Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
This topic is about
On First Principles
The Table - Group Book Reads
>
Origen - On First Princples - Discussion Schedule
date
newest »
newest »
David wrote: "I agree, though if I were to put on my moderator hat, I'd remind us that we are discussing Origen in this thread. I mean, obviously we are discussing universalism but we may be wary of straying too far from our source. Perhaps we would be better suited in critiquing what Origen says in light of scripture?,..."Wait, what? Origen who? ;-) Thanks for the reminder, David - I think you're right that it would be best to get back on the track of this thread, or at least pretend to bring the poor guy back into it. I'm trying to catch up to you all (late start) and then I'll dive into the book discussions!
Joshua wrote: """God our saviour, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" 1 Tim 2:4"
Indeed; notice it doesn't say He will force everyone to be saved or, more importantly, that all of them will be.
Joshua wrote: ""and I, when I am lifted up from the earth will draw ALL men unto me" John 12:32"
He does draw all men. This simply means He is calling everyone. No where does it say that He will force them to ultimately be saved.
Joshua wrote: ""to him shall come and be ashamed all who were incensed against him" Isaiah 45:24
Not sure how this can be used for universal salvation.
Joshua wrote: "that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, both in heaven and on earth and under the earth" Phil 2:10"
The demons are subservient to Jesus. So what does it prove that eventually even the damned portion of humanity will recognize His glory and authority?
None of those verses clearly support universalism. Most of them are simply indications that the way to salvation in the new covenant, unlike the old convenant, is open to everyone. No one is barred except by their own choice.
Joshua wrote: "so do you have some scriptures justifying eternal torment? "
As always you ignore what has already been given and don't give a good interpretation of what was. You simply appeal to ambiguous verses that are against you when read in proper context. I will provide some more however.
Now, I interpreted the verses you provided. I expect you to give a reasonable explanation for all I give.
Mark 9:43-48
If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where
“‘the worms that eat them do not die,
and the fire is not quenched.’
I do expect you to give a reasonable explanation for the explicit phrase "will not be quenched" and "will not die" above.
As those verses above make apparent, in some cases aion aionios does mean eternity. I now provide the cases:
Mark 3:28-29
“Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”—
Good luck with explaining away that one, Josh.
Matthew 25:45-46
Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but must endure God’s wrath.
Absolute statement: "shall not see life."
Jude 1:7
Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Revelation 14:11
And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name."
As the prefacing verses make evident, in some cases hell is eternal.
Jana L. wrote: "Is the fire in this sense purely symbolic? i.e., not indicative of eternal suffering, but a more poetic way to say that everything will return to its original, intended state? "Sort of. I am not going to pretend to know the exact nature of the fire. It is ultimately spiritual though. It does include separation from God, even for those who must undergo temporary purgation.
Jana L. wrote: "If I'm understanding this correctly, then this seems to presuppose and require that God created evil beings as evil (essentially, for the purpose of them being evil), rather than saying He created beings who were originally good but then chose to be eternally evil. I'm not sure I like this consequence of that line of thinking. "
God's creation is good in that it was created by God. A created being becomes evil through choice. I don't see anything I have said negating this part. I went into plenty of detail on this above.
David wrote: " though if I were to put on my moderator hat, I'd remind us that we are discussing Origen in this thread. I mean, obviously we are discussing universalism but we may be wary of straying too far from our source. "I didn't cause the discussion to steer in this direction. I believe you first encouraged it as a topic of debate in message #37; kept it going as a debate in #41, although I was really only answering Genni's post.
David wrote: "Perhaps we would be better suited in critiquing what Origen says in light of scripture?"
That's basically what I said. Theology means nothing without scripture.
Alright Erick I will try and give you a good answer, and I must begin in Deuteronomy. "Our God is a consuming fire."
In all the old testament fire speaks of God himself. Dualistic thinking separates fire into a fire that is God and a fire that is separation from God.
You see Jesus promised to cast fire on earth. He also promised to baptise the disciples in fire. Fire speaks of the work of God. When we see "eternal fire" we must think of God. There is no precedent in the old testament for fire being separation from God.
So yes the fire is always eternal. As Isaiah said
"oh that you would come down, that the mountains may tremble at your presence - as fire causes brushwood to burn, as fire causes water to boil -"
So for Mark 9
it doesn't say " the worm that eats them doesn't die" it says their "worm doesn't die"
The word used in Isaiah for "worm" is a personification used elsewhere for the people of Israel and even David and Job used it to describe their own dejected state.
as for the "fire is not quenched" again eternal fire speaks of God.
Matthew 25
It seems to me there is a lower estate for those who don't partake of the "resurrection of life" Jesus offers, still I have issues with Matthew, no one can yet explain to me why it doesn't clash with Galatians.
John 3
Again I don't see the gospel as a heaven/hell issue. To know Christ is eternal life, but as the poor man Lazarus is described in Luke those who do not know Christ are not automatically assigned to torment.
Jude is a FASCINATING case, he describes eternal twice in a context that is not time relevant. Here in the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah which is a once event fire from heaven, and again for the angels kept in "eternal chains" UNTIL the day of judgement.
Revelation
If you take Revelation literally you are in trouble. There is a reason it was debated hotly for centuries. I could go into an allegorical interpretation but I don't think it would help the discussion.
Oh and the eternal sin.. well from your perspective that's a big problem I guess. From my perspective it just makes sense.Knowing God requires the Holy Spirit. Why does eternal sin equate with eternal torment for you?
In an earthly example if a king were to offer me a priceless gift and I snubbed it I may never have the opportunity again. It doesn't mean the king is going to sit by my front door slapping me everyday for the rest of my life.
One more, David said "if I make my bed in Sheol, You are there.."
Then, Erick, if everything is good because it is created by God and only becomes evil by choice, then the it follows from your theory of purgation-as-restoration that all things and beings will return to good. Sounds like universalism to me.
Joshua wrote: "Alright Erick I will try and give you a good answer, and I must begin in Deuteronomy. "Our God is a consuming fire."
In all the old testament fire speaks of God himself."
Your theology is incredibly twisted, my friend. Fire is not always spoken of as good, or as God. It indicates your unacquaintance with scripture as a whole and your misguided acquaintance with cherry-picked verses. There is a strange fire in Leviticus 10:1, to start with the Old Testament:
"Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, contrary to his command."
That fire brought swift judgment from the true fire of God (verse 2). The notion that all Biblical usages of fire "is God" is really an atrocious idea, tantamount to blasphemy if one knows how fire is used in different contexts. Paul describes lust as a burning (1 Corinthians 7:9). Isaiah 9:18 says:
"Surely wickedness burns like a fire; it consumes briers and thorns, it sets the forest thickets ablaze, so that it rolls upward in a column of smoke." Are you really claiming God is the same consuming fire as the fire of sin? God help you if you cannot make obvious distinctions that the Bible itself makes. Jude himself knows there is a distinction:
Jude 1:22 And have mercy on some who are wavering; save others by snatching them out of the fire; and have mercy on still others with fear, hating even the tunic defiled by their bodies.
He also knows that those who are in that fire of wickedness are defiled. Your understanding of scripture is very selective, Josh. It is picked only to suit your own brand of theology, I think. The rest of your supposed interpretations seem to not be based on much as far as I can tell. They all seem to hang on your misguided notion of a "one fire fits all." Your apparent meaning is that being consumed in the fire of wickedness is being in God. (!!!) I am sorry but I think that is a blasphemous idea. Your semantics about "the worm" amount to nothing and I see no other attempt to interpret the other verses. The problem isn't only that you don't take Revelation literally, but there is no passage in the Bible that you won't manipulate in order to suit your own ideas; almost none of which are found in orthodox tradition. You pit scripture against scripture. The reason why it doesn't line up is because it doesn't suit your own ideas. When one approaches scripture correctly, they do line up. The problem is that you don't adjust your views based on a rightly discerned understanding of scripture, but you start with Josh and then adjust scripture to suit that.
I am done with any further discourse with you on this topic. We are worlds apart in our approach to Christianity and the Bible, as I have said before. Sorry, if being honest around here isn't seen as PC but sometimes I think that things need to be stated clearly and even bluntly in order for them to be clear.
just for those reading a literal interpretation of Revelation was considered heretical by the pre-Nicene church fathers. It is discussed in Eusebius history of the church.Erick wrote
Isaiah 9:18 says:
"Surely wickedness burns like a fire; it consumes briers and thorns, it sets the forest thickets ablaze, so that it rolls upward in a column of smoke." Are you really claiming God is the same consuming fire as the fire of sin?
of course not I am speaking of "eternal fire",
Malachi 3:2 "who can stand when He appears, for He is like refiners fire."
Erick wrotethe fire of wickedness that Josh has very little acquaintance with. It consumes itself. As long as there is dross there it will burn.
Do you have a scripture for this doctrine? It seems to contradict what God said to Moses.
"a fire is kindled in my anger that burns to the depths of Sheol." Deut 32:22
I didn't cause the discussion to steer in this direction. I believe you first encouraged it as a topic of debate in message #37; kept it going as a debate in #41, although I was really only answering Genni's post.Haha, no doubt. I am just happy we are having a good long discussion of some substance that was inspired by an actual book. As far as we are discussing universalism, it came up due to Origen so I am fine with taking the discussion wherever people want to take it! And as you implied, I am a rather hypocritical moderator.
Erick wrote: "Jana L. wrote: "Then, Erick, if everything is good because it is created by God and only becomes evil by choice, then the it follows from your theory of purgation-as-restoration that all things and..."I'm sorry I am "taxing" to you, David. I'm honestly trying to understand your position and see if I find it internally consistent, as well. I will take your latest post and keep my thoughts to myself. Thank you for laying it all out.
David wrote: " And as you implied, I am a rather hypocritical moderator. "Nothing implied. Just wanted to make clear what my perspective is.
Jana L. wrote: "I'm sorry I am "taxing" to you, David. "It's Erick. It is taxing because I don't know how else to lay it out then I already had. Wracking my brain trying to come up with another way of saying it came up with nothing really. I did the best I could. From my perspective it appeared that understanding it wasn't really a priority, attacking it any way possible was more so.
You are free to keep your appraisal to yourself if you wish. Me sharing anything is intended to help others. I appreciate the help if someone can show a genuine inconsistency; if you do not want to offer that help, that is ok with me as well. Getting into these discussions is often fruitless for everyone involved, including myself. That's why I rarely contribute.
Erick wrote: "Jana L. wrote: "I'm sorry I am "taxing" to you, David. "It's Erick. It is taxing because I don't know how else to lay it out then I already had. Wracking my brain trying to come up with another w..."
Ascertaining tone and intent on internet forums is really difficult, so I understand why you would misinterpret my comments and make incorrect assumptions. I've done the same to others. I do try to give everyone here the same benefit of the doubt that we are all trying to find truth, and that some are just more firm in their convictions than others.
I think "fruitless" is a good word for where we've all ended up! Not in a bad way; maybe we've just come to the point where all of us believe what we believe and no one has convinced anyone otherwise. Looking forward to more Origen discussions once I catch up on reading.
Did anyone else find chapter seven interesting? I hope so because I have a bunch of questions. :-)1) Origen says, "All souls and all rational natures, whether holy or wicked, were made or created. All these are incorpooreal in respect of their proper nature, but thogh incorporeal they were nevertheless made." My first question is: because something is invisible, does that necessarily mean that it is incorporeal? I don't know much about theories on this, but it seems to me that the soul is somehow inextricably entwined with the body. But that is just what I have always thought. And when I ask this I am thinking of the soul as distinct from the spirit. Does Origen mean "spirit" when he says soul?
2) Origen says, "Now Job appears to show that not only is it possible for the stars to be subject to sins, but that they are in fact 'not clean' from the pollution of sin. For he writes as follows: 'The stars also are not clean in his sight'. I can see how Origen would think that nature is somehow unclean or imperfect from the existence of sin, but that the stars are subject to sin? I don't follow. And because they are subject to sin he thinks they have a soul? Later he also says, "We think, therefore, that they may be called living beings from the fact that they are said to receive commands from God....'I have given precepts to the stars' (Is. 45:12) Then later he takes verses from Romans seriously because nature is given anthropomorphic qualities. And somehow he links this all to his theory that souls exist before the body and are implanted somehow.
3) Concerning specifically the soul of man he says, "how could it be possible that the soul of him who 'suppanted his brother in the womb', that is, Jacob, was formed st the same time as his body? Or how could the soul or formative principle of him who, while still lying in his mother's womb , was filled with the Holy Spirit, have been formed at the same time as his body? I mean John....otherwise it would appear that God fills some men with the Holy Spirit regardless of justice and their merits and sanctifies them when they have done nothing to deserve it...." And from this he derives that souls exist before and outside the body?
Plato's Phaedo is one of my favorite dialogues and he discusses the immortality of the soul. I knew that Origen also believed in the immortality of the soul before reading his work so I was curious what he would have to say about it. I think I was kind of expecting some regurgitated Plato. Anyway, I am trying to figure out exactly how Origen arrives at his consensus and I just don't quite follow. Or maybe he goes into more detail later?
I'm with you Genni, I'm not sure I quite follow Origen's reasoning, but there's something there I don't understand. Something that fascinates me is how Jesus states that all live to God. He then says that the rocks would cry out if the disciples were silent.Also there is the time where the LORD said that Abel's blood cried out from the ground.
Now when Jesus rebuked the waves they obeyed. It hurts my brain, in a good way. Jesus would command the illness when He healed.
Joshua wrote: "I'm with you Genni, I'm not sure I quite follow Origen's reasoning, but there's something there I don't understand. Something that fascinates me is how Jesus states that all live to God. He then sa..."So do you take those literally, Joshua?
hmm.. I am touching on a reality I have experienced but don't fully understand.So yes and no.
A man speaking in French says nothing to me, though he talks all day. God speaks every language. He even instructs the stars
Sorry, I've completely missed the discussion. Been absolutely swamped lately. It's a struggle to keep up. Not a complaint, just how it is. I'm blessed to have work and don't mind doing it. I've been in the opposite condition and it stinks.Reading through the book "Heaven" by Randy Alcorn I came across the following critique of Origen, which I will just leave here. Alcorn's context is the influence of Platonic dualism on Christianity.
The Influence of Philo and Origen
Platonic ideas began making inroads into Christian theology through the writings of Philo (ca. 20 BC– AD 50). An Alexandrian Jew, Philo admired Greek culture and was enamored with Plato’s philosophy. He was also proud of his Jewish heritage. In his desire to offer the Greeks the best of Judaism and the Jews the best of Greek philosophy, he allegorized Scripture. He did so in contrast to the literal interpretation of many rabbis. 364 Philo’s ideas caught on. Alexandria became the home of a new school of theological thought. Clement of Alexandria (150– 215), an early church father, was a part of this movement, as was Origen (185– 254), an Egyptian-born Christian writer and teacher. Clement embraced Greek philosophy and maintained that Scripture must be understood allegorically. Origen developed an entire system of allegorizing Scripture. His method was to see the Bible as a three-part living organism, corresponding to body, soul, and spirit. The body was the literal or historical sense, the soul was the psychic or moral sense, and the spirit was— by far most important— the philosophical sense.
Educated people were considered more qualified to find the Bible’s “hidden” meanings in texts that the average person would take at face value. In other words, Origen’s approach meant that ordinary people couldn’t understand the Bible without the help of trained, educated people. These enlightened teachers could find and teach the Bible’s “true” spiritual meanings, which were usually quite different from its apparent, obvious, and “less spiritual” meanings.
Origen typically dismissed or ignored literal meanings in favor of fanciful ideas foreign to the text. At the time, his modern approach was embraced by Christian intellectuals as a sort of Gnostic and elitist approach that separated the educated clergy from the ignorant laity. This distinction still continues in some circles, with literal interpretations seen as suspect, and allegorical and symbolic interpretations deemed more spiritual and intellectually appealing.
Alcorn, Randy (2011-12-08).
Thanks Ned. I see Origen as doing what any Christian in any age ought to be doing - speaking the gospel in the way that the culture will receive it. I mean, I am not going to come down on Origen for being influenced by Plato/Philo when all Christians are influenced by someone. Much modern apologetics (Craig, Strobel) swallows modern philosophy (idea of a neutral space, neutral thinker, for example). This is not bad, perhaps even necessary in a world where everyone thinks that way. Now others are more influenced by postmodern thinkers and we live in a postmodern climate.With retrospect we can see flaws in what happens when Platonic philosophy is taken over by Christians. I guess the danger is if we only see the flaws in that and if we think that we are possessed of some sort of pure understanding of the Bible (while only they were influenced). Instead, may we learn from them in the midst of their flaws. At least we can see their flaws, when we read our favorite contemporary authors they share our flaws so we think they got it right! Would that more of us read long dead Christians!
Origen developed an entire system of allegorizing Scripture. His method was to see the Bible as a three-part living organism, corresponding to body, soul, and spirit. The body was the literal or historical sense, the soul was the psychic or moral sense, and the spirit was— by far most important— the philosophical sense.
I think this is accurate, and for any flaws such a system has there is merit. Are we better off in our obsession with literal-historical methods? I think our risk is that we are so obsessed with the literal meaning that any application to life, or theological meaning connected to larger scripture, is tossed to the side. Again, I think Origen has stuff to teach us.
Educated people were considered more qualified to find the Bible’s “hidden” meanings in texts that the average person would take at face value. In other words, Origen’s approach meant that ordinary people couldn’t understand the Bible without the help of trained, educated people. These enlightened teachers could find and teach the Bible’s “true” spiritual meanings, which were usually quite different from its apparent, obvious, and “less spiritual” meanings.
Perhaps it betrays my poor memory, but I'd love a citation because I did not get this from Origen. I don't think he is saying more "educated" people get the meaning, though perhaps more "spiritual" people might.
Further, look at the proliferation of denominations. Is it so great to claim everyone's interpretation is equal? Couldn't we say we've uncritically swallowed the idea that enlightened teachers are no better at interpreting because we are equality minded people living in a democracy?
On the other hand, every time a pastor quotes Greek or laments the state of the church in America, aren't they being just as much an "enlightened teacher" looking down at laymen as Origen did?
Origen typically dismissed or ignored literal meanings in favor of fanciful ideas foreign to the text. At the time, his modern approach was embraced by Christian intellectuals as a sort of Gnostic and elitist approach that separated the educated clergy from the ignorant laity. This distinction still continues in some circles, with literal interpretations seen as suspect, and allegorical and symbolic interpretations deemed more spiritual and intellectually appealing.
Again, I did not see Origen as "dismissing" literal meanings. It is just that literal meanings are not the most important point. Jesus literally died on a cross one day...which means what? Or, to look at it another way, I just read Gregory of Nyssa's LIfe of Moses which is the quintessential allegorical interpretation, and yes some of it was weird, but the challenging parts provided more depth then much modern writing.
I don't agree with Randy Alcorn that Origen disregarded the literal interpretation of scripture. There are verses that suggest some of the idiosyncratic things that he believed -even when read literally. I simply think Origen interpreted some things wrong. Many modern day theologians criticize Origen without having read him thoroughly. Most of the criticisms are unjust in the extreme in which they are held. He was certainly influenced by Greek philosophy and Philo, but he believed that all of his doctrinal positions were based on scripture. I don't agree that all of them are really correct scripturally, but I don't believe that he was only dependent on Greek philosophy in what he taught. It was more that Greek philosophy influenced a certain stance in regards to the reading of scripture. Sometimes this cultivated good fruit and sometimes bad fruit. Hellenistic Jews weren't the only ones who were allegorizing the Bible though; the Essenes were certainly doing this as well; the Dead Sea Scrolls make this more than evident.
Indeed. I was not the one who brought up the idea that if universalism is true, then this life on earth is pointless. But I guess I could have said the same thing, "why not ask God that question?" That's my point, regardless of which position you take, you could ask that same question.
Please (everyone), if you are going to defend this doctrine of universalism, use scripture first and then appeal to Origen and the fathers
I agree, though if I were to put on my moderator hat, I'd remind us that we are discussing Origen in this thread. I mean, obviously we are discussing universalism but we may be wary of straying too far from our source. Perhaps we would be better suited in critiquing what Origen says in light of scripture?
Speaking of my moderator hat, try to be nice when you argue Erick and Josh :)