Alexandrian School and Eastern Christianity Before Nicaea

 

    I want to explore the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Among the benefits of doing so is that we are dealing with authors after the post-apostolic leaders of the church. Thus, we are dealing with authors who, although they acknowledge a tradition of which they want to give faithful exposition, are before the official formulations of the Council of Nicaea in 325. We can see both the consistency of belief between the Alexandrian School and that formulation, but we can also see some of the differences. It was a time before the primacy of Rome was the official position of the church, and thus the less influential leaders of Antioch and Jerusalem, Alexandria and Rome, represented the diversity of the church. One will also see this diversity with writers in Gaul (France), in the early formulation of Latin Christianity in North Africa. 

The second century saw the continued growth of the church.  By the end of this century, the number of Christians was extensive, but it was by no means a majority.  Some of the reasons for its success involved the conditions within the Roman Empire at this time.  The physical movement of ideas was easy.  There was an atmosphere of tolerance, despite isolated persecution.  The increasing centralization of authority in Rome, which took away the authority of local units, led to people increasingly turning inward for personal needs to be met.  People felt no personal involvement with their government.  The centralization of politics implied the need for one religion.  

            In addition, Christianity had its own appeal.  It addressed personal needs.  It believed in one God, rather than many.  This God was all-powerful and full of love and mercy.  Eternal salvation was based on individual worth and universal human family, not on social standing.  People could relate to God who becomes one with us in Jesus.  The leadership presented the teachings in a dramatic and uncomplicated way from the scriptures.  The organization of the church remained simple.  It met in homes, which gave a sense of intimacy.  The people, once they felt a part of the group, participated.  The organization of the church became such that it was a "state within a state," the bishops area coinciding with the old city-state system.  

The rise of persecution and doctrinal issues gave rise to increased centralization of authority, especially moving toward Rome.  The rise of a more systematic theology was because of a need to answer accusations and the need to resolve differences.  They developed ritual, sometimes borrowed from other religions.  They began to build churches.  They placed art within them.  They used prayer and music as part of the services.  Because of its increasing social consciousness, turning everything toward religious ends, it became the most dynamic organization in Rome.

            This period is dominated by continuing to define the church, coming to a consensus on the documents that would form scripture, periodic persecution by emperors or local leaders, and the challenge that Gnosticism presented.  The church at Rome became increasingly important, but so was the Alexandrian school.  To a large degree, the church was aligned to the lower classes during this period.  This meant some use of trickery to avoid the harshest aspects of oppression.  Though there were varieties of militant movements, the church, consistent with its founder, did not participate.  The expectation that Christ would return soon receded into the background.  In its place was proselyte resistance, attempting to convert the upper classes to bring them within the hoped for Messianic victory.

The concern for heresy arises. The notion is difficult, for one experiences the paradox that heresy is a form of Christian faith formally in that it relates to Jesus Christ, the church, baptism, scripture, and the creeds, but we recognize its content as a contradiction of Christian faith.[1]

The relationship between Rome and the growing Christian community varied with the emperor. Trajan, 99 to 117, was tolerant. One of the early earliest records of how the Romans looked at Christians was the letter of Pliny to Trajan in which he expresses his desire to learn what to know how to deal with Christians. They do not offer sacrifices, and so they must be atheist. They meet early in the morning to sing to Christ and God, they are moral, they pledge secretly. Then there was Hadrian 117 to 138. False accusers were punished. Any persecution was local. There is the charge of atheism, cannibalism, and secrecy. Pius ruled from 138 to 61. He was tolerant. However, there were still local persecutions. Polycarp was martyred during this time. Marcus Aurelius ruled from 161 to 180. He attempted to restore the old faith of Greek religions there was concept of separation between church and state. To restore the state, he needed to restore religion. He was stoic and liberal. Yet, he was a more avid persecutor of Christians. This is when Justin was martyred. The death of Marcus Aurelius in 180 AD brought an imperial crisis.  Civil wars developed.  In the past, emperors chose the most talented person as their successors.  Marcus Aurelius chose his son, Commodus, who ruled from 180 to 190.  He was a strong stoic. Christians were protected. Marduana was martyred as was Apollonius, a Roman senator. One of his mistresses was a Christian, and one of his slaves Callistus was a Bishop. Though others resisted, he had them killed.  Eventually, the Praetorian Guard killed Commodus.  This led the way for the army to become the dominate force in the 200s.  Many emperors were assassinated by the army, which led to the civil wars.  This meant the emperor, as a military man, simply did not understand civil administration.  Society became a tool for the army.  The army became the pampered class.  The bureaucracy became filled with military men, in many cases barbarians, who cared little for the cultural traditions that supported Graeco-Roman society.

The growth of Christianity in the 100s occurred in the context of some key Gnostic opponents in the second century such as Cerinthus, Menander, Valentius, and Marcion.  Gnosticism was a danger to the church because it cut out the historical foundation with Judaism.  The "knowledge" they possessed was that of a myth which dealt with the creation of the world and its evil as well as the soul and its salvation.  This world was evil.  Salvation could be won by knowing the right words to say as one died and passed through the spirit-world.  The ethic of the majority was ascetic, usually demanding celibacy.  A minority believed it did not make any difference what one did to the body, becoming immoral.  For the Old Testament, there was speculation about Eve and the serpent.  For Judaism, apocalyptic was utilized.  For Christianity, it used the concept of redemption, though Jesus was not always in that role.  The concept of the Incarnation was rejected.  A rigid fatalism and predestination was proposed, granted only to the elect.  Marcion logically rejected the Old Testament, especially the use of allegory and rejecting the interpretation of the first-generation Christians of who Jesus is.  Valentius accepted the Old Testament and apostles, but taught the latter passed on a secret knowledge.

The growth of apostolic Christianity continued while there was also intense competition from mystery religions. Cult of Cybele was based upon the myth of Cybele, who married Attis, who dies and is reborn every year.  He is united to the earth.  It was closely aligned with fertility rites.  Its practice of ritual was much like Christianity.  It began in 400 BC.  The Cult of Isis was much like the former cult.  The cult of Mythra was especially appealing to the army.  It centered upon power and light.  The sun became a sign.  There were seven initiation rites.  Physical toughness and self-denial were main points.

In terms of the development of the Christian community, the Apostolic fathers were primarily concerned with discipline and structure. There is doctrine, but it is not as clear as we might like. In contrast, the apologists, writing from 150-250, represent the attempt of converted philosophers who used their abilities to defend and explain their faith. An apology is addressed to the presumed basic fair mindedness of the unconvinced, or the partly convinced, on the plea that the dispelling of misconceptions will move against the prejudice and encourage the growth of goodwill. Biblically, Paul usually dealt with Jews. Yet, at Athens and Lystra Paul used natural theology. Even Paul gets in trouble when he uses this approach. So these apologies get in trouble with modern neo orthodoxy, and so on. For example, Karl Barth would not like them, while Brunner would be more sympathetic to the apologists. The apologist argues from the order and goodness of nature to the existence of one righteous God. They argue that idolatry is folly. They do not emphasize the distinctiveness of Christian doctrine. There is not proclamation, but there is preparation. They also preached, but these were not handed down. Christians present themselves as rational, dignified, Roman citizens, as over against rash extremists. To the Romans, Christians were suspected of secret vices, reserved toward military service, and against polytheism.  Justin Martyr would emphasize fulfillment of prophecy and the universal, rapid dissemination of the faith.  It was indeed remarkable that the church grew from such humble origins to what it was in the second century.  Melito, bishop of Sardes in 160-170 AD, believed the destiny of Rome and Christianity were linked.  Yet, the church's primary mission was to the people and not to centers of power. 

Justin Martyr, among the greatest of the apologists, wrote the Dialogue with Trypho. Celsus was an anti-Christian pamphleteer who upheld polytheistic tradition because he saw the dangers of the faith to the empire.  He was the first to perceive that the non-political, quietist, and pacifist community had the power to transform Roman society. Origen wrote Contra Celsus. The apologies are addressed to prominent people. Molito sent his apology to Marcus Aurelius. Tertullian sent his to the emperor. Justin sent his to the Roman Senate. Theophilus sent his to Autolycus, who was persecuting Christians. Diognetus sent his to stoics. It is not known how much these people were read by the world, but their work probably had more effect on the church, to clarify its position. Diognetus denounced Jewish religion. Tatian attacked Greek culture and philosophy, of which he knew stoicism best. In contrast, Mencius Felix said that all truth is one, and not unique to Jew or gentile. God used philosophy to prepare people for the final revelation in Christ. 

The primary impact of Justin Martyr, who lived from 110-165, was his positive evaluation of Greek philosophy.  He was converted in 130. He was murdered at Rome in 165. His Dialogue with Trypho is the first systematic attempt to show differences between Christianity in the Jewish religion. He had a deeper respect for Greek philosophy, even considering them to be saints. He searched in many different philosophies. He kept his philosophical robe. He encouraged respect for rulers. He spoke of the evils of persecution saying that it was that they were instigated by evil passions and that the Roman state is evil and unjust. He then said that the state is subject to God threatening the emperor with hell and that the rulers will be judged. He says that God originally appointed demons, but they rebelled against God. Through sacred writings and the activity of demons, paganism developed. They deceive people into thinking that they are gods. Christ defeated the demons on the cross, but only partially. The church shows that the demons are in retreat and look forward to their final overthrow. The demons are in control of the state. The rulers themselves are unwitting subjects to them. Christ will judge the state and demons. The state is not intrinsically demonic, but the present Roman state is given over to it. He then says that Christians are not subversive they are law abiding Roman citizens. They would do better to propagate the gospel than persecuted. Their morals are higher, they have love, they do not resist oppression, nor do they wish harm upon their enemies. This is the new society towards which Justin pointed. 

He was born in Samaria, near Jacob's well.  He believed Plato drew from the Pentateuch and that there is a universal conscience apart from any special revelation.  This led him to appreciate the concept of the Logos as the Son and begins Trinitarian thinking along these lines.  He believed in a 1000-year reign of Christ on earth.  Prophecies from pagan authors or Jewish were often accepted freely.  In his First Apology, Christians are not atheists, for they worship the Father of the universe, but do not worship the Greek and Roman gods.  This God is to be served with a worthy life, not offerings.  Christians are to be chaste, patient in the face of injury, do not swear but speak truth in all things, obey civil authorities, and they believe the soul is alive after death for reward or punishment.  There are analogies among the Greeks to what Christians teach about Jesus, therefore providing a touching point with them.  1) Christians speak truth, abandoning false gods, not trusting magicians, God delaying judgment of the world because God foreknows that some will be saved.  2) Christ is the Son of God, demonstrated by prophecy.  This does not mean a fatal determinism.  God foreknows and judges on that basis.  Each person is free to choose.  Note that he stresses an eternal punishment for the wicked.  He also has negative comments about the Jews.  3) Christ imitated by demons.  He believes Plato borrowed from Moses.  He has good statements on baptism, Eucharist, and weekly worship.  Baptism is Trinitarian, and the newly baptized are called illuminated.  In his Second Apology, God delays the judgment because of the seed of the Christians.  Eternal punishment of the wicked shows God is just.  Refers to "senseless Jews."  Plato and the Stoics saw through a glass darkly, they had seminal word, or saw part of it.  He defends Christians by pointing to their lives and to the pluralism of Roman society.  In Dialogue With Trypho, Justin stays close to the Old Testament.  In Christology, he focused on Jesus as the suffering and coming Christ. Thus, the redemption that God brings in Jesus is an expression of the faithfulness of God to creation and consistent with this is the belief that salvation history aims at human fulfilment in Jesus Christ.[2]Although he would not focus upon the notion of revelation, he clearly stresses proof from the Old Testament as a form in which the truth of Christianity is revealed.[3] He stresses two advents, suffering now but coming in glory.  Trypho cannot believe the Messiah would suffer.  Justin believes recent calamities that have befallen Israel are because of their unbelief.  That is why they are persecuted.  The covenant with Israel no longer has validity.  The church is the new Israel and inherits the promises to them.  Jesus is Christ, Priest, King, Angel, Son.  He explains baptism and Eucharist.  Justin clearly leaves the way open for Jews to follow their own traditions and believe in Jesus.  He attempts to demonstrate the divinity of Jesus.  He interprets Isaiah as "virgin" rather than "young woman."  Trypho finds the Incarnation incredible.  In eschatology, he seems to believe in "man of apostasy", everlasting punishment and definitely believes in a thousand year reign.  Trypho stresses that Israel waits for the Messiah, but not a suffering one.  He believes all persons have a judgment of right and wrong.  He gives a lengthy exposition of Psalm 22.  He views Christ as the Passover lamb.  He views Christ as appearing throughout the Old Testament.  In Discourse to the Greeks, he ridicules the poetic mythology, especially its morality.  Then he appeals for the Christian faith, to be instructed by the divine word, in doing so bringing peace of soul by conquering the sensual passions.  In Hortatory Address to the Greeks, since poets and philosophers disagree, they are not to be the foundation of religion.  Christianity's earlier than Greeks, because of Moses.  He then tries to prove that Plato got his ideas of God, origins, and form from Moses while he went to Egypt.  In The Sole Government of God, he simply wants to demonstrate that Greek writers themselves express a belief in one God and in judgment and that these are reminders of what the Greeks have forgotten through the influence of culture that there is one God.  In On the Resurrection, he deals with objections to the resurrection; 1) It is impossible to reconstitute, 2) the flesh causes sin, 3) the body must be raised in all its imperfections.  Though he admits some believe Jesus was raised spiritually, he proves there is a general resurrection by the fact of Jesus' own resurrection.  Justin's pupil Tatian took an anti-Greek twist.

Justin Martyr, the typology developed by Niebuhr in Christ and Culture, thought of the church as standing in the breach when the culture breaks down, and thus, Christ as above culture.

The following are topics I found in interesting.

 Christology--For Christ is King, and Priest, and God, and Lord, and angel, and man, and captain, and stone, and a Son born, and first made subject to suffering, then returning to heaven, and again coming with glory, and he is preached as having the everlasting kingdom...Trypho says that those who affirm Jesus to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions of Justin...Trypho suggest that Jesus could be recognized as Lord and Christ and God, as the scripture declares, by the gentiles, who have from his name been called Christians; but we who are servants of God that made this same Christ, do not require to confess or worship him.

 Eschatology--Trypho asks of he really expects Jerusalem shall be rebuilt; and does he expect Christians to be gathered there, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and they prophets, both the people of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before his Christ came? He accepted what would later be labeled premillennial teaching, expecting a literal fulfillment of the unconditional promise to Abraham and David. He expected Christ to return before the millennium to institute the kingdom promised to David. On the basis of Revelation 20:5-6, he expected a first resurrection at the beginning of the millennium, the saints ruling with Christ on the earth for a thousand years, and then a second resurrection that will occur after God releases Satan from the bondage he endured for that thousand years. Satan will fail again, and God will bring judgment. 

 Jews--For the circumcision according to the flesh, which is from Abraham, was given for a sign; that you may be separated from other nations, and from us; and that you alone may suffer that which you now justly suffer...These things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One...For other nations have not inflicted on us and on Christ this wrong to such an extent as you have, who in very deed are the authors of the wicked prejudice against the Just One, and us who hold by Him...the blood of that circumcision is obsolete, and we trust in the blood of salvation; there is now another covenant, and another law has gone forth from Zion.  Jesus Christ circumcises all who will--as was declared above--with knives of stone; that they may be a righteous nation, a people keeping faith, holding to the truth, and maintaining peace.  Come then with me, all who fear God, who wish to see the good of Jerusalem...Openness to Jewish-Christians: There are such people, Trypho, and these do not venture to have any intercourse with or to extend hospitality to such persons; but I do not agree with them.  But if some, through weak-mindedness, wish to observe such institutions as were given by Moses, from which they expect some virtue, but which we believe were appointed by reason of the hardness of the people's hearts, along with their hope in this Christ, and wish to perform the eternal and natural acts of righteousness and piety, yet choose to live with the Christians and the faithful, as I said before, not inducing them either to be circumcised like themselves, or to keep the Sabbath, or to observe any other such ceremonies, then I hold that we ought to join ourselves to such, and associate with them in all things as family.

 Gnostics--And there are some who maintain that even Jesus himself appeared only as spiritual, and not in flesh, but presented merely the appearance of flesh; these persons seek to rob the flesh of the promise.

 Religious experience--I will also relate the way we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ.  As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them.  Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same way we were ourselves regenerated.  For in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.  Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed...Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the fellowship bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he takes them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at God's hands.  And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people express their assent by saying Amen.  Then, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.  And this food is called among us the eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but those who believe that the things which we teach are true, and who have been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.  For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of God's word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.  And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things.  And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through the Son, Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost.  And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, if time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.  Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen.

            It was at this time, between 150-200 AD, that the Muratorium fragment was written.  It clearly had begun with reference to Matthew and Mark and continued with comments upon those books which are accepted within the church.  Luke is called the physician, who associated with Paul, though he did not see the Jesus himself.  John, the disciple of Jesus, wrote the fourth gospel, but only after a time of fasting and prayer, with Andrew suggesting that John write the gospel in his own name.  It is then stated that: "...although different points are taught us in the several books of the gospels, there is no difference as regards the faith of believers..."  Acts is written by Luke, based upon what he saw himself, since the death of Peter and Paul are not related.  The text refers to the journey of Paul to Spain as well.  Paul wrote, first, to the Corinthians, then to the Ephesians, then the Philippians, then the Colossians, then the Galatians, then to the Romans.  This makes seven letters, the perfect number.  The text refers to letters to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians which were forged under Paul's name.  The General epistles are two by John and one by Jude.  The Wisdom of Solomon is also accepted in the churches.  The Apocalypse of John is accepted, and the Apocalypse of Peter is also accepted among many, but not all.  The Shepherd of Hermas is respected a great deal but is not to be read along with the prophets and apostles. In Persia and India, the Acts of Thomas became an example of Christianity.

Throughout the 200s, there was a mounting social and political crisis.  The Graeco-Roman civilization was in decline.  The civilization that dominated for two centuries was beginning wane.  The Rhine and Danube rivers formed the northern boundaries of this civilization.  Greek culture dominated in the empire.  This cultural unity was just as important as political unity.  This decline, which began in 180, will continue for three centuries.  It shows the strength of the civilization, as well as the weakness of the alternatives.  The cause was not simply foreign aggression, but also internal sickness.

 A school of Christian theologians and bishops and deacons developed in Alexandria. The teachers and students of the school were influential in many of the early theological controversies of the Christian church. It was one of the two major centers of the study of biblical exegesis and theology the other being the School of Antioch. Jerome said John Mark the Apostle founded the school. However, the earliest recorded dean was Athenagoras. He was succeeded by Pantaenus, who was succeeded as head of the school by his student Clement of Alexandria in 190.Other notable theologians with a connection to the school include Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Heraclas, Dionysius "the Great", and Didymus the Blind. Others, including Jerome and Basil, made trips to the school to interact with the scholars there. The Coptic Theological Seminary, Cairo claims continuity with the ancient school. 

The school did not attain a world-wide fame till Pantaenus became its teacher. He was a native of Sicily, and, before his conversion to Christianity, a Stoic philosopher. It is said that he was converted by one of the disciples of St Mark. He became head of the Catechetical School about 180. He immediately set about introducing those changes that contributed to its future celebrity. The union which he effected between theology and philosophy. The supporters of Pantaenus "looked on this philosophy as a 'Gift of God', a 'Work of Divine Providence,' which was intended to be for the Gentiles what the Law has been for the Jew, viz,. the means of their justification and a preparation for the Gospel. They held, that between revealed religion and philosophy, thus understood and explained, there can be no antagonism; but that, on the contrary, the latter can be made subservient to the interests of the former in various ways: (a) by training the mind to think and reason accurately, and thus prepare the mind for the higher study of theology. (b) by supplying proofs and illustrations of many truths common to the two sciences. (c) by unfolding and throwing into scientific shape the truths of Revelation.

Pantaenus' successor was Titus Flavius Clement, Clement of Alexandria. Clement was appointed in 192. His lectures were attended by large numbers of pagans. He commenced with those truths that could be demonstrated from philosophy, for the purpose of leading his hearers by degrees to embrace the Christian faith. He did not confine himself to oral instruction. He wrote numerous works for the benefit of those who could not attend his lectures.

            Clement was born around 150. He was educated as a Pagan. He traveled extensively. He asked typical questions concerning meaning and purpose. When he got back to Alexandria, he was taught by Pantanaeus. He taught at his school until 202., when he was driven out by officials. He went to Cappadocia, where he did most of his writing. Between 211 and 215 he died. He was a saint to his contemporaries. In terms of the history of the church views of him suffered because of his association with Origen and the school at Alexandria.

Clement was a teacher in Alexandria, where non-Christians were frequent visitors, it was a cosmopolitan city. It was the center of scholarship, especially geometry and math. The school of Euclid lasted 700 years in the city. Their astronomers already knew the earth was round. Maps of China were discovered. One of its scientists estimated the diameter of the earth to within 50 miles of what we know it to be. Aristides had believed the earth revolved around the sun. Philo’s synthesis of Plato and Torah is parallel to that developed by Clement. Alexandria was also the home of Neoplatonism. Ammonius Sakas was a contemporary of Clement and taught Origen and Plotinus.

Clement reminds us that in the gospel of John, the logos permeates the whole of creation. He loves eternal life, the cosmos, and creation. There is a sense of participation in the divine nature. Christ brings the universe together. He speaks of the liberation that comes to the Christian. All things, especially truth, belong to the Christian. There is victory over sin, death, and confusion. He displayed great optimism. He wants to save everything that has been tainted by sin. There is the discovery of everything that is of worth in the world and humanity. Clement was not afraid to recognize truth wherever he found it. Truth is one, it comes from God, and the Christian has the right to it. Greek philosophy has truth. The truth finds its fullest expression in Christ. True knowledge is Christ living in his church. We could consider him the father of Christian humanism and the father of Christian mysticism. Clement is unique. He pioneered the idea of teaching intellectuals and societal people. He attempted to bring Christianity to bear upon the culture of his day. His teaching was an exposition of the culture to the cultured Alexandrian. His style is informal, witty, and uses imagery appropriate for the time. His hermeneutical principle is the presence of Christ. Christ is seen as master and teacher. All truth is caught up in Christ. Through Christ the world is full of light. He is conscious of the cosmic Christ.

            He quotes Plato and Greek philosophy as truth. He is not syncretistic. He quoted as truth because it belongs to Christ. However, a valid question is whether it is a cop out for a Christian to say that truth discovered outside of revelation is actually from God. He knows the difference between revelation and metaphysics, the poverty of philosophy and the primacy of the gospels. Revelation outside of scripture is meager and cannot bring a person to Christ.

He had two choices. He could accept either the intellectual Gnostic school of Valentinus or the obscure orthodox community in Egypt.  Pantanaeus helped Clement to see that the church could utilize philosophy.  The church did not have to be on the defensive.  He was prepared to interpret the Sermon on the Mount, for example, with Neo-Pythagorean terms while assuring readers of his biblical thought, even if not biblical terms.  The focus of his theology was creation, the ground of redemption.  Wherever truth and goodness are found, there is the stamp of the creator.  In reviewing the sex ethic, he rejects Gnostic view that marriage is incompatible with the higher Christian life.  He acts much like a spiritual director.  He viewed spiritual life as unending progress.  His temperament was much different from Tertullian.

He had some views of what we might think of as natural theology. But what is loveable, and is not also loved by God?  And people have been proved to be loveable; consequently, God loves people.  For how shall all persons not be loved for whose sake the only begotten Son is sent from the Father's breast, the Word of faith, the faith which is superabundant?  Now, it is incumbent on us to return God's love, who lovingly guides us to that life which is best; and to live in accordance with the injunctions of God's will.  For wandering in life as in deep darkness, we need a guide that cannot stumble or stray; and our guide is the best, not blind.... Clement is among the early leaders of the church who derived the relative viewability and conceivability of God bestowed upon us derives from natural theology.[4] This discourse respecting God is most difficult to handle.  For since the first principle of everything is difficult to find out, the first and oldest principle, which is the cause of all other things being and having been, is difficult to exhibit.  No one can rightly express entirely who God is.  For on account of God's greatness God is ranked as the All and is the Father of the universe.  Nor are any parts to be predicated of God.  For the One is indivisible; wherefore also it is Infinite, not considered with reference to inscrutability, but with reference to its being without dimensions, and not having a limit.  And therefore, it is without form and name.  We do use good names, in order that the mind may have these as points of support, so as not to err in other respects.  For each one by itself does not express God.

Pannenberg discusses the infinity of God in the context of omnipresence and omnipotence (ST 6.3). God is present to all things at the place of their existence. Such presence has the character of the power that is identical with the divine essence. God comprehends all things with the divine presence. In a separate essay, Pannenberg discusses the otherness of God as incomprehensibility and ineffability. He connects this notion with the early Christian theological attempt to relate to the philosophy of Middle Platonism of the time. He sees this idea in Clement of Alexandria. This meant development of the notion of the simplicity of God and the idea that no category can comprehend God. He connects this philosophical notion with the notion in Israel of the hidden quality of God, where even in the historical acts of God, God remains hidden, as in Isaiah 45:15, 40:28, and Deuteronomy 4:12ff. The point is that with revelation, God remains incomprehensible to humanity.[5] When Clement discusses natural theology, for example, he admits the difficulty, for the first principles of anything are difficult to discover. Thus, no one can rightly express entirely who God is. The greatness of God leads us to think of God as the All or the Father of the universe. God is indivisible and Infinite and therefore without dimensions and having no limit. Thus, God is without form or name, even though we use names so that our minds can relate to God, even though no single name expresses who God is. Thus, as Pannenberg puts it, the presence of God wherever the creatures of God are has the form of the creative presence of the Spirit by which God calls them into existence and upholds them. The transcendence of God is compatible with the earthly presence of God through the doctrine of the Trinity, which holds in union and tension the transcendence and immanence of God. Such omnipresence is the condition for the omnipotence of God. God is omnipotent in that divine power knows no limits. Since God wills the existence of the creatures of God, God does not oppose them. The goal of the act of creation is the independent existence of creatures. No one can escape the omnipresence and power of God. When creatures turn aside from the source of its life, it falls into nothingness. The omnipotence of the Creator shows itself in that God can save the creature from the nothingness to which the creature has subjected itself by its conduct. The subjection of the Son to the Father is a pattern for how creation could have independent existence but remain related to its origin. The omnipotence of God comes into action as love through the self-distinction of the son from the Father, the begetting and sending of the Son, and finds fulfillment through the Spirit to whom creatures owe their lives. The omnipotence of God is the power of divine love, and not the assertion of a particular authority against all opposition. That power alone is almighty that affirms what is opposite to it. It gives the creature the opportunity by accepting its own limits to transcend them and in this way itself to participate in Infinity. John Wesley (The Unity of the Divine Being, Sermon 114) also discusses the intimate connection of the all-pervading presence, power, and knowledge of God.

In considering church and world, he could say that the philosophers of the Greeks, while naming God, do not know God.  They spend life in seeking the probable, not the true. Reinhold Niebuhr classes Clement of Alexandria among those who think of the community “above” culture, in that Christian reflection represents a synthesis of biblical teaching and cultural influences. When a breakdown of the culture occurs, as it did at the beginning of the Medieval period, the church stood in the breach and held European life together in a synthetic way.

He considered the social issues of the day.

Regarding women, So the Church is full of those, as well as chaste women as men.  For self-control is common to all human beings who have made choice of it.  And we admit that the same nature exists in every race, and the same virtue.  As far as respects human nature, the woman does not possess one nature, and the man exhibit another, but the same: so also, with virtue.  As then there is sameness, as far as respects the soul, she will attain to the same virtue; but as there is difference as respects the peculiar construction of the body, she is destined for child-bearing and housekeeping.  We do not train our women like Amazons to manliness in war, since we wish the men even to be peaceable.  In this perfection it is possible for man and woman equally to share.  He points to Judith, Susanna, the sister of Moses.  The wise woman, then, will first choose to persuade her husband to be her associate in what is conducive to happiness.  And should that be found impracticable, let her by herself earnestly aim at virtue, gaining her husband's consent in everything, so as never to do anything against his will, with exception of what is reckoned as contributing to virtue and salvation.  For with prefect propriety Scripture has said that woman is given by God as "an help" to man.  It is evident, then that she will charge herself with remedying, by good sense and persuasion, each of the annoyances that originate with her husband in domestic economy.  And if he does not yield, then she will endeavor, as far as possible for human nature to lead a sinless life...

Regarding ethics, our instructor Jesus draws for us the model of the true life, and trains humanity in Christ.  Our superintendence in instruction and discipline is the office of the Word, from whom we learn frugality and humility, and all that pertains to love of truth, love of humanity, and love of excellence.  There is a generous disposition, suitable to the choice that is set upon moral loveliness, resulting from the training of Christ.  For the greatest and most regal work of God is the salvation of humanity.  Christian conduct is the operation of the rational soul in accordance with a correct judgment and aspiration after the truth, which attains its destined end through the body, the soul's consort and ally.  

Regarding the ethical issues related to diet, we must now describe what people who are called Christians ought to be during the whole of their lives.  We must accordingly begin with ourselves, and how we ought to regulate ourselves.  We will need to regulate the body.  The Instructor enjoins us to eat that we may live.  For neither is food our business, nor is pleasure our aim.  Wherefore also there is discrimination to be employed in reference to food.  We must therefore reject different varieties, which engender various mischiefs, such as cookery, making pastry, gluttons.  Alcohol--He counsels abstinence from alcohol.  

Regarding ethical issues related to marriage, he said it exists for pro-creation.  

Regarding ethical issues related to jewelry, How much wiser to spend money on human beings, than on jewels and gold!  

Regarding Ethic, Such ought those who are consecrated to Christ appear, and frame themselves in their whole life, as they fashion themselves in the church for the sake of gravity; and to be not to seem such--so meek, so pious, so loving. After having paid reverence to the discourse about God, they leave within the church what they have heard.  

He encouraged perfection in love. The perfect person ought therefore to practice love, and thence to haste to the divine friendship, fulfilling the commandments from love.  Love joins us to God, does all things in concord.  In love, all the chosen of God were perfected.  They who have been perfected in love, through the grace of God, hold the place of the godly.  Here I find perfection apprehended variously in relation to Jesus who excels in every virtue.  Accordingly, one is perfected as pious, and as patient, and as continent, and as a worker, and as a martyr, and as a Gnostic.  But I know no one of people perfect in all things at once, while still human.  Who then is perfect?  Those who profess abstinence from what is bad.  But gnostic perfection in the case of the legal person is the acceptance of the Gospel, that those who obey the law may be perfect.  Only let us preserve free will and love.  We are then to strive to reach maturity as befits the Gnostic, and to be as perfect as we can while still abiding in the flesh, making it our study with perfect concord here to concur with the will of God, to the restoration of what is the perfect nobleness and relationship, to the fullness of Christ, that which perfectly depends on our perfection.  Uniting the soul with light, through unbroken love, which is God-bearing and God-borne.  Thence assimilation to God the Savior arises to the Gnostic, as far as permitted to human nature, he being made perfect as the Father who is in heaven.  Baptism--The sins committed before faith the Lord accordingly forgives, not that they may be undone, but as if they had not been done.  It ought to be known, then, that those who fall into sin after baptism are those who are subjected to discipline; for the deeds done before are remitted, and those done after are purged.  

Regarding sin, Let them not then say, that those who do wrong and sin transgress through the agency of demons; for then they would be guiltless.

Regarding martyrdom, We call martyrdom perfection, not because they come to the end of their lives as others do, but because they have exhibited the perfect work of love.  But say they, if God cares for you, why are you persecuted and put to death?  Has God delivered you to this?  Although we do not wrong, yet the judge looks on us as doing wrong, for he neither knows nor wishes to know about us but is influenced by unwarranted prejudice; wherefore also he is judged.  Accordingly, they persecute us, not from the supposition that we are wrong doers, but imagining that by the very fact of our being Christians we sin against life in so conducting ourselves, and exhorting others to adopt the like life.

Regarding theodicy, Some will say that if God uses the rod and threatening and fear, God cannot be good.  Yet, even here the Lord the Instructor is best.  The Lord hates none of the things which were made.  Therefore, God loves them.  Much more than the rest, and with reason, God loves humanity, the noblest of all objects created by God, and a God-loving being.  Therefore, God is loving; consequently, the Word is loving.  Yet, if you love something, you wish it good.  Yet, if the Lord loves humanity, and is good, can God be angry and punish?  The answer is that reproof and reproach and admonition are surgery to the passions of the soul, medicine to the soul.  While God threatens, God obviously is unwilling to inflict evil to execute God's threatenings; but by inspiring people with fear, God cuts off the approach to sin, and shows God's love to humanity.  Nor does God inflict punishment from wrath, but for the ends of justice; since it is not expedient that justice should be neglected on our account.  Each one of us, who sins, with our own free will chooses punishment, and the blame lies with the one who chooses.  See how God, through love of goodness, seeks repentance; and by means of the plan God pursues of threatening silently, shows God's own love for humanity.  I will Grant that God punishes the disobedient, but I will not grant that God wishes to take vengeance.  Besides, the feeling of anger is full of love to humanity, God condescending to emotion on humanity's account; for whose sake also the Word of God became a human being.  "To speak briefly, therefore, the Lord acts towards us as we do towards our children."

Regarding Bible interpretation, He insisted that the operation of the Holy Spirit in the inspiration of the biblical writers extended to the individual phraseology used by them in the grammatical sense of the concept. Thus, the idea that not even the slightest joy or tittle of Scripture can be destroyed is based on the truth that it the mouth of the Lord through the Holy Spirit has spoken all.[6] And if those also who follow heresies venture to avail themselves of the prophetic Scriptures; in the first place they will not make use of all the Scriptures, and then they will not quote them entire, nor as the body and texture of prophecy prescribe. ...These things are written in the Gospel according to Mark; and in all the rest correspondingly; although perchance the expressions vary slightly in each, yet all show identical agreement in meaning....The blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and himself the Savior paid tribute...The apostle John: For when, on the tyrant's death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit....They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, "Remember thou the Lord."  Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition towards those dearest to them.

Regarding Christology, beneficent exceedingly, and loving to humanity, in that, when he might have been Lord, he wished to be a brother to us all; and so good was he that he died for us. 

Regarding Mary, Jesus is the fruit of the Virgin, the only virgin mother.  "I love to call her the Church.  This mother, when alone, had not milk, because alone she was not a woman.  But she is once virgin and mother--ever as a virgin, loving as a mother.  And calling her children to her, she nurses them with holy milk, with the Word for childhood.  Therefore she had not milk; for the milk was this child fair and comely, the body of Christ, which nourishes by the Word the young brood, which the Lord brought forth in throes of the flesh, which the Lord swathed in his precious blood....But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the perpetual state, although she was not.  For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined to be a virgin.

Regarding predestination, Whether, then, the Father draws everyone who has led a pure life, and has reached the conception of the blessed and incorruptible nature; or whether the free will which is in us, by reaching the knowledge of the good, leaps and bounds over the barriers, as the gymnasts say; yet is not without eminent grace that the soul is winged, and soars, and is raised above the higher spheres, laying aside all that is heavy, and surrendering itself to its kindred element....People are not saved against their will, but will be so voluntarily and of free choice.

Regarding eschatology, And how is Jesus Savior and Lord, if not the Savior and Lord of all?  But he is the savior of those who have believed, because of their wishing to know; and the Lord of those who have not believed, till, being enabled to confess him, they obtain the peculiar and appropriate boon which comes by him...But, on the other hand, they allowed those who had been delighted with vice to consort with the objects of their choice; and, on the other hand, that the soul, which is ever improving in the acquisition of virtue and the increase of righteousness, should obtain a better place in the universe, as tending in each step of advancement towards the habit of impassibility...

Christian hope directs itself toward eschatological salvation (Pannenberg, ST 15). This hope fulfills the deepest longing of humans and all creation, even when explicit awareness of the object of this longing is lacking. This longing transcends all our concepts. The reason is that this longing means participation in the eternal life of God. “Thy kingdom come” is the prayer of the Christian community in the Lord’s Prayer and the perfect example of this hope. When Christians discuss the resurrection of the dead and the last judgment, they have a relationship to the coming of God that consummates divine rule over creation. He notes the reduction of interest in the rule of God in the post-apostolic period. Yet, in its debate with Hellenistic philosophy, we also find an increase of interest in the resurrection of the dead and conforming to the likeness of Christ as the heart of Christian hope for the future. They viewed the lordship of God over history as present already rather than awaiting future consummation. The basis of this thought is creation, working itself out in debate with Gnosticism. Thus, the reduction of interest in eschatology occurred largely because of the debates the post-apostolic period had within its religious and philosophical environment. Later Christian reflections, such as Clement of Alexandria, will continue the reduction of interest in the rule of God and emphasize resurrection and last judgment.

Regarding ecclesiology, For it is not now the place, but the assemblage of the elect, that I call the church.  This temple is better for the reception of the greatness of the dignity of God...The altar, then, that is with us here, the terrestrial one, is the congregation of those who devote themselves to prayers, having as it were one common voice and one mind....One objection against the church is that there is discord among the sects.  The truth is not seen when distorted in several dogmas.  He answers that it is worse in other religions....From what has been said, then, it is my opinion that the true church, that which is really ancient, is one, and that in it those who according to God's purpose are just, are enrolled.  For from the very reason that God is one, and the Lord one, that which is in the highest degree honorable is lauded in consequence of its singleness, being an imitation of the one first principle.  In the nature of the One, then, is associated in a joint heritage the one church, which they strive to cut asunder into many sects...He calls it the ancient and Catholic Church.

Regarding spiritual Experience, What then, is the exhortation I give you?  I urge you to be saved.  This Christ desires.  In one word....Hence accordingly ensues the healing of our passions, in consequence of the assuagements of those examples; the Pedagogue strengthening our souls, and by God's benign commands, as by gentle medicines, guiding the sick to the perfect knowledge of the truth....We are washed from all our sins, and are no longer entangled in evil.  This is the one grace of illumination, that our characters are not the same as before our washing... He urged that the church not use music, for it is too much like the entertainments of the world....He has a prayer for assimilation to the divine: But I shall free myself from lust, let them say, O Lord, for the sake of alliance with you.  For the economy of creation is good, and all things are well administered: nothing happens without a cause.  I must be in what is yours, O Omnipotent One. And if I am there, I am near you.  And I would be free of fear that I may be able to draw near to you, and to be satisfied with little, practicing your just choice between things good and things like....As then, those, who at sea are held by an anchor, pull at the anchor, but do not drag it to them, but drag themselves to the anchor; so those who, according to the gnostic life, draw God towards them, imperceptibly bring themselves to God: for those who revere God, revere themselves.  In the contemplative life, then, one in worshipping God attends to themselves, and through their own spotless purification beholds the holy God in a holy way; for self-control, being present, surveying and contemplating itself uninterruptedly, is as far as possible assimilated to God....It ought to be known, then, that those who fall into sin after baptism are those who are subjected to discipline; for the deeds done before are remitted, and those done after are purged....uniting the soul with light, through unbroken love, which is God bearing and God borne.  Thence, assimilation to God the Savior arises to the Gnostic, as far as permitted to human nature, he being made perfect...Prayer is converse with God.  Though whispering, consequently, and not opening the lips, we speak in silence, yet we cry inwardly.  For God hears continually all the inward converse.  So also we raise the head and lift the hands to heaven, and set the feet in motion at the closing utterance of the prayer, following the eagerness of the spirit directed towards the intellectual essence; and endeavoring to abstract the body from the earth, along with the discourse, raising the soul aloft...Some assign definite hours for prayer, yet the gnostic prays throughout his or her whole life, endeavoring by prayer to have fellowship with God.  And having reached to this, they leave behind all that is of no service, as having now received the perfection of those who act by love....In prayer, the gnostic is better prepared to fail when he or she asks, than to get when they do not ask...The gnostic is always pure for prayer.  They also pray in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and they are never out of their holy keeping; and though they pray alone, they have the choir of the saints standing with them....Gnostics fast with their life, in respect of coveting and voluptuousness, from which all the vices grow...Gnostics are consequently divine, and already holy, God-bearing and God-borne.

During the 200s, the pattern of worship was scripture reading, preaching, prayers, hymns.  The great event of the year was Easter.  In Rome, there was a 40 hour fast and vigil.  By early in the next century this was extended to the 40 days of Lent.  Martyrs were commemorated with a celebration of the Lord's Supper annually on the days of their death.  Prayers for the dead in general were in use by the beginning of this century.

Baptism by the middle of this century was believed to wash away all previous sins.  Irenaeus made an obscure reference to infant baptism in 185 AD.  Tertullian refers to it and discourages it.  Origen approved it as an apostolic custom.  The practice was not universal until the sixth century.  As to method, the New Testament was mainly immersion, but not always complete.  In the middle of the third century there was heated discussion of the validity of heretical baptism.

The Lord's Supper was viewed by most to be a real presence of Christ at the Eucharist, though this was left undefined.  The struggle with Docetism brought an increasing emphasis in the passion of Christ symbolized in the Eucharist.  Cyprian completed the movement toward it being viewed as a sacrifice.  But this demands a priest.

There was controversy over the forgiveness of sins. This issue began with controversy over the nature of sin after baptism.  Callistus would also open the church to those who lapsed after baptism in a way much too liberal for Hippolytus.  Callistus argued by an analogy from the Noah's Ark, that the church is like the ark, with the clean and unclean within it.  The main issue was concerning those who denied their faith during the persecution of 250 AD.    Once the persecution was over, could they be allowed back into the church?  Novatian believed that such a sin was unforgivable.  The bishop of Rome, Cornelius, believed in a milder position, and this is what prevailed.  

Yet another controversy was whether the baptism of those determined to be heretics was valid.  Cyprian would say no.  The bishop of Rome, Stephen, disagreed, claiming sacraments were Christ's, not the church or minister.  Stephen denounced Cyprian.  He is also the first to used the text "Thou art Peter..." to support the view that the bishop of Rome was the first of all the bishops.  For Cyprian, all bishop were equal.  In any case, the bond between the written and preached Word makes it understandable that early authors singled out the bishop as the embodiment of the unity of the church.[7]

The Monarchian controversy arose, based on discussions in the second century.  In Logos Christology developed by Justin, the Logos was called a "second God."  Irenaeus affirmed the "threeness" of God in the Father, Son, and Spirit. In Rome, where Zephyrinus (198-217) was the bishop, there was debate between Sebelius and Hippolytus.  For Sebelius, the Monarchian position was developed from the standpoint that the Father and the Son are essentially the same, the distinction being one of nomenclature. There were two brands of Monarchianism.  One was a dynamic brand, that Jesus was the Son of God by adoption.  This was the position of Paul of Samosato in the East and Theodotus, Ascelepiodorus, and Artemon in the West.  The Modalist or Patripassionists believed Jesus was a temporary manifestation of the one God.  Noetus of Smyrna, Praxeas, and Sabellius, the last being supported by Zephyrinus who was bishop of Rome, defended this position. It earned the title "Patripassianism" in the West and is now known as Modalism, because the Father, Son, and Spirit are viewed as three modes of the one being.  Hippolytus affirmed Logos Christology and developed it.  Ohers to do so were Tertullian, Novatian, and Dionysius. The Father and Son were two distinct prosopa or persons.  Callistus in 217, a slave who became bishop of Rome, tried to form a position between the two.  Hippolytus believed strongly enough in this position that he could not have communion with this bishop.  He left the church and wrote the well-known, Apostolic Tradition for the churches faithful to him.  Tertullian wrote a tract called "Against Praxeas" for the purpose of refuting modalism. Tertullian would admit that the common believer accepted one true God, and they did not think in terms of Trinity.   Praxeas was from Asia Minor and also offended Tertullian by his attacks against Montanism.  Tertullian was the first to use in Latin the terms substantia to describe oneness and persona to describe threeness.  It is likely that the former came from the Stoic view that what is immaterial does not exist, and thus "spirit" is an invisible, intangible, but material force.  Around 250 AD, Novatian would write "On the Trinity" defending Logos Christology in clear terms and without a hint of the former battles. The triumph of the Logos Christology would be in the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.

Origen, 185-254, read Clement, though he was more austere, believing even the good of the world can be an obstacle to higher ends.  He was centered in Alexandria and was typical of that school in many ways.  He quoted Scripture from memory, a source of some pride.  His desire was to defend the church against Jews, heretics, and pagans.  With Jews, he discovered there needed to be common texts used.  His Hexapla defended the LXX, though he knew Jews did not accept the additions we call the apocrypha.  In conversation with Julius Africanus, he disputed that "Susanna" must be a Greek addition based on Julius' observation of a pun possible only in Greek.  Julius was a wide traveler and intellect who was the first Christian to write about things other than the faith. The exposition of Scripture was primary, and he wrote many such works and sermons.  His ascetic standards did not endear him to many in the church.  Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, tried to get the church more orthodox and this came across to Origen as autocratic.  Some even accused the bishop of being jealous of Origen.  He was invited to Transjordan to refute the monarchist Heraclides.  In 229 he went to Athens to refute the Valentinian Candidus.  When the gnostic said the orthodox could not disagree with him on predestination because of their view of the devil's destiny, he responded that even the devil could repent.  This branded him a heretic, and he could not return to Alexandria.  He would live in Caesarea till his death.  His friend Ambrose in 248 persuaded him to write Against Celsus.  Both were Platonists, with Origen upholding freedom to be in God.

The truth of Christian teaching is part of the theme of theological reasoning. When we study doctrine, which in the New Testament would be “teaching,” we are studying teaching we believe God has authorized, which gives the word “theology” its basic meaning. Theology clarifies the content of Christian teaching. The term “systematic theology” did not arrive on the scene until the 1700s. One primary criterion of the truth of Christian teaching is its systematic presentation. A systematic presentation of the articles of faith involves consideration of their truth. Thus, theology and philosophy are not in opposition since both have only a provisional grasp of a history that transcends every concept. The superiority of history over the concept suggests that the plurality of viewpoints in the struggle for the one truth becomes intelligible because of the openness of history. Further, the relationship between theory and practice changes in that allows practice to exert its influence on the understanding of the nature and truth of Christianity.[8] Preaching or proclamation presupposes the coherence of Christian teaching and its truth. The simplest reception of the Christian message by the person in the pew makes legitimate assumptions about that proclamation. Instruction contained in catechism and confirmation and other membership classes assumes the truth and coherence of the message. The person called to action on behalf of the Christian message makes assumptions about that message. Systematic theology engages the question of the coherence of the teaching. Such activity within Christian tradition extends back to the time of Origen, even though the term “systematic theology” did not exist. For him, the issue was the unity of Christian doctrine and consistency with the principles of reason or rational knowledge. Even though the philosophical and cultural context has altered significantly since then, the underlying interest of the unity of Christian teaching and its agreement with rationality remain valid. An important distinction here, however, and one that is a problem for philosophers and scientists alike, is that, due to the historical origin of Christian teaching, one cannot “deduce” its truth from either science or basic philosophical principles. Thus, one will need to develop a notion of the variety of ways in which we express our rationality, as Paul Tillich has done.

His work for orthodoxy was On First Principles, a comprehensive exposition of theology.  He is the first who have written his theology in form that would become standard for dogmatics and systematic theology to the present. God first created spiritual beings endowed with freedom.  The structure of his dogmatics/systematic theology has the topics that most attempts to comprehend rationally Christian theology have taken. He engages those who attack Christian teaching. He uses philosophy and science to explain and support Christian teaching. He acknowledges differences within the Christian community. 

Based on Philo, he believed they became sated with worship and slowly grew cold.  God created freely because of this Fall.  The problem of evil is dealt with from the standpoint of its apparent purposelessness.  He combined the view of Plato of evil being a privation of goodness and that evil is the result of the misuse of freedom.  Jesus is the only soul to never turn from God.  All revelation is conditioned by the capacity of the recipient.  At death, all persons must go through a purging process, the wrath of God always having a remedial purpose.  He rejected a literal interpretation of heaven, hell, resurrection, the second coming, though this seems to have been the view of the person in the pew.  The devil was a fallen angel, but even the devil has freedom to repent.  The atonement is not complete until all are brought to redemption.  He defended the use of allegory, though he got into trouble because of an apparent devaluing of the literal, historical sense.  This would influence Gregory the Great and Jerome.  Origin's doctrine of prayer and mysticism was rooted in the Bible.

In Book I.1 he discusses God. Early Christian theology, with the background of Greek philosophy, wrote of God is supreme reason or nous. We will see this in Origen. In I.1.5, after dismissing the idea that God has a body, We go on to say that, according to strict truth, God is incomprehensible, and incapable of being measured. For whatever be the knowledge which we can obtain of God, either by perception or reflection, we must of necessity believe that He is by many degrees far better than what we perceive Him to be….what is so superior to all others — so unspeakably and incalculably superior — as God, whose nature cannot be grasped or seen by the power of any human understanding, even the purest and brightest? In I.1.6, But it will not appear absurd if we employ another similitude to make the matter clearer. Our eyes frequently cannot look upon the nature of the light itself — that is, upon the substance of the sun; but when we behold his splendour or his rays pouring in, perhaps, through windows or some small openings to admit the light, we can reflect how great is the supply and source of the light of the body. So, in like manner. the works of Divine Providence and the plan of this whole world are a sort of rays, as it were, of the nature of God, in comparison with His real substance and being. As, therefore, our understanding is unable of itself to behold God Himself as He is, it knows the Father of the world from the beauty of His works and the comeliness of His creatures….for we human beings are animals composed of a union of body and soul, and in this way (only) was it possible for us to live upon the earth. But God, who is the beginning of all things, is not to be regarded as a composite being, lest perchance there should be found to exist elements prior to the beginning itself, out of which everything is composed, whatever that be which is called composite. In I.2 he discusses Christ as Wisdom, Truth, Life, Light, and Glory, which the Father never did not have, and thus the generation of the Son has no beginning, but was always within the divine nature, so to speak. In I.3 he discusses the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless it seems proper to inquire what is the reason why he who is regenerated by God unto salvation has to do both with Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and does not obtain salvation unless with the co-operation of the entire Trinity; and why it is impossible to become partaker of the Father or the Son without the Holy Spirit. And in discussing these subjects, it will undoubtedly be necessary to describe the special working of the Holy Spirit, and of the Father and the Son. I am of opinion, then, that the working of the Father and of the Son takes place as well in saints as in sinners, in rational beings and in dumb animals; nay, even in those things which are without life, and in all things universally which exist; but that the operation of the Holy Spirit does not take place at all in those things which are without life, or in those which, although living, are yet dumb; nay, is not found even in those who are endued indeed with reason, but are engaged in evil courses, and not at all converted to a better life. In those persons alone do I think that the operation of the Holy Spirit takes place, who are already turning to a better life, and walking along the way which leads to Jesus Christ, i.e., who are engaged in the performance of good actions, and who abide in God. … Having made these declarations regarding the Unity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, let us return to the order in which we began the discussion. God the Father bestows upon all, existence; and participation in Christ, in respect of His being the word of reason, renders them rational beings. From which it follows that they are deserving either of praise or blame, because capable of virtue and vice. On this account, therefore, is the grace of the Holy Ghost present, that those beings which are not holy in their essence may be rendered holy by participating in it. Seeing, then, that firstly, they derive their existence from God the Father; secondly, their rational nature from the Word; thirdly, their holiness from the Holy Spirit — those who have been previously sanctified by the Holy Spirit are again made capable of receiving Christ, in respect that He is the righteousness of God; and those who have earned advancement to this grade by the sanctification of the Holy Spirit, will nevertheless obtain the gift of wisdom according to the power and working of the Spirit of God. … Whence also the working of the Father, which confers existence upon all things, is found to be more glorious and magnificent, while each one, by participation in Christ, as being wisdom, and knowledge, and sanctification, makes progress, and advances to higher degrees of perfection; and seeing it is by partaking of the Holy Spirit that any one is made purer and holier, he obtains, when he is made worthy, the grace of wisdom and knowledge, in order that, after all stains of pollution and ignorance are cleansed and taken away, he may make so great an advance in holiness and purity, that the nature which he received from God may become such as is worthy of Him who gave it to be pure and perfect, so that the being which exists may be as worthy as He who called it into existence. For, in this way, he who is such as his Creator wished him to be, will receive from God power always to exist, and to abide forever. That this may be the case, and that those whom He has created may be unceasingly and inseparably present with Him, Who IS, it is the business of wisdom to instruct and train them, and to bring them to perfection by confirmation of His Holy Spirit and unceasing sanctification, by which alone are they capable of receiving God. In this way, then, by the renewal of the ceaseless working of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in us, in its various stages of progress, shall we be able at some future time perhaps, although with difficulty, to behold the holy and the blessed life, in which (as it is only after many struggles that we are able to reach it) we ought so to continue, that no satiety of that blessedness should ever seize us; but the more we perceive its blessedness, the more should be increased and intensified within us the longing for the same, while we ever more eagerly and freely receive and hold fast the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

In I. 6, The end of the world, then, and the final consummation, will take place when everyone shall be subjected to punishment for his sins; a time which God alone knows, when He will bestow on each one what he deserves. We think, indeed, that the goodness of God, through His Christ, may recall all His creatures to one end, even His enemies being conquered and subdued. Seeing, then, that such is the end, when all enemies will be subdued to Christ, when death — the last enemy — shall be destroyed, and when the kingdom shall be delivered up by Christ (to whom all things are subject) to God the Father; let us, I say, from such an end as this, contemplate the beginnings of things. For the end is always like the beginning: and, therefore, as there is one end to all things, so ought we to understand that there was one beginning; and as there is one end to many things, so there spring from one beginning many differences and varieties, which again, through the goodness of God, and by subjection to Christ, and through the unity of the Holy Spirit, are recalled to one end, which is like the beginning. And hence it is that the whole of this mortal life is full of struggles and trials, caused by the opposition and enmity of those who fell from a better condition without at all looking back, and who are called the devil and his angels, and the other orders of evil, which the apostle classed among the opposing powers. But whether any of these orders who act under the government of the devil, and obey his wicked commands, will in a future world be converted to righteousness because of their possessing the faculty of freedom of will, or whether persistent and inveterate wickedness may be changed by the power of habit into nature, is a result which you yourself, reader, may approve of, if neither in these present worlds which are seen and temporal, nor in those which are unseen and are eternal, that portion is to differ wholly from the final unity and fitness of things. For if the heavens are to be changed, assuredly that which is changed does not perish, and if the fashion of the world passes away, it is by no means an annihilation or destruction of their material substance that is shown to take place, but a kind of change of quality and transformation of appearance. Isaiah also, in declaring prophetically that there will be a new heaven and a new earth, undoubtedly suggests a similar view. For this renewal of heaven and earth, and this transmutation of the form of the present world, and this changing of the heavens will undoubtedly be prepared for those who are walking along that way which we have pointed out above, and are tending to that goal of happiness to which, it is said, even enemies themselves are to be subjected, and in which God is said to be all and in all.

Book II.1 deals with the world. He wants to reflect upon the world itself, i.e., its beginning and end, or those dispensations of Divine Providence which have taken place between the beginning and the end, or those events which are supposed to have occurred before the creation of the world or are to take place after the end. For it is one power which grasps and holds together all the diversity of the world, and leads the different movements towards one work, lest so immense an undertaking as that of the world should be dissolved by the dissensions of souls. And for this reason we think that God, the Father of all things, in order to ensure the salvation of all His creatures through the ineffable plan of His word and wisdom, so arranged each of these, that every spirit, whether soul or rational existence, however called, should not be compelled by force, against the liberty of his own will, to any other course than that to which the motives of his own mind led him (lest by so doing the power of exercising free-will should seem to be taken away, which certainly would produce a change in the nature of the being itself); and that the varying purposes of these would be suitably and usefully adapted to the harmony of one world, by some of them requiring help, and others being able to give it, and others again being the cause of struggle and contest to those who are making progress, among whom their diligence would be deemed more worthy of approval, and the place of rank obtained after victory be held with greater certainty, which should be established by the difficulties of the contest. … I am of opinion that the whole world also ought to be regarded as some huge and immense animal, which is kept together by the power and reason of God as by one soul. … And I cannot understand how so many distinguished men have been of opinion that this matter, was uncreated, i.e., not formed by God Himself, who is the Creator of all things, but that its nature and power were the result of chance. And I am astonished that they should find fault with those who deny either God's creative power or His providential administration of the world, and accuse them of impiety for thinking that so great a work as the world could exist without an architect or overseer; while they themselves incur a similar charge of impiety in saying that matter is uncreated, and co-eternal with the uncreated God. For it has been said that we must suppose either that an incorporeal existence is possible, after all things have become subject to Christ, and through Christ to God the Father, when God will be all and in all; or that when, notwithstanding all things have been made subject to Christ, and through Christ to God (with whom they formed also one spirit, in respect of spirits being rational natures), then the bodily substance itself also being united to most pure and excellent spirits, and being changed into an ethereal condition in proportion to the quality or merits of those who assume it (according to the apostle's words, We also shall be changed), will shine forth in splendor; or at least that when the fashion of those things which are seen passes away, and all corruption has been shaken off and cleansed away, and when the whole of the space occupied by this world, in which the spheres of the planets are said to be, has been left behind and beneath, then is reached the fixed abode of the pious and the good situated above that sphere, which is called non-wandering (ἀπλανής), as in a good land, in a land of the living, which will be inherited by the meek and gentle; to which land belongs that heaven (which, with its more magnificent extent, surrounds and contains that land itself) which is called truly and chiefly heaven, in which heaven and earth, the end and perfection of all things, may be safely and most confidently placed — where, viz., these, after their apprehension and their chastisement for the offenses which they have undergone by way of purgation, may, after having fulfilled and discharged every obligation, deserve a habitation in that land; while those who have been obedient to the word of God, and have henceforth by their obedience shown themselves capable of wisdom, are said to deserve the kingdom of that heaven or heavens … Having now briefly arranged these points in order as we best could, it follows that, agreeably to our intention from the first, we refute those who think that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is a different God from Him who gave the answers of the law to Moses, or commissioned the prophets, who is the God of our fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For in this article of faith, first of all, we must be firmly grounded. … according to which they have declared that justice is one thing and goodness another, and have applied this division even to divine things, maintaining that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is indeed a good God, but not a just one, whereas the God of the law and the prophets is just, but not good; I think it necessary to return, with as much brevity as possible, an answer to these statements. 

In II.6 he discusses the Incarnation of Christ. 3. The Only-begotten of God, therefore, through whom, as the previous course of the discussion has shown, all things were made, visible and invisible, according to the view of Scripture, both made all things, and loves what He made. For since He is Himself the invisible image of the invisible God, He conveyed invisibly a share in Himself to all His rational creatures, so that each one obtained a part of Him exactly proportioned to the amount of affection with which he regarded Him. But since, agreeably to the faculty of free-will, variety and diversity characterized the individual souls, so that one was attached with a warmer love to the Author of its being, and another with a feebler and weaker regard, that soul (anima) regarding which Jesus said, No one shall take my life (animam) from me, inhering, from the beginning of the creation, and afterwards, inseparably and indissolubly in Him, as being the Wisdom and Word of God, and the Truth and the true Light, and receiving Him wholly, and passing into His light and splendor, was made with Him in a pre-eminent degree one spirit, according to the promise of the apostle to those who ought to imitate it, that he who is joined in the Lord is one spirit. This substance of a soul, then, being intermediate between God and the flesh — it being impossible for the nature of God to intermingle with a body without an intermediate instrument — the God-man is born, as we have said, that substance being the intermediary to whose nature it was not contrary to assume a body. But neither, on the other hand, was it opposed to the nature of that soul, as a rational existence, to receive God, into whom, as stated above, as into the Word, and the Wisdom, and the Truth, it had already wholly entered. And therefore, deservedly is it also called, along with the flesh which it had assumed, the Son of God, and the Power of God, the Christ, and the Wisdom of God, either because it was wholly in the Son of God, or because it received the Son of God wholly into itself. And again, the Son of God, through whom all things were created, is named Jesus Christ and the Son of man. For the Son of God also is said to have died — in reference, viz., to that nature which could admit of death; and He is called the Son of man, who is announced as about to come in the glory of God the Father, with the holy angels. And for this reason, throughout the whole of Scripture, not only is the divine nature spoken of in human words, but the human nature is adorned by appellations of divine dignity. More truly indeed of this than of any other can the statement be affirmed, They shall both be in one flesh, and are no longer two, but one flesh. For the Word of God is to be considered as being more in one flesh with the soul than a man with his wife. But to whom is it more becoming to be also one spirit with God, than to this soul which has so joined itself to God by love as that it may justly be said to be one spirit with Him?

In II.7 he returns to a discussion of the Holy Spirit. the same God was the creator and founder of the world, and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, i.e., that the God of the law and of the prophets and of the Gospel was one and the same; and that, in the next place, it ought to be shown, with respect to Christ, in what manner He who had formerly been demonstrated to be the Word and Wisdom of God became man; it remains that we now return with all possible brevity to the subject of the Holy Spirit. It is time, then, that we say a few words to the best of our ability regarding the Holy Spirit, whom our Lord and Savior in the Gospel according to John has named the Paraclete.

In II.8 he considers the soul (anima). Now, that there are souls in all living things, even in those which live in the waters, is, I suppose, doubted by no one. For the general opinion of all men maintains this.

In II.10 he considers the resurrection, judgment, fires of hell, and punishments. But since the discourse has reminded us of the subjects of a future judgment and of retribution, and of the punishments of sinners, according to the threatenings of holy Scripture and the contents of the Church's teaching — viz., that when the time of judgment comes, everlasting fire, and outer darkness, and a prison, and a furnace, and other punishments of like nature, have been prepared for sinners — let us see what our opinions on these points ought to be. But that these subjects may be arrived at in proper order, it seems to me that we ought first to consider the nature of the resurrection, that we may know what that (body) is which shall come either to punishment, or to rest, or to happiness; which question in other treatises which we have composed regarding the resurrection we have discussed at greater length, and have shown what our opinions were regarding it. … This transformation certainly is to be looked for, according to the order which we have taught above; and in it, undoubtedly, it becomes us to hope for something worthy of divine grace. … And so also to those who shall deserve to obtain an inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, that germ of the body's restoration, which we have before mentioned, by God's command restores out of the earthly and animal body a spiritual one, capable of inhabiting the heavens; while to each one of those who may be of inferior merit, or of more abject condition, or even the lowest in the scale, and altogether thrust aside, there is yet given, in proportion to the dignity of his life and soul, a glory and dignity of body — nevertheless in such a way, that even the body which rises again of those who are to be destined to everlasting fire or to severe punishments, is by the very change of the resurrection so incorruptible, that it cannot be corrupted and dissolved even by severe punishments. If, then, such be the qualities of that body which will arise from the dead, let us now see what is the meaning of the threatening of eternal fire. … Of this fire the fuel and food are our sins. … when the soul has gathered together a multitude of evil works, and an abundance of sins against itself, at a suitable time all that assembly of evils boils up to punishment, and is set on fire to chastisements; when the mind itself, or conscience, receiving by divine power into the memory all those things of which it had stamped on itself certain signs and forms at the moment of sinning, will see a kind of history, as it were, of all the foul, and shameful, and unholy deeds which it has done, exposed before its eyes: then is the conscience itself harassed, and, pierced by its own goads, becomes an accuser and a witness against itself. … Now I am of opinion that another species of punishment may be understood to exist; because, as we feel that when the limbs of the body are loosened and torn away from their mutual supports, there is produced pain of a most excruciating kind, so, when the soul shall be found to be beyond the order, and connection, and harmony in which it was created by God for the purposes of good and useful action and observation, and not to harmonize with itself in the connection of its rational movements, it must be deemed to bear the chastisement and torture of its own dissension, and to feel the punishments of its own disordered condition. And when this dissolution and rending asunder of soul shall have been tested by the application of fire, a solidification undoubtedly into a firmer structure will take place, and a restoration be effected. … Certain persons, then, refusing the labor of thinking, and adopting a superficial view of the letter of the law, and yielding rather in some measure to the indulgence of their own desires and lusts, being disciples of the letter alone, are of opinion that the fulfilment of the promises of the future are to be looked for in bodily pleasure and luxury; and therefore they especially desire to have again, after the resurrection, such bodily structures as may never be without the power of eating, and drinking, and performing all the functions of flesh and blood, not following the opinion of the Apostle Paul regarding the resurrection of a spiritual body. And consequently, they say, that after the resurrection there will be marriages, and the begetting of children, imagining to themselves that the earthly city of Jerusalem is to be rebuilt. … Origen will disagree with this notion: And thus the rational nature, growing by each individual step, not as it grew in this life in flesh, and body, and soul, but enlarged in understanding and in power of perception, is raised as a mind already perfect to perfect knowledge, no longer at all impeded by those carnal senses, but increased in intellectual growth; and ever gazing purely, and, so to speak, face to face, on the causes of things, it attains perfection, firstly, viz., that by which it ascends to (the truth), and secondly, that by which it abides in it, having problems and the understanding of things, and the causes of events, as the food on which it may feast. For as in this life our bodies grow physically to what they are, through a sufficiency of food in early life supplying the means of increase, but after the due height has been attained we use food no longer to grow, but to live, and to be preserved in life by it; so also I think that the mind, when it has attained perfection, eats and avails itself of suitable and appropriate food in such a degree, that nothing ought to be either deficient or superfluous. And in all things this food is to be understood as the contemplation and understanding of God, which is of a measure appropriate and suitable to this nature, which was made and created; and this measure it is proper should be observed by every one of those who are beginning to see God, i.e., to understand Him through purity of heart.

In III, Rufinus refers to one who is desirous of being trained in divine learning, while retaining in its integrity the rule of the Catholic faith.

In III.1, he deals with freedom of the will. The preaching of the Church includes a belief in a future and just judgment of God, which belief incites and persuades men to a good and virtuous life, and to an avoidance of sin by all possible means; and as by this it is undoubtedly indicated that it is within our own power to devote ourselves either to a life that is worthy of praise, or to one that is worthy of censure, I therefore deem it necessary to say a few words regarding the freedom of the will…. And that we may ascertain more easily what is the freedom of the will, let us inquire into the nature of will and of desire. He begins with motion, of which inanimate objects move from an external force while living entities have motion from within themselves. Living things have a soul that a desire can cause to move in a certain direction. Entities that have soul must will to move in certain directions. … a rational animal not only has within itself these natural movements, but has moreover, to a greater extent than other animals, the power of reason, by which it can judge and determine regarding natural movements, and disapprove and reject some, while approving and adopting others, so by the judgment of this reason may the movements of men be governed and directed towards a commendable life. … You will find also innumerable other passages in holy Scripture, which manifestly show that we possess freedom of will. … But, seeing there are found in the sacred Scriptures themselves certain expressions occurring in such a connection, that the opposite of this may appear capable of being understood from them, let us bring them forth before us, and, discussing them according to the rule of piety, let us furnish an explanation of them, in order that from those few passages which we now expound, the solution of those others which resemble them, and by which any power over the will seems to be excluded, may become clear. … Let us therefore view those signs and miracles which were done by God, as the showers furnished by Him from above; and the purpose and desires of men, as the cultivated and uncultivated soil, which is of one and the same nature indeed, as is every soil compared with another, but not in one and the same state of cultivation. From which it follows that every one's will, if untrained, and fierce, and barbarous, is either hardened by the miracles and wonders of God, growing more savage and thorny than ever, or it becomes more pliant, and yields itself up with the whole mind to obedience, if it be cleared from vice and subjected to training. … God also, who knows the secret things of the heart, and foreknows the future, in much forbearance allows certain events to happen. … For God gave no one a stony heart by a creative act; but each individual's heart is said to become stony through his own wickedness and disobedience. … For God the Creator makes a certain vessel unto honour, and other vessels to dishonor; but that vessel which has cleansed itself from all impurity He makes a vessel unto honor, while that which has stained itself with the filth of vice He makes a vessel unto dishonor. The conclusion from which, accordingly, is this, that the cause of each one's actions is a pre-existing one; and then everyone, according to his deserts, is made by God either a vessel unto honor or dishonor. Therefore, every individual vessel has furnished to its Creator out of itself the causes and occasions of its being formed by Him to be either a vessel unto honor or one unto dishonor. And if the assertion appear correct, as it certainly is, and in harmony with all piety, that it is due to previous causes that every vessel be prepared by God either to honor or to dishonor, it does not appear absurd that, in discussing remoter causes in the same order, and in the same method, we should come to the same conclusion respecting the nature of souls, and (believe) that this was the reason why Jacob was beloved before he was born into this world, and Esau hated, while he still was contained in the womb of his mother.

Regarding Predestination--There is a diversity of spiritual natures due to their conduct, which has been marked either with greater earnestness or indifference, according to the goodness or badness of their nature, and not to any partiality on the part of the Disposer.  According to our view, there is no rational creature which is not capable both of good and evil...And for this reason we think that God, the Father of all things, in order to ensure the salvation of all creatures, through the ineffable plan of God's word and wisdom, so arranged each of these, that every spirit, whether soul or rational existence, however called, should not be compelled by force, against the liberty of their own will, to any other course than that to which the motives of their own mind led them, and that the varying purpose of these would be suitably and useful adapted to the harmony of one world, by some of them requiring help, and others being able to give it, and others again being the cause of struggle and contest to those who are making progress...But since those rational creatures themselves, were endowed with the power of free will, this freedom of will incited each one either to progress of imitation of God, or reduced them to failure through negligence...

In De Principiis, Book III, Chapter 1, he gives a lengthy discussion on the freedom of the will.  It reads as if those who believed in predestination are the heretics.  He asks whether environment determines who we are, but he views this as shifting of responsibility from ourselves to the environment in which one lives.  Those things which happen to us from without are not in our own power; but that to make a good or bad use of those things which do so happen, by help of that reason which is within us, and which distinguishes and determines how these things ought to be used, is within or power.  Some might believe in fate as that which determines our behavior, but he rejects this as well.  However, since there are in the Scripture certain expressions occurring in such a connection, that the opposite of freedom of will may appear capable of being understood from them, let us discuss them.  He refers to the hardening of Pharaoh's heart [explaining that the miracles will harden the heart or increase faith], the statement that seeing they may not see, the statement that it is not for the one who wills or runs[the human will alone is not sufficient to obtain salvation; nor is any mortal running able to win the heavenly rewards, and to obtain the prize of our high calling of God in Christ Jesus, unless this very good will of ours, and ready purpose, and whatever that diligence within us may be, be aided or furnished with divine help.  So also is our own perfection brought about, not indeed by our remaining inactive and idle, and yet the consummation of it will not be ascribed to us, but to God, who is the first and chief cause of the work], but of God who shows mercy, the statement that to will and to do are of God, the statement that God will have mercy on whom God wants, and hardens whom God wants.  Those who use the Scriptures to argue against the freedom of the will are viewed as heretics.  His opponents say: "If those who shall hear more distinctly are by all means to be corrected and converted, and converted in such a manner as to be worthy of receiving the remission of sins, and if it be not in their own power to hear the word distinctly, but if it depend on the Instructor to teach more openly and distinctly, lest they should perhaps hear and understand, and be converted, and be saved, it will follow, certainly, that their salvation is not dependent upon themselves.  And if this be so, then we have no free will either as regards salvation or destruction."  We are not to suppose either that those things which are in our own power can be done without the help of God, or that those which are in God's hand can be brought to completion without the intervention of our acts, and desires, and intention...The result of all the foregoing remarks is to show, that all the occurrences in the world which are considered to be of an intermediate kind, whether they be mournful or otherwise, are brought about, not indeed by God, and yet not without God...He distinguishes between foreknowledge, which allows for God to see the future, and God actually determining that future. He thus held to the notion of the of a divine knowledge of the conditionally future free actions of the creatures that is apart from a direct decree of God.[9]

Regarding predestination, the mistakes Origen made shows up again in Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin. The discussion by Paul in Romans 9-11 and 8:28-30 focus on the plan of God for salvation. The plan involves the divine acts in history, especially relating to Jesus Christ. Later theology shifted the focus to elect individuals. Determinism arose through Gnostic influence. Origen treats election as an act of God that takes place in eternity before time. He also sees eternal election relating directly to individuals with restriction to the theme of their participation in eschatological salvation. These presuppositions guide the discussion in scholastic theology of the Middle Ages, Aquinas, and Calvin. This is an abstract view of election in contrast to the biblical statements of the electing activity of God in history. Such an abstract view of election makes the divine decision timeless, detaches individuals from all relations to society, and restricts the purpose of election to participation in future salvation. Such an abstraction moves against the historical nature of election in the Bible to a people who have a role in history. The Bible refers to God choosing individuals, such as kings and patriarchs, but the election serves the historical purposes of God. The early church realized God had called them into a new divine act of historical election by founding the church and its mission of offering salvation to the nations. The idea that God first foresees and then determines that we find in Origen rightly has the suspicion of Pelagianism. This view dominated in the Middle Ages.

In III.2 he deals with the opposing powers, or the devil himself, who contends with humanity, inciting and instigating men to sin. … holy Scripture teaches us that there are certain invisible enemies that fight against us, and against whom it commands us to arm ourselves. Whence, also, the simpler among the believers in the Lord Christ are of opinion, that all the sins which men have committed are caused by the persistent efforts of these opposing powers exerted upon the minds of sinners, because in that invisible struggle these powers are found to be superior (to man). For if, for example, there were no devil, no single human being would go astray. We, however, who see the reason (of the thing) more clearly, do not hold this opinion. … we understand the procedure of divine providence, which arranges on most impartial principles all who descend into the struggles of this human life, according to the nature of everyone’s power, which is known only to Him who alone beholds the hearts of men. … it is in proportion to our strength that we are tempted; and it is not written that, in temptation, He will also make a way to escape so as that we should bear it, but a way to escape so as that we should be able to bear it. But it depends upon us to use either with energy or feebleness this power which He has given us. For there is no doubt that under every temptation we have a power of endurance, if we employ properly the strength that is granted us. … But this power which is given us to enable us to conquer may be used, according to our faculty of free-will, either in a diligent manner, and then we prove victorious, or in a slothful manner, and then we are defeated. … Now from these points which we have discussed to the best of our power, it is, I think, clear that there are certain transgressions which we by no means commit under the pressure of malignant powers; while there are others, again, to which we are incited by instigation on their part to excessive and immoderate indulgence. Whence it follows that we must inquire how those opposing powers produce these incitements within us. … With respect to the thoughts which proceed from our heart, or the recollection of things which we have done, or the contemplation of any things or causes whatever, we find that they sometimes proceed from ourselves, and sometimes are originated by the opposing powers. … And therefore, holy Scripture teaches us to receive all that happens as sent by God, knowing that without Him no event occurs. … Let us notice next, how men fall away into the sin of false knowledge, or with what object the opposing powers are wont to stir up conflict with us regarding such things.

In III.3 he deals with the three-fold wisdom of this world, of the princes of this world, and the wisdom of God. … by means of which false knowledge is introduced into the minds of men, and human souls led astray, while they imagine that they have discovered wisdom. This wisdom, however, possesses in itself no fitness for forming any opinion either respecting divine things, or the plan of the world's government, or any other subjects of importance, or regarding the training for a good or happy life; but is such as deals wholly with the art of poetry, e.g., or that of grammar, or rhetoric, or geometry, or music, with which also, perhaps, medicine should be classed. In all these subjects we are to suppose that the wisdom of this world is included. The wisdom of the princes of this world, on the other hand, we understand to be such as the secret and occult philosophy, as they call it, of the Egyptians, and the astrology of the Chaldeans and Indians, who make profession of the knowledge of high things, and also that manifold variety of opinion which prevails among the Greeks regarding divine things.

In III.4 he deals with human temptations. 

In III.5 he considers that the world took its beginning in time. I think one more properly thinks of the Infinite and Eternal as beyond time, which would be the divine life of the Trinity, and that time was created with finite things. Finite things share in the entropy that is of the nature of finite things and thus in time degenerate. If, then, that subjection be held to be good and salutary by which the Son is said to be subject to the Father, it is an extremely rational and logical inference to deduce that the subjection also of enemies, which is said to be made to the Son of God, should be understood as being also salutary and useful; as if, when the Son is said to be subject to the Father, the perfect restoration of the whole of creation is signified, so also, when enemies are said to be subjected to the Son of God, the salvation of the conquered and the restoration of the lost is in that understood to consist. This subjection, however, will be accomplished in certain ways, and after certain training, and at certain times; for it is not to be imagined that the subjection is to be brought about by the pressure of necessity (lest the whole world should then appear to be subdued to God by force), but by word, reason, and doctrine; by a call to a better course of things, by the best systems of training, by the employment also of suitable and appropriate threatenings, which will justly impend over those who despise any care or attention to their salvation and usefulness. In III.6 he deals with the end of the world. … I am of opinion that the expression, by which God is said to be all in all, means that He is all in each individual person. Now He will be all in each individual in this way: when all which any rational understanding, cleansed from the dregs of every sort of vice, and with every cloud of wickedness completely swept away, can either feel, or understand, or think, will be wholly God; and when it will no longer behold or retain anything else than God, but when God will be the measure and standard of all its movements; and thus God will be all, for there will no longer be any distinction of good and evil, seeing evil nowhere exists; for God is all things, and to Him no evil is near: nor will there be any longer a desire to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, on the part of him who is always in the possession of good, and to whom God is all. So then, when the end has been restored to the beginning, and the termination of things compared with their commencement, that condition of things will be re-established in which rational nature was placed, when it had no need to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; so that when all feeling of wickedness has been removed, and the individual has been purified and cleansed, He who alone is the one good God becomes to him all, and that not in the case of a few individuals, or of a considerable number, but He Himself is all in all. And when death shall no longer anywhere exist, nor the sting of death, nor any evil at all, then verily God will be all in all. … We, however, who believe in its resurrection, understand that a change only has been produced by death, but that its substance certainly remains; and that by the will of its Creator, and at the time appointed, it will be restored to life; and that a second time a change will take place in it, so that what at first was flesh (formed) out of earthly soil, and was afterwards dissolved by death, and again reduced to dust and ashes (For dust you are, it is said, and to dust shall you return), will be again raised from the earth, and shall after this, according to the merits of the indwelling soul, advance to the glory of a spiritual body. … Into this condition, then, we are to suppose that all this bodily substance of ours will be brought, when all things shall be re-established in a state of unity, and when God shall be all in all. And this result must be understood as being brought about, not suddenly, but slowly and gradually, seeing that the process of amendment and correction will take place imperceptibly in the individual instances during the lapse of countless and unmeasured ages, some outstripping others, and tending by a swifter course towards perfection, while others again follow close at hand, and some again a long way behind; and thus, through the numerous and uncounted orders of progressive beings who are being reconciled to God from a state of enmity, the last enemy is finally reached, who is called death, so that he also may be destroyed, and no longer be an enemy. When, therefore, all rational souls shall have been restored to a condition of this kind, then the nature of this body of ours will undergo a change into the glory of a spiritual body…. As, therefore, there is a kind of advance in man, so that from being first an animal being, and not understanding what belongs to the Spirit of God, he reaches by means of instruction the stage of being made a spiritual being, and of judging all things, while he himself is judged by no one; so also, with respect to the state of the body, we are to hold that this very body which now, on account of its service to the soul, is styled an animal body, will, by means of a certain progress, when the soul, united to God, shall have been made one spirit with Him (the body even then ministering, as it were, to the spirit), attain to a spiritual condition and quality, especially since, as we have often pointed out, bodily nature was so formed by the Creator, as to pass easily into whatever condition he should wish, or the nature of the case demand. … In this way, accordingly, we are to suppose that at the consummation and restoration of all things, those who make a gradual advance, and who ascend (in the scale of improvement), will arrive in due measure and order at that land, and at that training which is contained in it, where they may be prepared for those better institutions to which no addition can be made. For, after His agents and servants, the Lord Christ, who is King of all, will Himself assume the kingdom; i.e., after instruction in the holy virtues, He will Himself instruct those who are capable of receiving Him in respect of His being wisdom, reigning in them until He has subjected them to the Father, who has subdued all things to Himself, i.e., that when they shall have been made capable of receiving God, God may be to them all in all. Then accordingly, as a necessary consequence, bodily nature will obtain that highest condition to which nothing more can be added. Having discussed, up to this point, the quality of bodily nature, or of spiritual body, we leave it to the choice of the reader to determine what he shall consider best. And here we may bring the third book to a conclusion.

Book IV will deal with the scripture. We must, in order to establish the positions which we have laid down, adduce the testimony of Holy Scripture. It seems necessary to show, in the first place, that the Scriptures themselves are divine, i.e., were inspired by the Spirit of God. … These points now being briefly established, viz., regarding the deity of Christ, and the fulfilment of all that was prophesied respecting Him, I think that this position also has been made good, viz., that the Scriptures themselves, which contained these predic­tions, were divinely inspired. … These particulars, then, being briefly stated regarding the inspiration of the sacred Scriptures by the Holy Spirit, it seems necessary to explain this point also, viz., how certain persons, not reading them correctly, have given themselves over to erroneous opinions, inasmuch as the procedure to be followed, in order to attain an understanding of the holy writ­ings, is unknown to many. … so for that reason divine wisdom took care that certain stumbling-blocks, or interruptions, to the historical meaning should take place, by the intro­duction into the midst (of the narrative) of certain impossibilities and incongruities; that in this way the very interruption of the narrative might, as by the interposition of a bolt, present an obstacle to the reader, whereby he might refuse to acknowledge the way which conducts to the ordinary meaning; and being thus excluded and debarred from it, we might be recalled to the beginning of another way, in order that, by entering upon a narrow path, and passing to a loftier and more sublime road, he might lay open the immense breadth of divine wisdom. This, however, must not be unnoted by us, that as the chief object of the Holy Spirit is to preserve the coherence of the spiritual meaning, either in those things which ought to be done or which have been already performed, if He anywhere finds that those events which, according to the history, took place, can be adapted to a spiritual meaning, He composed a texture of both kinds in one style of narration, always concealing the hidden meaning more deeply; but where the historical narrative could not be made appropriate to the spiritual coherence of the occur­rences, He inserted sometimes certain things which either did not take place or could not take place; sometimes also what might happen, but what did not: and He does this at one time in a few words, which, taken in their bodily meaning, seem inca­pable of containing truth, and at another by the in­sertion of many. … Let no one, however, entertain the suspicion that we do not believe any history in Scripture to be real, because we suspect certain events related in it not to have taken place; or that no precepts of the law are to be taken literally, because we consider certain of them, in which either the nature or possi­bility of the case so requires, incapable of being ob­served. … But let it be sufficient for us in all these matters to adapt our understanding to the rule of religion, and so to think of the words of the Holy Spirit as not to deem the language the ornate composition of feeble human eloquence, but to hold, according to the scriptural statement, that all the glory of the King is within, and that the treasure of divine meaning is enclosed within the frail vessel of the common letter. … Let everyone, then, who cares for truth, be little concerned about words and language, seeing that in every nation there prevails a different usage of speech; but let him rather direct his attention to the meaning conveyed by the words, than to the nature of the words that convey the meaning, especially in matters of such importance and difficulty.

He offers a summary. Seeing God the Father is invisible and inseparable from the Son … we say that the Word and Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal without any corporeal feeling, as if it were an act of the will proceeding from the understanding. Nor, seeing He is called the Son of (His) love, will it appear absurd if in this way He be called the Son of (His) will. Nay, John also indicates that God is Light, and Paul also declares that the Son is the splendor of everlasting light. As light, accordingly, could never exist without splendor, so neither can the Son be understood to exist without the Father; for He is called the express image of His person, and the Word and Wisdom. How, then, can it be asserted that there once was a time when He was not the Son? For that is nothing else than to say that there was once a time when He was not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life, although in all these He is judged to be the perfect essence of God the Father; for these things cannot be severed from Him, or even be separated from His essence. And although these qualities are said to be many in understanding, yet in their nature and essence they are one, and in them is the fullness of divinity. Now this expression which we employ — that there never was a time when He did not exist — is to be understood with an allowance. For these very words when or never have a meaning that relates to time, whereas the statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are not included in it are to be measured by times and ages. This Son of God, then, in respect of the Word being God, which was in the beginning with God, no one will logically suppose to be contained in any place; nor yet in respect of His being Wisdom, or Truth, or the Life, or Righteousness, or Sanctification, or Redemption: for all these properties do not require space to be able to act or to operate, but each one of them is to be understood as meaning those individuals who participate in His virtue and working. … Having, then, briefly restated these points regarding the nature of the Trinity, it follows that we notice shortly this statement also, that by the Son are said to be created all things that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him; and He is before all, and all things consist by Him, who is the Head. In conformity with which John also in his Gospel says: All things were created by Him; and without Him was not anything made. And David, intimating that the mystery of the entire Trinity was (concerned) in the creation of all things, says: By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Spirit of His mouth. … After these points we shall appropriately remind (the reader) of the bodily advent and incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God, with respect to whom we are not to suppose that all the majesty of His divinity is confined within the limits of His slender body, so that all the word of God, and His wisdom, and essential truth, and life, was either rent asunder from the Father, or restrained and confined within the narrowness of His bodily person, and is not to be considered to have operated anywhere besides; but the cautious acknowledgment of a religious man ought to be between the two, so that it ought neither to be believed that anything of divinity was wanting in Christ, nor that any separation at all was made from the essence of the Father, which is everywhere…. He is in all things, and through all things, and above all things, in the manner in which we have spoken above, i.e., in the manner in which He is understood to be either wisdom, or the word, or the life, or the truth, by which method of understanding all confinement of a local kind is undoubtedly excluded. The Son of God, then, desiring for the salvation of the human race to appear unto men, and to sojourn among them, assumed not only a human body, as some suppose, but also a soul resembling our souls indeed in nature, but in will and power resembling Himself, and such as might unfailingly accomplish all the desires and arrangements of the word and wisdom. … As now by participation in the Son of God one is adopted as a son, and by participating in that wisdom which is in God is rendered wise, so also by participation in the Holy Spirit is a man rendered holy and spiritual. For it is one and the same thing to have a share in the Holy Spirit, which is (the Spirit) of the Father and the Son, since the nature of the Trinity is one and incorporeal.

Regarding anthropology--It is evident from all this that no one is pure either by essence or nature, and that no one was by nature polluted.  And the consequence of this is, that it lies within ourselves and in our own actions to possess either happiness or holiness; or by sloth and negligence to fall from happiness into wickedness and ruin, to such a degree that, through too great proficiency, so to speak, in wickedness one may descend even to that state in which one will be changed into what is called an opposing power ... humanity received the dignity of God's image at their first creation; but that the perfection of humanity's likeness has been reserved for the consummation...All human beings are dependent upon faith, to believe God rather than humanity.  For who enters on a voyage, or contracts a marriage, or becomes the father of children, or casts seed into the ground, without believing that better things will result from so doing, although the contrary might and sometimes does happen?  And yet the belief that better things, even agreeably to their wishes, will follow, makes all people venture upon uncertain enterprises, which may turn out differently from what they expect.  And if the hope and belief of a better future be the support of life in every uncertain enterprise, why shall not this faith rather be rationally accepted?...Celsus, however, says that faith, having taken possession of our minds, makes us yield the assent which we give to the doctrine of Jesus; for of a truth it is faith which does produce such an assent.  Believe, if you will be saved, or else begone, says the Christian.  What shall those do who are in earnest about their salvation?

Regarding social issues, Question: What would happen of the Romans were persuaded to adopt the principles of the Christians, to despise the duties paid to the recognized gods and to people, and to worship the Most High? ...War: Neither Celsus nor they who think with him are able to point out any act on the part of Christians which savor rebellion. For God did not deem it in keeping with such divine laws, which were derived from a divine source, to allow the killing of any individual whatever...We are come, agreeably to the counsels of Jesus, to cut down our hostile and insolent wordy swords into ploughshares, and to convert into pruning-hooks the spears formerly employed in war.  For we no longer take up sword against nation, nor do we learn war any more, having become children of peace, for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader instead of those whom our parents followed... Pannenberg (Human Nature, Election, and History, 1977) notes that the tendency to look negatively upon the church after Constantine considers the period the downfall of the moral authority of the church since it united with the Empire and thereby was no longer the church of the martyrs. The historian has much evidence to support the charge. First century Christianity viewed the Roman Empire as the last and worst world empire. However, Origen argued against Celsus that if Christianity would become the dominant faith of the empire, it would not lead to the destruction of the empire. Rather, the peace that Rome brought to this part of the world met a counterpart in the peace that Christ seeks to bring. Eusebius, an early author of the church, sought a unity between Christianity and State. Richard Tarnas (The Passion of the Western Mind, 1991) says the church became the only institution capable of sustaining some semblance of social order and civilized culture in the West, and the bishop of Rome, as the traditional spiritual head of the imperial metropolis, gradually absorbed many of the distinctions and roles previously possessed by the fact, the Western church assumed an extraordinarily universal authority in medieval Europe. The Roman Church became not just the religious counterpart to the Empire, but its historical successor. Rome the persecutor became Rome the defender, progressively uniting itself with the church.

Regarding the social issue related to women: For such was the charm of Jesus' words, that not only were men willing to follow him to the wilderness, but women also, forgetting the weakness of their sex and a regard for outward propriety in this following their teacher into desert places.  

Regarding the social issue related to homosexuality: Lists sins as fornicators, adulterers, abusers of themselves with men, effeminate, idolaters, murderers.  

Regarding other matters related to sex: assumes married clergy at this point, and some married twice.  He seems to frown upon remarriage while the partner is still alive.  

Regarding Scripture Interpretation: Paul, as he refers to a treasure in earthen vessels, suggests the words of the Bible are the earthen vessel, while the spirit of the Bible is the treasure.  Three-fold interpretation of the Bible: There is the very body of Scripture, the common and historical sense, the very soul of Scripture, and the spiritual law itself, as if by the Spirit.  For as people consist of body, soul and spirit, so also does Scripture...For it belongs only to those who are wise in the truth of Christ to unfold the connection and meaning of even the obscure parts of prophecy, "comparing spiritual things with spiritual," and interpreting each passage according to the usage of Scripture writers...When, then, the letter of the law promises riches to the just, Celsus may follow the letter which kills, but we say that it refers to those riches which enlighten the eyes...Celsus makes fun of this arrangement, for it tries to ignore the obvious deficiency of the Bible...For even those narratives which God inspired the evangelists and apostles to write were not composed without the aid of that wisdom of God.  Whence also in them were intermingled not a few things by which, the historical order of the narrative being interrupted and broken up, the attention of the reader might be recalled, by the impossibility of the case, to an examination of the inner meaning.  We must remember that it is extremely easy for anyone who pleases to gather out of holy Scripture what is recorded indeed as having been done, but what nevertheless cannot be believed as having reasonably and appropriately occurred according to the historical account.  There are in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted historically, but which may be accepted in a spiritual signification...The object of referring to the historical errors of the Bible is to show that it was the design of the Holy Spirit, who deigned to bestow upon us the sacred Scriptures, to show that we were not to be edified by the letter alone, or by everything in it, a thing which we see to be frequently impossible and inconsistent; for in that way not only absurdities, but impossibilities, would be the result.  At the same time, let no one entertain the suspicion that we do not believe any history in Scripture to be real.  The truth of history may and usually ought to be preserved.  For the passages which hold good in their historical acceptation are much more numerous than those which contain a purely spiritual meaning.  Let it be sufficient for us in all these matters to adapt our understanding to the rule of religion, and so to think of the words of the Holy Spirit as not to deem the language the ornate composition of feeble human eloquence, but to hold, according to the scriptural statement, that all the glory of the king is within, and that the treasure of divine meaning is enclosed within the frail vessel of the common letter.  Let everyone, then, who cares for truth, be little concerned about words and language, but let them rather direct their attention to the meaning conveyed by the words...We have to remark that the endeavor to show, with regard to almost any history, however, true, that it actually occurred, and to produce an intelligent conception regarding it, is one of the most difficult undertakings that can be attempted, and is in some instances an impossibility.  There is need of candor in those who are to read, and of much investigation, and, so to speak, of insight into the meaning of the writers, that the object with which each event has been recorded may be discovered...

Regarding Apocrypha: I have to tell you what it behooves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you (Africanus) mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bell and the Dragon, which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of Daniel; but of thousands of other passages also which I found in many places when with my little strength I was collating the Hebrew copies with ours...

Regarding Old Testament and New Testament: The difference between the constitution which was given to the Jews of old by Moses, and that which the Christians, under the direction of Christ's teaching, we would observe that it must be impossible for the legislation of Moses, taken literally, to harmonize with the calling of the Gentiles, and with their subjection to the Roman government; and on the other hand, it would be impossible for the Jews to preserve their civil economy unchanged, supposing that they should embrace the Gospel...

In the slaying enemies: In the spiritual interpretation of Origen, this becomes a slaying of sin in the physical body of the believer... 

With the sin against the Holy Spirit: All rational beings have a part in Christ, whether they know it or not.  Those who have a part in the Holy Spirit, and then fall away, have truly no part in the Spirit.  

With Ezekiel 28:11-19, Prince of Tyre is identified as Satan.  

"Satan fallen from heaven" suggests he was at one time light, but now is darkness...

Old Testament prophecies of Christ: He was aware that Jews interpreted such statements as referring to the whole people, regarded as one individual.  What escaped their attention was that there are two advents of Christ, one in humility, and the other in glory and divinity...

Magi: The star they followed may have been a comet or other natural phenomenon.  Gold was given as to a king; myrrh as to one who was mortal; incense as to a God... 

Peter left only one epistle of acknowledged genuineness.  

Healing: The story of being cleansed of leprosy in the Jordan is a symbol of cleansing from sin.  

The Gospels: He believes that if we cannot harmonize the gospel narratives, we must give up our trust in them. This cannot be done if we focus only on their history.  However, if the spiritual interpretation has value, then it is possible.  Matthew: The confession of Peter's is our confession; the promise given to Peter is given to all of us.  Hades is internalized.  

The apostles: It was by help of a divine power that these men taught Christianity and succeeded in leading others to embrace the word of God.  For it was not any power of speaking, or any orderly arrangement of their message, according to the arts of Grecian dialectics or rhetoric, which was in them the effective cause of converting their hearers...

Regarding the Affirmation of Faith--And now, what we have drawn from the authority of Scripture ought to be sufficient to refute the arguments of the heretics.  It will not, however, appear improper if we discuss the matter with them shortly, on the grounds of reason itself...With respect to topics of such difficulty and obscurity we use our utmost endeavor, not so much to ascertain clearly the solutions of the questions, as to maintain the rule of faith in the most unmistakable manner...If there is a time coming which will necessarily circumscribe the duration of the world, it will be incumbent on those who treat the declarations of the gospels philosophically, to establish these doctrines by arguments of all kinds, while the more numerous and simpler class of believers, and those who are unable to comprehend the many varied aspects of the divine wisdom, must entrust themselves to God...The particular points clearly delivered in the teaching of the apostles are as follow: First, That there is one God; Secondly, that Jesus Christ himself was born of the Father before all creatures; Thirdly, the Holy Spirit was associated in honor and dignity with the Father and the Son.  To depart from Origen in his speculations, if we take seriously the notion of the Trinity as already engaging in actions of Father, Son, and Spirit, creation becomes an outpouring of divine activity outside of this inner relation. Therefore, God is active by nature and eternally, apart from the specific act of creation. Creation is not a different type of divine activity. Rather, as the Trinity is a relation of divine activity within the divine, so creation is a turn of this divine activity outward. The importance of the Trinity is that one can avoid the question that puzzled Origen. Origen speculated that if God is Creator, then God must have always created, and therefore the world always existed.^[10] After these points, also, the apostolic teaching is that the soul, having a substance and life of its own, shall, after its departure from the world, be rewarded according to its deserts.  This also is clearly defined in the teaching of the church, that every rational soul is possessed of free will and volition.  He insisted upon the gulf between Creator and creature but dealt with the origin of the soul that suggested the pre-existence of created souls.[11] Creation out of nothing appears at the beginning of the confession of faith and it later became one of the firm parts of the teaching of the church regarding creation.[12] The work of creation is an act of the pure and free goodness of God.[13] This also is a part of the church's teaching, that the world was made and took its beginning at a certain time and is to be destroyed on account of its wickedness.  Then, finally, that the Spirit of God wrote the Scriptures, and have a meaning, not such only as is apparent at first sight, but also another, which escapes the notice of most.  This also is a part of the teaching of the church, that there are certain angels of God, and certain good influences, which are God's servants in accomplishing the salvation of humanity.

Regarding Christology--Christ is wisdom of God, "we understand her to be the Word of God."...Could Christ sin?  Of course, since Christ was a rational soul and as such was capable both of good and evil.  However, the soul which belonged to Christ elected to love righteousness, so that in proportion to the immensity of its love it clung to it unchangeable and inseparably, so that firmness of purpose, and immensity of affection, and an inextinguishable warmth of love, destroyed all susceptibility for alteration and change; and that which formerly depended upon the will was changed by the power of long custom into nature; and so we must believe that here existed in Christ a human and rational soul, without supposing that it had any feeling or possibility of sin...He defends the virgin birth, suggesting that the adultery which is suggested by opponents is designed to divert attention away from the miracle...He defends the resurrection of Jesus, rejecting the notion of a dream or vision...He defends the notion of Jesus descending to Hades...He rejects the notion that Jesus was only a man...He quotes Celsus as saying that the Incarnation is ridiculous.  God is good, and beautiful, and blessed.  But if God comes down among humanity, God must undergo a change, and a change from good to evil, from virtue to vice, from happiness to misery, and from best to worst.  Who, then, would make choice of such a change?...Celsus notes that Jesus is not the only one to be recognized by followers as divine...Celsus says the suffering of Jesus is offensive, that if the prophets foretold that the great God would become a slave, or become sick, or die; would there be therefore any necessity that God should die, or suffer sickness, or become a slave, simply because such things had been foretold?  Must God die to prove divinity? Thus, Origen did have a place for suffering in God, but this was unusual in the history early history of Christian theology.[14]

He rightly perceived on the New Testament view the lordship of God is identical with Jesus Christ, and thus, that Christ is the kingdom and sets up the lordship of God in the world. The kingdom is not separate from Christ.[15]

Regarding the devil and his angels, and the opposing influences, the teaching of the church has laid down that these beings exist; but what they are, or how they exist, it has not explained with sufficient clearness.  Regarding angels, he thought that they belonged to the proclamation of the church, but there is no sure knowledge of them.[16] He thought of them as personal, perfected creatures that have become pure spirit. Such perfected persons are the unity of a personal I and a spiritual body, distinctively belonging to this I. Unrestricted by space and time, the universe is open to them without limitation by which they exercise an influence on this imperfect sphere, through which such good angels share in the divine rule and to a degree mediate that rule.[17]

Regarding eschatology--When I John 1:29 says Jesus is taking away the sins of the world, he declares that he is still taking away sin, from every individual in the world, till sin be taken away from the whole world, and the savior deliver the kingdom prepared and completed to the Father, a kingdom in which no sin is left at all, and which, therefore, is ready to accept the Father as its king, and which on the other hand is waiting to receive all God has to bestow.  The end of the world, then, and the final consummation, will take place when everyone shall be subjected to punishment for their sins.  We think, indeed, that the goodness of God, through Christ, may recall all God's creatures to one end, even God's enemies being conquered and subdued.  I am of opinion that it is this very subjection by which we also wish to be subject to God, by which the apostles also were subject, and all the saints who have been followers of Christ.  Seeing, then, that such is the end, when all enemies will be subdued to Christ, when death, the last enemy, shall be destroyed, when the kingdom shall be delivered up by Christ to God the Father; let us, I say, from such an end as this, contemplate the beginnings of things...The subjection of Christ to the Father indicates that our happiness has attained to perfection, it is an extremely rational and logical inference to deduce that the subjection also of enemies, which is said to be made to the Son of God, should be understood as being also salutary and useful.  When enemies are said to be subjected to the Son of God, the salvation of the conquered and the restoration of the lost is in that understood to consist of.  For it is not to be imagined that the subjection is to be brought about by the pressure of necessity, but by word, reason, and doctrine; by a call to a better course of things, by the best systems of training, by the employment also of suitable and appropriate threatenings.  In a word, we human beings also, in training either our slaves or children, restrain them by threats and fear while they are, by reason of their tender age, incapable of using their reason... 

The resurrection of the flesh was a major theme of the early church. It could speak of the literal collection of the particles that would occur in the return of Christ in a way that preserves the individuality and identity of the person. We see this view in Jerome, Augustine, and Aquinas. Another way of describing the resurrection of the flesh was that it occurred as God takes fleshly existence into divine life and allows flesh to participate in that divine life. We see such views in Origen, Athanasius, and Maximus. Both views can treat the flesh as an appendage to a process of increasing spiritualization of the notion of resurrection.^[18] Barth can speak of the resurrection of the dead in a way that invites a focus upon participation. God takes human existence into the presence of God, thereby we (the dead) become what we are not (resurrected). The resurrection of the flesh occurs because we who are in the flesh now receive the miracle of resurrection now in life with God.^[19]

In the interpretation of some thinkers, the millennium is either already present or an emerging reality. The millennium is now emerging on earth. What the people of God can expect is the fruits of that emerging but secret reality. The emerging millennial rule of God will conclude with the return of Christ and the judgment that will accompany it. this view resists detailed speculative explanations of present history as the fulfillment of specific prophecies, as if they are signs of a literal end of the times. It rejects all forms of Chiliasm and Millennialism. We see this view in Augustine, City of God (20.7-14). His view prevailed in various forms, such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Dionysius, Tyconius, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Roman Catholic teaching. In this view, “thousand” refers to the entire age of the church (Aquinas, B. B. Warfield). Although sometimes called a-millennialism, such a name suggests no interest in the millennium. This view would criticize all forms of premillennialism for depending too much upon a literal ready of a highly symbolic passage in Revelation 20:1-6. Conservative authors like A. Kyuper, H. Bavinck, G. Vos, A. Hoekema, and Jay Adams support such a view of realized millennialism. This view has the political tendency to unite the institutional church with the protection of the state. 

Celsus argues that Christians believe that when the end of the world comes, the world will be destroyed by fire, and that only Christians will be left.  This is viewed as vengeful.  Origen counters that the fire spoken of is purifying fire, not of individuals, but of behavior...What is the meaning of fire as a term of judgment?  When the soul has gathered together a multitude of evil works, and an abundance of sins against itself, at a suitable time all that assembly of evils boils up to punishment, and is set on fire to chastisement; when the mind itself, or conscience, receiving by divine power into the memory all those things of which it had stamped on itself certain signs and forms at the moment of sinning, will see a kind of history, as it were, of all the foul, and shameful, and unholy deeds which it has done, exposed before its eyes: then is the conscience itself harassed, and, pierced by its own goads, becomes an accuser and a witness against itself.  God our Physician, desiring to remove the defects of our souls, which they had contracted from their different sins and crimes, should employ penal measures of this sort, and should apply even, in addition, the punishment of fire to those who have lost their soundness of mind!...It think, therefore, that all the saints who depart from this life will remain in some place situated on the earth, which holy Scripture calls paradise, as in some place of instruction, and, so to speak, class-room or school of souls... Thus, Origen has what we might think of as a modern notion of divine judgment. Christians know the standard of judgment and receive assurance of future participation in salvation. They have already received justification and pardon. Judgment is in the hands of the one who died for us. Judgment will mean the purifying fire. Origen, and along with him Alexandrian theology, went down this path. This purifying fire is not the same as purgatory. This purging and cleansing fire effects the transformation necessary for participation in eternity, for which see I Corinthians 15:50ff. The returning Christ is the transformation of our human existence into the image of the Son.

Regarding Jews--He states that Jesus prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and it was indeed punishment for their part in the crucifixion of Jesus, which would have happened, according to him, in 28 AD.  They will not be restored to their former condition as the people of God.  God's invitation to happiness has passed on to others, that is, to Christians...

Regarding ecclesiology—With the theology of infant baptism in mind, Origen is a witness to its presence in his lifetime.

Celsus claims that if the world wanted to be Christian, Christians themselves would not desire it.  Origen notes that this is contradicted by the fact of that Christians do not neglect, as far as in them lies, to take measures to disseminate their doctrine throughout the whole world....Celsus criticizes Christians for all thinking alike.  Origen notes that there were differences among Christians even within the apostolic churches...Celsus criticizes the church for appealing to the foolish and low individuals, and persons devoid of perception, and slaves, and women, and children, of whom the teachers of the divine word wish to make converts."  Origen responds that the Gospel does invite them, to make them better; but it also invites others who are quite different from these.  Christians carefully choose their members, testing the souls of those who wish to become their hearers, and having previously instructed them in private, when the appear to have sufficiently evinced their desire towards a virtuous life.  But let us hear what kind of persons these Christians invite.  Everyone, they say, who is a sinner, who is devoid of understanding, who is a child, and, to speak generally, whoever is unfortunate, these will the kingdom of God receive...Preaching is termed vulgar by Celsus.  Yet, it is also filled with power to bring people from a life of wickedness to a better, and from a state of cowardice to one of such high-toned courage as to lead people to despise even death through the piety which shows itself within them, why should we not justly admire the power which they contain?  For the words of those who at the first assumed the office of Christian ambassadors, and who gave their labors to rear up the churches of God were accompanied with a persuasive power...Celsus accuses the Christians of not having a nation to which they are bound, or customs by which they live.  He answers that Christians do obey the law of God, yet when not conflicting, they also obey the laws of the nation ... And for this reason, although the Romans desired to perpetrate many atrocities against the Christians, to ensure their extermination, they were unsuccessful; for there was a divine hand which fought on their behalf, and whose desire it was that the word of God should spread from one corner of the land of Judea throughout the whole human race. ... Celsus writes against humility. ... We say that the holy Scriptures declare the body of Christ, animated by the Son of God, to be the whole church of God, and the members of this body, considered as a whole, to consist of those who are believers, so the Word, arousing and moving the whole body, the church, to befitting action awakens, moreover, each individual member belonging to the church, so that they do nothing apart from the Word. ... Celsus criticizes that Christians shrink from raising altars, statues, and temples; and this has been agreed among Christians as the badge of distinctive mark of a secret and forbidden society.  Origen answers that it is not true that Christians object to building altars, statues, and temples, because we have agreed to make this the badge of a secret and forbidden society.  Rather, we do so because we have learnt from Jesus Christ the true way of serving God, and we shrink from whatever, under a pretense of piety, leads to utter impiety those who abandon the way marked out for us by Jesus Christ. ... Some new thing, then, has come to pass since the time that Jesus suffered, that, I mean, which has happened to the city, to the whole nation, and in the sudden and general rise of a Christian community.

Regarding religious experience--"the Holy Spirit, in whom is contained every kind of gift." ... The mind burns with an inexpressible desire to know the reason of those things which we see done by God.  This desire, this longing, we believe God unquestionably implants with in us to be unquestionably implanted. ... And thus the rational nature, growing by each individual step, not as it grew in this life in flesh, and body, and soul, but enlarged in understanding and in power of perception, is raised as a mind already perfect to perfect knowledge, no longer at all impeded by those carnal senses, but increased in intellectual growth; and ever gazing purely, and, so to speak, face to face, on the causes of things, it attains perfection, firstly, that by which it ascends to, the truth, and secondly, that by which it abides in it, having problems and the understanding of things.  So also, I think that the mind, when it has attained perfection, eats and avails itself of suitable and appropriate food in such a degree, that nothing ought to be either deficient or superfluous.  This measure it is proper be observed by every one of those who are beginning to see God, to understand God through purity of heart ... By all this, therefore, holy Scripture teaches us that there are certain invisible enemies that fight against us, and against whom it commands us to arm ourselves.  Whence, also, the simpler among the believers in the Lord Christ are of opinion, that all the sins which people have committed are caused by the persistent efforts of these opposing powers exerted upon the minds of sinners.  We, however, who see the reason of the thing more clearly, do not hold this opinion, considering those sins which manifestly originate as a necessary consequence of our bodily constitution.  That there are certain sins, however, which do not proceed from the opposing powers, but take their beginnings from the natural movements of the body, is manifestly declared by Paul, "the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh." 

            If we start with our soteriological interest, one wonders if we will ever speak truly of Jesus. Origen opens himself to this criticism when he reflects upon the deification of humanity through assimilation to God, in which Origen focuses upon the ethical form of salvation. The way to the salvation of the world is through overcoming the opposition to God into which sin and death have plunged us. Thus, the sending of the Son by the Father and the Incarnation reveal their goal as the salvation of the world. The work of Jesus sought renewal of human society. Its fulfillment of Jewish messianic hope extended to humanity. Paul, to express these ideas, used the imagery of the eschatological human contrasting with the first Adam. Jesus was a particular human being but connected to the saving function of the person and work of Jesus. It has been natural in history to attract all different forms of the hope of salvation to the Son. Yet, as Christological reflection reshaped and qualified the Jewish messianic hope, the same must happen to other hopes that might attach themselves to Jesus. The point here is that the statement in theology that “Christology is a function of soteriology” is a mistake in the sense that the contents of Christology become a projection of various changeable expectations of salvation. Rather, our soteriology must submit to our understanding of Christology.[20]

... The angels are not to be worshipped or prayed to.  Prayer is to be given only to God. ... For what reasonable people can refrain from smiling when they see that one who has learned from philosophy such profound and noble sentiments about God or the gods, turns straightway to images and offers to them their prayers, or imagines that by gazing upon these material things they can ascend from the visible symbol to that which is spiritual and immaterial.  But a Christian, even of the common people, is assured that every place forms part of the universe, and that the whole universe is God's temple.  In whatever part of the world they are, they pray; but they rise above the universe, shutting the eyes of sense and raising upwards the eyes of the soul.  And they stop not at the vault of heaven; but passing in thought beyond the heavens, under the guidance of Spirit of God, and having thus as it were gone beyond the visible universe, they offer prayers to God.  But they pray for no trivial blessings, for they have learnt from Jesus to seek for nothing small or mean, that is, sensible objects, but to ask only for what is great and truly divine; and these things God grants to us, to lead us to that blessedness which is found only with God through God's Son, the Word, who is God. ... Christians tend to observe certain days, such as the Lord's day, the Preparation, the Passover, Pentecost.  However, the perfect Christian, who is ever in their thoughts, words, and deeds serving their natural Lord, God the Word, all their days are the Lord's, and they are always keeping the Lord's day.  Every day is a day of preparation.  Every day is an Easter day.  Every day is a Pentecost.  All this, as we hasten toward the city of God.  However, most Christians are not of this advanced class.  They require some sensible memorials to prevent spiritual things from passing altogether away from their minds.  

Gregory Thaumaturgus (Wonderworker) lived from 205 to 265, in Alexandria.  He was a student of Origen.  He became bishop of Neo-Caesarea.  In a testimony concerning Origen, he said he as a teacher had a desire "to save us and make us partakers in the blessings that flow from philosophy, and most especially also in those other gifts which the Deity has bestowed on him above most people, or as we may perhaps say, above all people of our own time."  Therefore, "love was kindled and burst into flame within us, --a love at once to the Holy Word, the most lovely object of all, and to this man, God's friend and advocate."  Philosophy, Origen taught, educated people to prudence, "teaching to be at home with ourselves, and to desire and endeavor to know ourselves, which indeed is the most excellent achievement of philosophy."

            Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, lived from 200-265.  He was also a student of Origen.  It was a time of persecution and suffering of the church. He was appalled to find believers in the earthly millennium.  This led him to do a penetrating study of the apocalypse concluding that on stylistic grounds John the Apostle could not have written it.  In his rejection of modalism, he said that Father and Son were as different as a boat and a boatman and denied they were of one substance or homousios.  The bishop of Rome stressed the unity of God and condemned those who would turn the monarchy into three deities.

            Regarding sacraments.  He does not allow women to come to the sacrament if they are during their period. Eucharist: the giving of thanks, and who had answered Amen; who had stood at the holy table, and had stretched forth his hands to receive the blessed food, and had received it, and for a very long time, had been a partaker of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Henceforth I bade him be of good courage, and approach to the sacred elements with a firm faith and a good conscience and become a partaker of them."  

Regarding Easter: He defends the practice of fasting three days before Easter, though women should not.  

He also has some comments upon Ecclesiastes 1-3, focusing on the need to direct our attention beyond our toils to a goal beyond the sun, recognizing that wealth does not make us better in soul or gain friendship with God.  

Regarding martyrdom.  He gives various accounts of the "those perfected and blessed martyrs."  

Regarding Scripture.  He defends the harmony of the gospels, especially with the accounts of the resurrection, though he clearly recognizes the rational problem.  In terms of the Book of Revelation, some have set the book aside, viewing it as a work of heretic like Cerinthus.  He believes too many value it for that to be true.  After a commentary, in which he shows it could not be taken literally, he also could see no way the book was written by John, the son of Zebedee, nor could it be the same person who wrote the fourth gospel.  

Regarding eschatology.  Some local pastors had a book which preached an earthly reign of Christ.  He rejects this notion, and in a calm discussion of the matter at a meeting, where there was much study of the Bible and prayer, the issue was resolved, mostly by the repentance of the person who brought forward this position.

            

 

 

---

[1] (Barth, 2004, 1932-67), Vol I, 32.

[2] (Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1998, 1991) Vol 2, Chapter 9.

[3] (Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1998, 1991) Vol 1, Chapter 4.

[4] (Barth, 2004, 1932-67) Vol II.1, 200.

[5] (Pannenberg, Basic Questions in Theology (2 Volumes), 1967, 1971), Volume II, “The Appropriation of the Philosophical Concept of God as a Dogmatic Problem of Early Christian Theology,” 150-7.

[6] (Barth, 2004, 1932-67) I.2, 517.

[7] (Barth, 2004, 1932-67), Vol I, 97.

[8] (Pannenberg, Theology and the Philosophy of Science, 1973, 1976), 404-23.

[9] (Barth, 2004, 1932-67), III.1, 571.

[10] Pannenberg, ST, Chapter 7, Part 1.

[11] (Barth, 2004, 1932-67), III.2, 573.

[12] (Barth, 2004, 1932-67) III.2, 153.

[13] (Barth, 2004, 1932-67) III.1, 29.

[14] Moltmann, Trinity and the Kingdom, Chapter 2.

[15] (Barth, 2004, 1932-67), IV.2, 658.

[16] (Barth, 2004, 1932-67), III.3, 370.

[17] (Barth, 2004, 1932-67), III.3, 406.

[18] Hitchcock, 2013, Chapter 1.

[19] Hitchcock, 2013, Chapter 2.

[20] Pannenberg, ST, Chapter 11.1.