Origen of Alexandria, Theology of

Posted By on June 6, 2019



you the theology of origin of Alexandria who ministered about 200 to 250 3 a d it is no secret that Origen loved to read the Greek philosophers and required his students in his schools at Alexandria and later at Caesarea to regularly read the Greek philosophers it is therefore no surprise that some of the students of origin school and Caesarea were later called the Cappadocia fathers who were influential in developing the Trinitarian idea of a co-equal and timeless Co eternal son in the introduction to origin of Alexandria look Lex encyclopedia informs us that Origen was influenced by platonic philosophy and Gnosticism as one of the earliest theologians his non-christian tools are most transparent in his work both platonic philosophy and Gnostic concepts came to play in a central role in his understanding of Christian texts under theology look Lex encyclopedia states origin is considered the founder of the allegorical method of scriptural interpretation he aimed at reconciling Greek philosophy with Christianity himself mainly of the platanus school meaning platonic Greek philosophy under criticism and influence look Lex says he had a background with platonic philosophy with the belief in an eternal soul in contrast to the temporary imperfect material world other controversial ideas were the pre-existence of the soul a universal salvation and a Trinity as a hierarchy where Jesus is inferior to God corresponding with Arianism defining the resurrection of the body as mainly spiritual and having removed the original concept of hell Origen wrote in his commentary on the Gospel of John book 1 chapter three I wonder at the stupidity of the general run of Christians or the general run meaning the Christian majority in this matter I do not mince matters it is nothing but stupidity they the other Christians proceed differently and ask what is the Son of God when called the word or the law goes the passes they employ is that in the Psalms my heart has produced a good word and they imagine the son to be the utterance of the father deposited as it were in syllables they do not allow him the son any independent hypostasis or substance of being nor are they clear about his essence I do not mean that they confuse its qualities but the fact of his having an essence of his own for no one can understand among the general run of Christians how that which is said to be the word can be a son and such an animated word not being a separate entity from the Father God the word is a separate being and has an essence of his own thus we find that Origen taught that before Jesus was born he taught that the law goss the Word of God had an essence of his own and was a pre incarnate son which was not the same homo Lucius as the father or the same essence as the father but he believed that the son had an essence of his own as a different substance a home oi seus of his own that is clearly an Arian teaching rather than a Trinitarian one thus Origen was denying the Nicene Creed before it was written by saying that Jesus had an essence of his own rather than being the same essence khamoshi as' as the father so Origen described his Christian opponents as the general run of Christian's that believed that the word the Lagos is the utterance of the father deposited who is the same substance as the father hence origins motorists opponents were saying that the word that was made flesh is the father's word the father's Lagos rather than a distinct God the word person also notice that origin contrasts his teachings from the mold list by saying and that the word the log-off's is a separate entity from the father and is a separate being and has an essence of his own this is the founding father of the Trinitarian idea of a timeless son origin is the first Christian writer on record to state that the son had a timeless existence yet Origen taught that the son has a different essence from the father is a lesser god person and not the same home osseous as the father about 100 years later the Nicene Creed stated that the son is the same hemolysis as the father therefore it is clear that the molas were the early Christians that were believing in and upholding the Nicene Creed well before it was written while the semi Aryan so-called Trinitarians were denying that Creed by saying that Jesus is a lesser God person with an essence or Hamas of his own so Origen was teaching that the son had a different essence a Hamas while the modeless the oneness Christians were teaching that the son has the same homo Lucius as the father so we can see clearly that Origen did not believe in the later Nicene Creed while the early modeless did believe the same basic teaching or at least the elements of the Nicene Creed were oneness in theology Origen and the semi Aryans like him were teaching that the animated word is a separate entity from the Father therefore the historical evidence proves that the Mullis were the Christians affirming that the substance of being of the Sun was the same substance of being or hypostasis of the Father while the semi Aryans denied Christ's true deity it is no wonder why the later Roman Catholic Church condemned the writings of origin if I were to say in the 21st century that the motorists are the general run of Christians my Trinitarian opponents would rightly laugh and ridicule me for lying yet even though Origen himself as an ardent opponent of modalism admitted that the motorists were the general run of Christians in the third century hard-hearted Trinitarians will always deny this fact it's very interesting Tertullian and the West said and against practice chapter three that they that always make up the majority of believers the modeless rejected his economic idea of a trinity Tertullian and in the East Origin one of the great leaders of the semi Aryans he was saying that in the east the general run of Christians also were the modeless thus proving that the moralistic monarchy ins greatly outnumbered these so-called Trinitarians which they were not true Trinitarians they were semi Aryans before the Trinity doctrine was fully developed Origen wrote that the molas were among the multitudes of believers calling Jesus the Most High God while the semi Aryan tendencies of origin denied Christ full deity Origen wrote in contra Celsus 8:14 grant that there may be some individuals among the multitude of believers who are not in an entire agreement with us and who in cautiously assert that the Savior is the Most High God however we do not hold with them Origen did not believe that the Savior is the Most High God we do not hold with them he said but rather believe him when he says the father who sent me is greater than I now of course as a man Jesus could say the father who sent me is greater than I but the deity of Jesus Christ according to Origen not the Most High God but a lesser god person under the Father that is akin to Arianism and not trinitarianism origin and other semi Aryans like him did not believe like the Mullis because the motorists were saying that Jesus is the Most High God according to church historian Johanna's Clausen a Trinitarian origins later doctrine of a timeless eternal son was a remarkable advance in the development of theology and had a far-reaching influence on ecclesiastical teaching from petrology volume 2 page 78 so even Johanna's crossing a church historian admitted that Origen was the first to teach a timeless eternal son and it had a remarkable advance in the development of the theology of the Trinity although Origen was the first to clearly teach the son always existed as a son throughout eternity past he taught that the Sun is not mightier than the father but inferior to him and quote from contra Celsus 815 cited by Johannes Klassen in petrology volume 2 page 79 although the doctrine of eternal sonship was first taught by Origen in the 3rd century Origen vacillated in his teachings about an eternal son and a created son under the title Christ as creature church historian Jerusalem Pelican wrote in origins doctrine of the log-off's however there were two sets of ideas in one sense the logic of origins anti-sub alien exegesis led to the insistence that the Lagos was distinct from the Father but eternal so that none could dare lay down a beginning for the son but at the same time Origen interpreted the passages of derivation and distinction in such a way as to make the Lagos a creature and subordinate to God the firstborn of all creation a theme created and in support of this later interpretation his chief proof was proverbs 822 231 from pelicans book the emergence of Catholic tradition volume 1 page 191 before the Trinity doctrine was fully developed there was a tremendous reaction to the development of the semi Arian doctrines of men like Justin Tertullian hip elitist clementa Alexandria and Origen the historical evidence proves that the reaction among the general run of Christians against the emerging semi Arian theology was led by sibelius and other leaders among the Mullis who successfully persuaded the majority of the churches to believe in modal istic menarche anism in their opposition to the emerging semi aaron theology of men like justin Tertullian Hippolyta's Clemente and Origen the following information is from Trinitarian church historian John Henry Newman book Arians of the 4th century Chapter 1 section 5 under civilian ISM although Henry Newman lived or ministered sometime after 1801 when he was born until 1890 the historical evidence that Henry Newman presented is still accurate the context of chapter 1 section 5 8 page 118 proves that the speculations of praxis remained alive in that part of the world though latent till they burst into a flame about the middle of the third century at the eventful era when the rudiments of Arianism were laid by the sophistical school of Antioch here the author states that speculations among the teachings of Roxas remained alive in that part of the world before bursting out into a flame in the middle of the third century and reaction to the form of semi Aryan theology that predated the theology of areas now–if theology of practice remained alive within the hearts and minds of the Christian majority then these Christians could not have been Trinitarian in their thinking the context of chapter 1 section 5 B page 119 proves that the sabelli in theology became so popular among the clergy already prepared for it that in a short time to use the words of Athanasius the Son of God was scarcely preached in the churches and quote here is the quote in its full context from Henry Newman sibelius his doctrine became so popular among a clergy already prepared for it or hitherto unpracticed in the necessity of a close adherence to the authorized formularies of faith that in a short time to use the words of Athanasius the Son of God was scarcely preached in the churches Athanasius lived at the beginning of the 4th century but even Athanasian said before his time according to his view his view of the Son of God was scarcely preached in the churches before he ministered in the early 4th century Trinitarian Catholic historian Henry Newman clearly stated his doctrine the context proves Sibelius became so popular among a clergy already prepared for it or hitherto unpracticed in the necessity of a close adherence to the authorized formularies of faith that in a short time to use the words of Athanasian the Son of God was scarcely preached in the churches now if the later early fourth century Athanasian idea of the Son of God was scarcely preached in the churches then that would mean that the Trinitarian idea was scarce and that the modeless idea was so popular among the clergy at that time therefore Henry Newman admitted that the modal aswer predominant within the mid third century and that the later Athanasian idea of the son of God was scarcely preached in the churches in the third century wherefore there are four undeniable historical facts from the writings of origin fact one origin believed in an inferior semi Aryan son rather than a co-equal Trinitarian son fact two origin was highly influenced by Greek platonic philosophy in formulating his theology fact three origin was the first Christian writer on record to clearly teach a timeless eternal son who had no beginning fact four origin clearly stated that the general run of Christians were the modal istic monarchy ins who taught that the Word of God was the utterance of the father these four historical facts are confirmed by the writings of scholarly Trinitarian historians themselves for more videos like this one subscribe to this YouTube channel or visit our website at apostolic Christian faith com Lord bless you

Posted by Lewis Heart

This article has 25 comments

  1. Honest question – does the quote from Origen in 9:13 really reference that the majority assert that the Saviour is the Most High God? It seems to suggest that this is the minority. Do you think the English reads this way?

    Reply
  2. Jesus preached that the kingdom of God was coming soon on earth along with the son of man in their lifetime. But it didn't happen. What's up with that?

    Reply
  3. Shalom the ebounites or followers of the way what was comprised of James John and Peter all believed Yeshua was the prophet spoken up and Deuteronomy 18 Jesus and never brought himself equal to the father these are mistranslations you can see this in the Damascus document and all the anti niacin bother writings such as the Clementine homilies acts of the nazarenes the travels of Peter epifania salama's speaks about this in his a heresiology against heresies the panarion and all the archaeologists and Scholars say the same thing so brother you can teach what is real are you can keep on lying about Trinity which was made up not my Jesus or the disciples I could send you some good studies on the ebounites nazarenes this is who Paul was taking money to but they did not accept Paul either. When he said I take the money to the poor he was saying I take the money to the ebonites the leader being James the brother of Jesus under him John and Peter

    Reply
  4. Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also. John 8 19 KJV

    Reply
  5. Great lesson brother…and we are sharing these things with college professors and other leaders so that they can reform their knowledge of the traditional teachings on Origen….

    Reply
  6. Why is being a separate person denigrating to Christ. God the Father and God the Son. If there were no distinction it would only be God the Father. Isnt a son different yet part of his father? Not sure why heretical. As scripture from the beginning call a man leaves his family to cleave unto his wife and they two are one flesh. Very good parallel. Jesus as the son is one in purpose but is not somehow 'borged' into God the Father. So many descriptions of heaven attest to seeing God the Father and on His right hand, Jesus Christ. So Origen got it right.

    Reply
  7. Origen thought the Son was inferior to the Father??? yep heretic bigtime. they should have burned him alive like good roman Christians.
    John 14 28
    You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

    Reply
  8. "those that are unlearned and unstable wrest to their own destruction"….. the man was an idiot. the answer is in the first commandment

    Reply
  9. To be fair the Trinity doctrine was not yet developed, they were still wrestling with these difficult questions. Origin's view and Modalism each had a piece of the puzzle correct. Origin was correct that the father and son are distinct eternal persons while the Modalists were correct they are one in essence. The Trinity doctrine is very counter intuitive but scripture does bare that out.

    Reply
  10. Good video. At 1:35 there is a statement made by the Looklex Encyclopedia. The statement "Origen is considered the founder of the allegorical method of scriptural interpretation" is wrong. The first to use allegorical application to the scriptures was none other than "Philo of Alexandria." This is just a simple correction made in the spirit of Christian love and unity.

    Reply
  11. Blessed Sweet Origen who was a martyr, Origen was not Gnostic in the least.
    Further his writings were not condemned as The Pope refused to take part in this supposed Council.

    Reply
  12. It seriously looks like these guys had way too much time on their hands. I wonder if they ever took care of the sick, the poor, the affirmed, or widows. It looks like the burgeoning of a church that kept its children at arm's length. This was a warning that Paul gave about vain philosophies entering into the church, forsaking the original Gospel of God and our Lord Christ Jesus.

    Reply
  13. I don't understand his views on "eternal son" since the bible clearly indicates there was indeed a start date, saying in several places "TODAY I have begotten you"

    However, Origen doesn't deny his omnipotence or his eternal being as the Creator and while implying that Christ wouldn't be equal in rank to The Father is uncomfortable, it is written in 1 Corinthians 15:28 that Christ will then SUBMIT himself to The Father so that the Father will be over all, The Son included. As well as in Psalms 45 where it is written "Therefore God, YOUR GOD, has anointed You" Therefore this statement is supported by scripture. While the submission we read about is not forced but willingly, it is still in the very definition "to place or rank lower"

    The essential truths one needs to know as a believer, Origen agrees with. He might be wrong on some ideas, but I haven't met or heard of one Christian who isn't.

    Reply
  14. SUBSCRIBE to this channel or visit our website: We are posting hundreds of free articles, books, and videos on our Global Impact Ministries website at ApostolicChristianFaith.com

    Reply
  15. Adam Clark  a trinatarian   Said the Doctrine of the eternal sonship of Christ is anti scriptural and dangerous page 854  commentary on the bible

    Reply
  16. Walter Martin said it was Origen that came of whith the eternal sonship    Walter Martin is a trinatarian   but don't believe the eternal sonship  though   Which he is right about that atleast .   Do trinatarians  that don't believe in the eternal sonship   and trinatarians that do.Do they consider each other heritics ?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *