Origen's Condemnation - A Deep Dive
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- This is a deep dive into Origen's condemnation for those curious about the nature and substance of his anathematization.
Script, Voice, and Animation: Ross Von Hausen
Additional Voices: Emily Von Hausen
Bibliography
Clark, Elizabeth A. The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1992.
Eusebius, and Rufinus. History of the Church. Translated by Philip R. Amidon. The Fathers of the Church, a New Translation 133. Washington, D.C: The Catholic University of America Press, 2016.
González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. Volume 1: The Early Church to the Reformation. Rev. and Updated [ed.], 2nd ed. New York: HarperCollins, 2010.
Harding, E.M. “Origenist Crises.” In The Westminster Handbook to Origen, edited by John Anthony McGuckin, 1st ed. The Westminster Handbooks to Christian Theology. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.
Heine, Ronald E. Origen: Scholarship in the Service of the Church. Christian Theology in Context. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
McGuckin, John Anthony, ed. The Westminster Handbook to Origen. 1st ed. The Westminster Handbooks to Christian Theology. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.
Rufinus. St. Pamphilus’ Apology for Origen with The Letter of Rufinus on the Falsification of the Books of Origen. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 120. Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press, 2010.
That was really well done! Origen faithfully gave so much to the early church, and what an amazing Bible teacher! I appreciate how you highlighted the way Origen’s condemnation (so many years after he died) was largely a result of political battles erupting in a church increasingly influenced by empire.
As someone who deeply appreciates the Christian contemplatives, the spiritual reading of Scripture, and apokatastasis (the reconciliation of all things in Christ), I would love to see Origen’s early influence rehabilitated through better scholarship about him. Much of the politics of the early church were quite shameful. Thus to see one of the most influential and important church fathers condemned makes no sense and allows the Emperor Justinian way too much influence on our understanding of early Christianity. Thank you for this video! I’m going to enjoy sharing it with others.
Your lecture filled in the gaps that others lectures left out. As you said, it was a lot of information fast. But, we can always rewind. 🙏🏻
I pray this channel keeps going strong! So many people with awesome videos as this one give it up. Stay strong brother, and thank you :)
🎶This is the dawning of the age of Origen... Harmony and understanding Sympathy and trust abounding...🎶 Crystal visions... Revelation and the mind's truth liberation...🎶 Oh Origen...! Or oh gen!🎶
I just recently discovered this channel, and love it! I love the way you present church history in such a concise and informative way! Keep up the work.
Great teaching brother! Well rounded and full of history!
Super high quality stuff for such a small channel man
Thank you, that is super kind of you to say.
wow so well done
Thank you. Very helpful video.
8:33 we have to keep in mind that Origenes did not deny that Satan would be part of the new creation.
He denied that Satan could be saved as being "born again" according to john 3. It is impossible for Satan to be saved as a human would.
But the Apokatastasis does include Satan in the next creation as being reconstituted, since Satan is a creature, and romans 8 includes ALL creation in that restoration.
One is seldom condemned after they’ve died-for example, Clement of Alexandria wasn’t, we are simply advised that not all of his teachings are orthodox!☦️
It always amuses me how "accurately" theologians can explain the "nature" of god as if god were an impaled insect to vivisect. And that those quarrels of vivisection often ends in figurativ or even real slaughter to proove the good news what ευαγγέλια means....
1 Timothy 4:10 - The New International Version (NIV)
10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.
1 Cor 15:22
for even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive
1 John 2:2
New International Version
2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
More on Origen please.
Thank you for this deep dive. On another subject related to Origen, it seems I read or heard in the past that Origen and someone else (a Pope?) somehow played a role in the fact that reincarnation was excluded from or removed from biblical text. Do you have any information on that, or can you provide any resources for me to find the answer to this question?
Great question, and I totally know what you are talking about.
There is a tendency among new-age and gnostic scholars to claim Origen as one of their ranks. A simplified version of their argument goes along these lines. ‘Origen’s ideas about the pre-existence of souls appears neo-platonic. Since neo-platonists believed in metempsychosis, Origen’s view amount to an early example of a Christian doctrine of reincarnation which existed until the church condemned him and it in 553.’ However, there are a few problems with this line of thinking.
First, Origen did not uncritically borrow from neo-platonists but rejected several neo-platonic ideas. And while there are entries that go in this direction, we also have several that implicitly reject it (for example when Origen speaks of how John and Elijah are the same in his Commentary on John).
Second, the claim that it was excised from the Bible lacks historical support. As mentioned in the video Origen wasn’t even debated at the Second Council of Constantinople but rather an earlier condemnation was simply ratified. This council primarily concerned the “three chapters controversy," the Biblical canon was already well decided.
Third, it presumes a unified church hierarchy that simply didn’t exist. The church was too large and divided as to be capable of such a widespread suppression without leaving the kind of manuscript or archaeological evidence that we possess from other controversies. Changing all the bibles throughout the empire to suppress reincarnation would leave a ton of evidence. It’s important to remember that the council was summoned to address the smaller regionally specific ‘three chapters controversy’ and even in this it lacked the support it needed, leading to a schism.
Thank you for your question. :)
As for sources that you can look at, if you are still curious, there are several that exist. This thesis I found, I would suggest as a good starting point. It does a good job laying out the arguments and scholarship issues. Plus it's free, and you could use its citations to find other more specific studies on the subject.
theses.gla.ac.uk/7845/8/2016SchlesingerMTh.pdf
@@SaintsandStuff Thank you so much for such a thorough response!
@@SaintsandStuff Thanks a lot for the reference. I will follow-up on this. You've been very helpful!
@@SaintsandStuff is it not true however that there was widespread belief in reincarnation among certain Christian groups?
If Origen was condemned as a heretic, does that mean that his life, work, and legacy should have been banned from the Church's theologic practices and studies altogether (whether it would have been Catholic, Orthodox, or other denomination)? I have read that Origen left a work of influence for the theology of the Three Cappadocian Fathers (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzen).
I am not asking this as a suggestion, but as a question of curiosity.
I’m not entirely sure what you are asking, but I will try my best to answer. And if I fail, please feel free to restate the question and I will try harder.
Yes, according to the 2nd council of Constantinople Origen’s teaching should be considered outside of orthodoxy and hence much of his work was burned.
As for the Cappadocians, yes, they were influenced by Origen’s work, as were many other theologians, especially in the east. But they also lived about 2 centuries before the 2nd Council of Constantinople and a decade before the Synod of Alexandria, which was not universally accepted.
Also, as mentioned in the video, despite Theophilus arguing against Origen’s writings, he still claimed to read them personally for edification saying that he could “could pluck the beautiful flowers and step over the thorny ones.”
God Bless,
Ross
@@SaintsandStuff You have answer my first question precisely.
Does that mean tha Origen was like the Thomas Aquinas for Theophilus and the Oriental Orthodox people abroad?
Thomas Aquinas is not venerated in the Orthodox Church, but his work is still read and analysed by Orthodox intellectuals, theologians, and clergymen.
Origen's teaching about free will? Origen wasn't known for such.
Have you guys thought about going on other channels to talk about church history?
The concept of the pre-existence of the soul (a kind of reincarnation) has some support, albeit cryptically, in scripture. My thought is that Origen was likely onto something big theologically that would have changed, slightly, church teaching. Ironic that a 1990s Gallup Poll revealed 25% of American Catholics believe in karma and reincarnation. Sometimes the parishioners are ahead of the curve.
Corruption in the church even from the time of the apostles, this is why I disregard the pipe line theory, especially seeing as the Catholic and orthodox church both claim this to justify why they're the true church, look how different they are in teaching today
This channel has so much potential I wish I could invest in it so I can cash out hella rich later
So Origen wasn't really a heretic but a scapegoat? I'm a Christian Restorationist that doesn't believe in pre existing souls nor a dualistic view of humans.
While it definitely appears that he was scapegoated, regarding his status as a heretic, it is important to remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is still possible that Origen was heretical and that we’ve just lost any evidence of it. Ultimately, the fact that those condemning Origen used false evidence, says more about them than it does him.
- Ross VH
what does heretical mean to you?@@SaintsandStuff
@@Smoug I do not claim to possess the spiritual discernment needed to determine what is and isn’t heresy. What I can say is that it is not clear that Origen was a heretic by the standards they accused him.
isidore the egyptian is mentioned twice in vol2 of 6 vols by warren carroll / volume called building of christendom where he says isidore was left a lot of money by a rich widow on condition none of it be used for grand building projects of bishop theophilus and that was cause for bishop to attack him/ but this still does not explain isidore hostility to origen at jerusalem/ unless like st epiphanius he was genuinely duped by falsifications in origen writings put there by his enemies/just as st john chrysostom sermons were falsified by his enemies to get him deposed
The Mormons see Christ like the Protoktistoi not as a 4th person though. So maybe more like Isochristoi but elevated.
Basically further proof that early church fathers did most probably not have our Creator's spirit as they all would have had one heart.
Makes me wonder how many people alive today actually have the holy spirit billions claim to have 🤔
If you are interested, I know that Ephraim Radner expresses a similar concern regarding unity in "The End of the Church: A Pneumatology of Christian Division in the West."
- Ross
Source?
There is a bibliography in the description. Most of information is distilled from the scholarship of Heine, Clark, and Harding.
-Ross VH
I can’t help but notice you left out the part where origen said god is not anthropomorphic and alexandrian monks were so enraged at this that they rioted in the streets.
I might be mistaken, but I believe what you are thinking about is at 5:50 in the video. Theophilus gives a sermon calling those who believe God has appendages "simple," monks riot, Theophilus retracts his statement and blames the Originists for his earlier views.
oh I guess the whole crux of this crisis was mentioned extremely briefly then.
@@AleksandrGabachev I would pushback on the idea that there was a singular “crux” to the controversies. What I tried to lay out in the video is that the scholarship surrounding the ancient sources indicates that there was no singular controversy or cause to the controversies. Theophilus’ condemnation was not the same as that of Rufinus before him, nor Justinian after.
That said, I would be happy to read whatever source you have come across that argues contrary. However, I suspect that either they, or yourself, has accidentally conflated Origen’s and Theophilus’ views and confused the crude literalism that Theophilus condemned with anthropomorphism more broadly.