? This end point comes at different places for each individual; aka, for one person it comes immediately after death, for another it comes "later" in their eternal life. Hell, then, is only temporary, if he does, indeed, uphold universalism as he seemed to earlier.

The concept of what or who we are pre-earthly-life is interesting. I'm not as biblically savvy as others in this group, so are there verses that talk about this or suggest it? Maybe Origen included some and I missed them... The only ones I've read I've interpreted as God knowing who we are in His mind before He gives us a physical body, not necessarily that we exist in conscious/sentient spiritual bodies before physical birth. It seems like Origen's view would require a spiritual "bodily" existence (used only because I'm not sure how else to describe it) prior to our earthly lives. Simply "existing in the mind of God" wouldn't be a sufficient condition for claiming pre-existence, for we would need to have some sort of agency pre-birth to be judged on our free decisions or choices.

[Joshua]

Regarding pre existence there is very little in canonised scripture. It is inferred however in statements like God's statement to Jeremiah. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you"

However Origen did quote Thomas occasionally, and that gospel does speak our pre-existence in terms of a "being". It is likely Origen's view would have been shaped by such things.

To my mind, as you say, existence as a thought of God is a very abstract concept. I would have thought the term "know" implies a form of existence.

[David]

Good summary!

As some have said before, it seems like Origen claims there is a hell now, of the torment variety. This is a definite departure from earlier. Am I misreading this?

I noticed that too. We do need to take into consideration he was not fighting our battles; when we discuss universalism vs. eternal conscious torment we are discussing it in light of 2000 years of theology that shape us. Along those lines, we do not have all the details of what people were saying in Origen's day - imagine reading one half or one side of a debate and trying to fill in the rest.

I'd suspect that for Origen hell and punishment are real, but temporary (which I guess is what Josh said)

If salvation is due in part to us and in part to God, then eternal damnation must be dependent on both, as well. On some level, does this suggest God damns His creation?

I don't think so. You could say that, you could as easily say that God is always willing to help people (give grace) to those who choose to want it. So the part we play is simply receiving. Refusing to receive God's gift is not God's fault.

Origen refers to the fact that we react to God’s movements according to our individual “pre-existing state” – does this refer to the time before we were born (thus, invoking a bit of deterministic Calvinism) or does this merely refer to our state prior to a specific action of God (aka, our current mindset/heart that has resulted from our choices up to that point)? I am not clear on this.

I think Origen believed in pre-existence of souls. I don't have the reference in front of me, but I did get that from him in the book. Souls chose, prior to being in bodies, a path and were placed in bodies accordingly.

I especially like your point 7, how God and humans work together. It seems to me that prior to Augustine, this was the common view in the church and was always the common view in the east.

[David]

Rod, I wanted to respond to your comment. I think there are two options when reading long dead Christians like Origen:

*Be critical of them, finding fault with what you think they missed
*Be open to what you can learn from them

It seems your perspective is reading questions we are asking today back into Origen's day. He was not fighting our battles, though there is some similarity. I am not saying you have to agree with him, or give him a pass. But it seems wrong to judge a writer in 200 AD in terms of what we are thinking in 2015 AD.

I've benefited from all sorts of writers, I enjoyed reading both Calvin and Theresa of Avila though I am neither a Calvinist nor a Catholic. I disagree with both, but I also recognize both have a lot to teach me. I guess what I am trying to say is that Christians today would be benefited to put down authors still alive (whether Rob Bell or John MacArthur) and read people who lived in different times and places.

[Rod]

The point should be our quest for eternal truth David.
Unless you are only interested in historical characters for other academic studies. But for the sake of theology: truth.

The scriptures haven't really changed. We should all have Paul's theology...even Origen.

[Joshua]

I'm not sure western Christianity reflects Paul's theology particularly well. I am interested to know on what points you would consider Origen's theology to clash with Paul

[Jana]

David wrote: "I think Origen believed in pre-existence of souls. I don't have the reference in front of me, but I did get that from him in the book. Souls chose, prior to being in bodies, a path and were placed in bodies accordingly.
..."

This has stuck with me ever since you posted, David. **Also, this could venture into something more topical than a discussion of Origen's work, so feel free to tell me to move the line of questioning elsewhere!**

It seems to me that the idea of pre-existence of souls is similar to someone (say, a woman) suffering a traumatic brain injury, losing all long-term memories, and, as to be expected, undergoing a degree of personality change. She lives in the circumstances that her choices pre-injury led to (natural, to be expected). However, to a certain extent it seems wrong to judge the post-memory-loss woman on her previous actions, even if those actions were deeply immoral (or moral - no praise nor blame). Is she still the same person she was pre-injury? I'm not so sure she is.

This is certainly not a perfect analogy, as Origen would argue that our "personality" (character, essence, whathaveyou) does not change from pre-existent soul to body. Then why the memory loss? Is that a chance to redeem ourselves in the way that God has enabled?

There is something kind of troubling to me about the idea that we choose a path that we are then judged on or by, but that after making the choice we don't remember the choosing. I feel sympathetic towards people who have suffered memory loss and don't realize how they got where they are and who have to live under certain restrictions or troubles based on their actions pre-memory loss. That's not to say that I don't think they are not culpable for those actions, but I feel a sympathy that I'm not sure what to do with, if that makes sense.

Maybe my trouble is that I can't quite ferret out what conditions are necessary for free choices and moral culpability in this framework. Memory loss and personality change complicate the idea of continuous agent and agency, I think. I would love any thoughts that might clarify the issue a bit for me.

[Joshua]

Jana wrote

Maybe my trouble is that I can't quite ferret out what conditions are necessary for free choices and moral culpability in this framework.

It's an interesting point, approaching these things from a "legal framework" point of view can be problematic. Such a system fails to penetrate the deep things of the heart. But Jesus said

"A tree is known by it's fruit"

and

"this is the condemnation that they have loved darkness rather than light"

This is what makes Salvation so beautiful, all we need is to turn to the light.