Autor: Lonergan, Bernard J. F.

Buch: The Way to Nicea

Titel: The Way to Nicea

Stichwort: Origenes (Origon): Schwierigkeit der Beurteilung; Konsubstantialität oder Kreatur; Patron der Arianer

Kurzinhalt: Secondly, to move from words to meaning, it is clear (1) that Origen always held that the Son was eternal, in the strict sense of the word; (2) that ...

Textausschnitt: 64a
6. Mainly because of its relevance for the later Arian controversy, we must touch briefly on the question, whether or not Origen considered the Son a creature. (Fs)

64b First of all, if we accept the version of Rufinus, the following passage is from Origen:

"For we do not say, as the heretics think, that some part of the Father's substance became the Son; neither do we say that the Son came from outside of the Father's substance, being created by the Father, so that there was a time when he was not. But, excluding every corporeal interpretation, we do say that the Word and wisdom were born, without any bodily process, of the invisible and incorporeal God, in the manner in which an act of willing proceeds from the mind. And thus it will not seem absurd, since he is called 'the Son of his love' (cf. Col 1,13), if in the same way he is considered the Son of his will".1 (Fs)

64c To which one may add: "For he does not become Son, from having not been Son, through the adoption of the Spirit, but is by nature Son".2 (Fs)

65a On the other hand, if we take Jerome's word, we are led to a different conclusion. (Fs)

"Candidus says that the Son is of the Father's substance, erring in this, that he asserts a propolE, that is, an extrusion from the Father's substance. Origen, on the other hand, according to Arius and Eunomius, rejects the notion of his being extruded, or born, because this would suggest that the Father is divided into parts; what he says, rather, is that the Son is the highest and most excellent of creatures, and that he came into being through the Father's will, as did all other creatures".3

65b Now it is certain that verbally Origen called the Son ktisma and that he said that he was a creature; but so did many others, because they applied to the Son the passage in the book of Proverbs 8,22.4 (Fs) (notabene)

65c Secondly, to move from words to meaning, it is clear (1) that Origen always held that the Son was eternal, in the strict sense of the word; (2) that he affirmed that the Son was not made, and that he was the first-born of everything that was made (ton agenEton kai pasEs genEtEs physeOs prOtotokon);5 (3) that he said they were not to be listened to who inferred from John 1,4 that the Word was made (genEton einai ton logon);6 (4) that he denied that the Son had a beginning, before which he was not (archEn ... einai uiou proteron ouk ontos)7 (Fs)

66a Thirdly, there are no grounds for supposing that while the notion of consubstantiality developed only gradually, everybody always had a clear conception of creation. In fact, neither Plato, nor Aristotle, nor the Stoics, nor the Gnostics, had a doctrine of creation, in the strict sense of the word. Even the early Christians, who acknowledged the fact of creation, used the words agennEtos (unbegotten) and agEnetos (not made) without discrimination;8 and although Methodius and Origen, in the third century, introduced some clarity into the use of these two terms, the Arians, in the fourth century, re-introduced a kind of primitive obscurity and confusion.9 (Fs)

66b Fourthly, as Athanasius proposed a clear conception of con-substantiality, so he also had a clear and lucid notion of creation. For his distinction between creating and making is a profound one;10and he also established with precision the difference between being unbegotten and being created.11 So he could argue effectively: If he is Son, he is not a creature; and if he is a creature, then he is not Son.12 These clear ideas and sharp distinctions show plainly enough how closely connected are the two questions: Is the Son consubstantial with the Father? and, Is the Son a creature?13 (Fs)

66c Fifthly, if we accept this distinction, namely, that the Son is either consubstantial with the Father, or else he is a creature, then we must say that Origen's subordinationism, since it excludes consubstantiality in the strict sense, also implies that the Son is a creature. However, this kind of implication, which in fact is only an element of an objective dialectic, is not to be confused with a conclusion that somebody has actually drawn. The Arians drew such a conclusion, seeking to establish Origen as patron of their own position. So also did those who condemned Origen. But it is not at all clear that Origen either drew or could have drawn such a conclusion himself.14 (Fs)