From: ROBERT MONDORE <MONDORER@a1.cs.hscsyr.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 07:05:00 -0500 (EST)
Mr-Received: by mta SSYRV1; Relayed; Wed, 20 Jul 1994 02:23:03 -0500 (EST)
Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 05:00:00 -0500 (EST)
There has previously been a quote from someone characterizing Origen's view of
John 1:1 that could be quite misleading (unintentional, I'm sure).
Of course, we all know that Origen could be a little inconsistent, but to put
his subordinationalist tendencies in proper context, it must be conceded that
Origen maintained a Trinitarian framework for his views.
For example, he wrote:
"In the first place, we must note that the nature of that deity which is in
Christ in respect of His being the only-begotten Son Of God is one thing, and
that human nature which He assumed in these last times for the purposes of the
dispensation is another."
---Roberts and Donaldson, -Nicene Fathers, l. 4, pp. 245-246, de Principiiis, I.
He also wrote:
"...[i]t clearly shows that the existence of the Son is derived from the Father,
BUT NOT IN TIME, NOR FROM ANY OTHER BEGINNING..." (Emphasis mine).
---ibid., Vol. 4, p. 251, de Principiis, I. ii. 11.
He even used the very word Trinity and spoke of the eternity of the Holy Spirit
---ibid. Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, I. iii. 4.
And here's a real clincher for context:
"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less..."
---ibid., Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principiis, I. iii. 7.
I hope this helps in putting things back into context regarding Origen's views.
One could probably say that Origen's seeming inconsistencies stem from a
zealousness to guard against Sebellianism. To use this to support another
extreme, Aryanism, just does not wash when considered in the light of context.