Early Church Fathers: Origen and Preexistence of the Soul
The purpose of this and succeeding posts is to introduce some of our early church fathers and, with some their lost contributions to the development of modern day Christianity, to recover their wisdom and show how the church might have looked had not their wisdom been "lost."
Simply because their wisdom does not appear in the present day Bible does not negate their value. Their contributions were negated by church politics more than anything. We are, IMO, all the lesser for the loss.
Having now come to the surface after a deep dive into a vast area of research, at the risk of oversimplification, I'll try to be as brief as I can.
I'll begin with Origen, a Greek philosopher (ca. 185-ca. 254), considered by many to have been one of two of the most important early Christian theologians, the other being Augustine. His great work, the Hexapla, is a synopsis of six versions of the Old Testament. He is said to have authored 6,000 manuscripts. It is important, for this discussion, to note that Ancient Greek belief systems of his time commonly accepted preexistence of the soul.
In regard to recent discussions here on Reincarnation, I begin by offering some definitions, as I understand the terms. Preexistnece of the soul is the concept or belief that souls exist independent of physical bodies and continue to exist indefinitely. Reincarnation, also known as transmigration or metempsychosis - is the rebirth of souls in one or more successive physical existences. Metempsychosis in eastern religions such as Hindu and Buddhist( and some early Greek philosophy) is the idea that these existences can be human, animal and, in extreme cases, vegetative. Origen offered a modifed version of transmigration, that the soul occupies only human forms, in higher or lower than its present level of consciousness according to the overall level of consciousness currently attained.
To begin we must all understand that all the early church leaders were Neoplatonists. (We are fortunate to have a learned Plato scholar in our midst, Frank Cocozzelli.)
Plato made four arguments for his belief that the soul survives physical death. (Today we have scientific evidence for same. I'll explore this in a later posting.)
1. The soul has a succession of lives. The process of nature in general is cyclical; and it is reasonable to suppose that this cyclicity applies to the case of dying and coming of life. If this were not the so, the process of dying would not be reversible, thus life would utimately vanish from the universe.
2. The doctrine that humans call "learning" is really "recollection" and it shows, or at least suggests, that the soul's life is independent of the body.
3. The soul contemplates the Forms (i.e. ideas), which are eternal, changless and simple. The soul is like the Forms. Hence it is immortal.
4. (This is the most difficult to grasp). Socrates was dissatified with the causes of life as his world then knew them. He offered instead the Forms as causes, in their opposite forms. Human beings participate in Life and have souls that bring life with them. Since the soul brings life, it can not accept Death, the opposite of Life. In this case then the soul cannot perish and is immortal.
The theological system of Origen (ca. 185 - ca. 254) overall is based on a belief in the goodness of God and the freedom of the creature, we humans. The transcendent God is the source of all existence and is good, just and omnipotent. In all emcompassing love, God created rational and spiritual beings through the Logos (word); an act of self-limitation on God's part.
He also believed in preexistence of the soul, but not transmigration or metempsychosis, that rational souls are incorporated in animal bodies. As I have mentioned his concept was that souls learn and move to perfection in succesively more enlightened bodies. And here's is one of his most controversial thoughts, that Redemption is a grand education provided by God, which restores all souls to their original state of perfection, and that no one, even Satan, is so depraved and so lost as to lose rationality and freedom and therefore is not beyond redemption.
The climax of redemption is the incarnation of the preexistent Son. One soul has not fallen but had remained in loving union with the Father. United with the ultimate soul, the divine Logos, (divine word) Christ was the second part of the trinity, subordinate to the Father, providing a divine side of the gulf between infinite Creator and the finite creation, we humans. In other words, as I understand it, Christ is the divine bridge between God and ourselves.
Origen speculated that souls fall varying distances, some to be angels, some incarnating as human beings and the most evil, devils. Chris came to help reconcile the lost (those fallen from perfection) to their divine source.
He also denied the existence of hell, this earthly plane being the only place of divine activity in need of redemption.
Due to the controversial nature of his teachings and the politics involved therein, his teachings and those several disciples who advanced his philosophy, were persecuted by the eastern Emperor Justinian. Justinian rigged a concilary counsel, the Fifth Ecumenical Council. For years the eastern and Roman empires were in conflict. In fact, Justinian captured and imprisoned for 8 years the Roman Emperor Vigilius. Justinian refused Vigilius' request for equal representation of bishops from both east and west, instead imposed his will. Of the 165 bishops present, 159 were from the eastern church.
As a result several anathemas (church curses) were published condeming Origen's works (amongst many others).
According to Rev. Willam Elva Gifford, in his book The Story of Faith, Justinian, in his madness, assumed headship of the church and went on to impose edits which regulated public worship, directed ecclesiastical discipline and even dictated theological doctrine.
So had it not been for acts of an insane power mad emperor, belief in preexisence of the soul, and thus reincarnation would today be a part of standard Christian teachings. And how different the church world wide would be if his overall theology of the goodness of God and the freedom of we his creatures prevailed.
I'll address this topic in a later posting as I write about the conflict between Pelagius and Augustine. The fall out from this conflict reverborates even today.
- anElder's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Finally, I have a minute to reply to this.
Thanks for putting this up. Nicely done. A couple of thoughts...
First, you note in a later reply that while Origin accepted the preexistence of the soul, he didn't believe in reincarnation. What I would be interested in seeing here is a sense of "why"? If neo-platonism dominated the philosophical scene, and if Origin accepted some neo-platonist perspectives, then what would make him draw the line there? As we enter into dialogue with those who came before us, I think such answers would be helpful. My suspicion would be that it would intrude upon his understanding of salvation through Christ. Do you have any insight here?
Second, were you going to tackle other church fathers on the topic of reincarnation? It would be interesting to hear about others as well.
Third, I know that theoretically we're "supposed" to focus on reincarnation. However, feel free to run onto tangents like preexistence of the soul and universal salvation. I think zeroing in on reincarnation was meant to get us going more than anything.
Reincarnation is irrelevant to salvation
I am going to throw my unasked for two cents worth in and probably get everyone mad at one. Reincarnation , in my opinion is irrelevant to salvation. It doesn't matter if it is a reality or not.
Salvation is now, today.The kingdom of God is within and accessible. Let Christ's love come into you and flow through you today.
Lets presume the theory that most reincarnations hold is true. We keep reincarnating until we have learned all our lessons. Then the life-death cycle finally ends and we go home to our God. We are obviuosly here so our life death cycle hasn't stopped. Ultimately and finally we go back to square one, whether or not you believe in one life or many lifes, are you working out your salvation, now! Speculating about whether or not reincarnation is true or who you were in previous lives is just a tangent to go off on and lose sight of the goal.
Please don't take this as criticism of anyone who wants to blog about reincarnation or debate it or put out a white paper on it.It generates discussion and debate, and in that people sometimes get to think about what they really do believe in. It isn't condemnation, it is just my opinion on the subject. I do suspect reincarnation, or something very close to it, such as a multi-tiered reality structure is true, by the way.As stated above , though, I am not going to put any energy into. The multi-tiered reality, by the way, is a reference to the idea of seven heavens, and that does have a direct Biblical reference.
Reincarnation: what difference does it make?
Taking it from a similar but slightly different perspective from Jim, I ask if belief or disbelief in reincarnation makes any difference in our behavior or ethics.
Does the doctrine add anything to the 'new commandment' to love as Jesus loved? Or to the Beatitudes, the Lord's Prayer, Jesus as the fulfillment of the Jubilee, and Jesus as Way, Truth, Life?
Does anyone think that it makes a difference in how one follows the Wayshower on the Way?
My own inclination is that it doesn't. I see it as purely speculative. Can anyone "bring it down to earth" for me?
Bill
Sort of
Is reincarnation really irrelevant to salvation?
"Salvation" is the term Christians use for their personal "religious end." Its an answer to "what happens next?" Reincarnation is one answer to that question. That makes it also a religious end...potentially anyway. Furthermore, it's a popular topic of discussion. Therefore, I believe it is important (at least for me) to have a perspective on the issue.
Btw all, it may take a bit for me to get my post in here. It's in outline form and...um...long. Also, I have company coming over this weekend. Right now I'm all about the cleaning. Alas, but I will not address the issue of the relationship between reincarnation and salvation, despite the fact that I brought it up. :)
re: sort of
Actually I agree with you on the discussion end. Please all you proponents of reincarnation theory go ahead and post about it. It makes people think.
I use the word 'salvation" because it is common Christian terminology. My definition of salvation is probably radically different from a fundamentalist/literalist who is obsessed with punishment, sin, crucifixion, fear, etc. Salvation for some often means accepting Jesus so they won't fry for eternity. To me, that is fear based religion. However some evangelicals and I both share the idea that it is about making peace with our God, and trying to unite our will with our Lord's, and accepting Jesus in some manner. For an evangelical that usually means accepting Jesus as his personal saviour.For me it means accepting Jesus as a teacher and elder brother, who through His teachings and personal intercession can help me go where He has already been and lead me to the Creator. I would be on the same page as an evangelical in that if I do it right, I need only take the first step, then if my will is perfectly uniting with His will, and He will take me the rest of the way. The trick is perfectly uniting with His will. For some evangelicals "getting saved" is an end in itself. All the hard work is done. Once saved, always saved is the doctrine of some. For me and some evangelicals, accepting Jesus is only the first step in spiritual journey. Breaking old habits and beliefs and loving God and your neighbor can be difficult.So I think there is enough common ground for most Christians to safely use the word 'salvation' .
Blogs on reincarnation
I have two blogs on reincarnation that readers may not have seen: "Have We Lived Before?" in which I share some of my research in extra-biblical sources. The other "Who Sinned? This Man or His Parents?" in which I go through the Bible and share my interpretation.
When I speak of reincarnation, I speak in terms of the eternal part of us--the soul--choosing to live within numerous physical bodies in order to progress on the spiritual path to Oneness with God. None of us would argue that we have not yet reached the state of perfection ... the state of possessing the mind that was in Christ Jesus ... the capacity to do all the things that Jesus did. The Bible encourages us to attain this level of spiritual maturity. Incarnating into multiple physical bodies allows us to mature spiritually at the pace best suited to our individual needs. The goal is always to offer the opportunity to achieve the "mind that was in Christ Jesus."
Whether or not Origen or Bruno or any other human being taught reincarnation is of little real importance. Jesus left his disciples with only one source of information on which to depend--the Holy Spirit. All the searching, reading, debating in the world cannot lead us to the truth because the spoken language is so very limited in its ability to explain truth. Only the Holy Spirit can grant us Truth via our Higher/Intuitive Mind. Truth can permeate our being, but we have not the words to share it. We can only approximate truth with the use of our words. Hopefully, others will find in our words the stimilus to go within and seek truth from the Holy Spirit.
I view Crossleft blogging as a means to give people something to consider ... to perhaps allow them to have an "aha" moment in which the Holy Spirit within them stirs a knowing of Truth. Presenting both sides of a debate simply offers a wide range of thoughts to be considered. It is not to say that either side is correct to the exclusion of the other.
I know that I have lived in previous physical bodies because I experienced memories of them decades before I heard the word "reincarnation." My earliest recall goes back to age 3 of this lifetime. Most, if not all, so-called modern "authorities" who teach reincarnation came to know it through their own unexpected experiences--Edgar Cayce, Dr. Brian Weiss, Elizabeth Clare Prophet for examples. The Holy Spirit working within us reveals the truth when we are ready.
No one is beyond redemption. Not even Satan.
That is such a joyous statement, Rich. I'm going to go roll in it a while.*
*Those who live with dogs will recognize "roll in it" as a form of extreme delight.
Apokatastasis - the restoration of all beings - i.e. redemption
Janet,
Yup no matter what we done there's hope for us ole sinners yet!
Seriously, I encourage you (Gary, Nancy and others) to read "Origen of Alexandria", an article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosopohy www.iep.utm.edu/o/origen.htm in particular c. Multiple Ages, Metempsychosis, and the Restoration of All p6. re: apokatastasis - the restoration of all beings.
I will quote it here in the hope that it may inspire you to read the whole 12 page article. As Origen was a brilliant biblical scholar, it cites 1 Corinthians 15:25-28 as the basis of this, his most important concept.
"The restoration of all beings (apokatastasis) is the most important of Origen's philosophy, and the touchstone by which he judges all other theories. His concept of universal restoration is based equally strong on Scriptual and Hellenistic philosophical grounds and is not original, as it can be traced back to Heraclitus, who stated that "the beginning and the end are common" (Fragment b 103, tr, J. Barnes 1987, p 115). Considering Origen's later opponents based their charges of heresy largely on this aspect of his teachings, it is surprising to see how well-grounded in scripture this doctrine really is. Origen's main biblical proof-text is 1 Corinthians 15:25-28, especially verse 28, which speaks of the time "when all things shall be subdued unto him (Christ), then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all" KJV. -- This scriptual notion of God being "all in all" (panta en pasin) is a strong theological support for his apokatastasis. There are, of course, numerous other passages in scripture that conradict this notion, but we must remember that Origen's strength resided in his ability to use reason and dialetic in support of humane doctrines, not in the ability to use scripture in support of dogmatical and anti-humane arguments. Origen imagined salvation not in terms of the saved rejoicing in heaven and the damned in hell, but as reunion of all souls with God".
I fully embrace that last statement "Origen imagined salvation --- as a reunion of all souls with God". It predates and contradicts the notion of predestination as advanced by such teachers as Augustine.
This last statement defines the difference Origen and later teachers such as Peligius saw in the nature of man. Their positive views of that God is all good, as well as His creation, was in direct opposition to the gloom and doom philospohies of their times.
I invite you to read the whole article and comment.
Rich
white paper on early church fathers
Rich,
Great piece and thank you for doing the research necessary to talk about the early church fathers. I'm wondering if you might think about turning this series of posts into white paper.
s
Discovering what could have been!
Rich,
An excellent article! I'm thinking the articles on reincarnation, and others by the Theology Panel, should be submitted to the library on the Center for Progressive Christianity as well as being posted on Crossleft. This is important information for Christians--progressive or conservative. At the same time, I feel being a part of Crossleft allows Comments and questions that are not possible on the CPC site.
In going through some of my books today, I found that in 1600, Giordano Bruno, a Dominican monk and later, a wandering philospher, was burned at the stake for teaching "the human soul could return to earth in a new body after death and could even move on to inhabit an infinite number of worlds beside earth.... He also held to an idea that often occurs alongside reincarnation--the idea that man can become one with God during his soul's journey on earth. For him, religion was the process by which the divine light 'takes possession of the soul, raises it, and converts it into God.' One does have to wait until the end of the world for divine union to take place, Bruno believed. It can happen today. In Bruno's view of human potential, we can find the seed of why Christianity ultimately rejected reincarnation: it undermined the authority of the Church. Under Bruno's system, salvation was not linked to a person's relationship to the Church, but to his direct relationship with God."
--the quote within the above quote is from Bruno, "De gli eroici furori," quoted in Frances A. Yates, "Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition" pg. 278.
"[Bruno's} ideas about the universe presaged some of the discoveries of twentieth-century physics. But Bruno was not a scientist. In the 19th century, intellectuals revered him as a martyr to scientific inquiry and freedom of thought, largely for his defense of Copericus' sun-centered view of the solar system.... It was mysticism and philosophy that brought Bruno to his vision of innumerable worlds. He believed the earth was only one among an infinite number of worlds."
"At a time when most people thought the stars were permanently pasted to the sky, Bruno detailed his revolutionary beliefs: 'There is a single general space, a single vast immensity which we may freely call "Void"; in it are innumerable globes like this on which we live and grow. This space we declare to be infinite .... In it are an infinity of worlds of the same kind as our own.'"
--the above quote within a quote is from Bruno, "De l'infinito," quoted in Dorothea Waley Singer, "Giordano Bruno: His Life and Thought," pgs. 58-59.
"For Bruno, the idea of infinite worlds opened the door to the idea of infinite human possibility.... A person, whether in or out of a body, Bruno wrote, 'is never completed.' He has the opportunity to experience life in different forms. 'Even as infinite space is around us, so is infinite potentiality, capacity, reception, malleability, matter.'"
--the above quote within a quote is from Bruno, "De immenso," quoted in Singer "Giordano Bruno," pg. 75.
My interpretation of the above is that Bruno was aware of our galactic family and that we, as present Earth humans, may in fact be Star people living for awhile on Earth.
--Above, I am quoting Elizabeth Clare Prophet's "Reincarnation: The Missing Link In Christianity."
I wonder what additional teachings by the early Christians were forbidden to the public by the Inquisitions. It behooves Christians to find out!
Origen opposed the idea of reincarnation
Rich, Nancy, and Steve... you might want to dig a little deeper on Origen and his views on reincarnation. Below are numerous citations taken from wikipedia, the Catholic Library, and a research paper by John S. Uebersax PhD that debunk the idea that Origen was a proponent of this idea.
It seems likely that he did believe in the pre-existence of the soul and might have offered some speculative thoughts akin to reincarnation stemming from his study of Plato and thus superimposed from a speculative perspective on scripture. However, his serious commentaries on the Bible seemed to be very orthodox especially on the scripture references that reincarnation enthusiasts cite as examples of this doctrine. I include some Origen quotes below.
First, here is some copy/paste notes from wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen
"The book Reincarnation in Christianity, by the theosophist Geddes MacGregor (1978) asserted that Origen believed in reincarnation. MacGregor is convinced that Origen believed in and taught about reincarnation but that his texts written about the subject have been destroyed. He admits that there is no extant proof for that position. The allegation was also repeated by Shirley MacLaine in her book Out On a Limb.
This cannot be confirmed from the existent writings of Origen. He was cognizant of the concept of reincarnation (metensomatosis "re-embodiment" in his words) from Greek philosophy, but it is repeatedly stated that this concept is no part of the Christian teaching or scripture. In his Comment on the Gospel of Matthew, which stems from a sixth century Latin translation, it is written: "In this place [when Jesus said Elijah was come and referred to John the Baptist] it does not appear to me that by Elijah the soul is spoken of, lest I fall into the doctrine of transmigration, which is foreign to the Church of God, and not handed down by the apostles, nor anywhere set forth in the scriptures" (ibid., 13:1:46–53 [14])."
Here are some copy/paste notes taken from the Catholic Library on the subject with more quotes from Origen...Other Church leaders of that period are also quoted as they collectively dismantle the reincarnation ideology.
http://www.catholic.com/library/reincarnation.asp
"Members of what is commonly called the "New Age" movement often claim that early Christians believed in reincarnation. Shirley MacLaine, an avid New Age disciple, recalls being taught: "The theory of reincarnation is recorded in the Bible. But the proper interpretations were struck from it during an ecumenical council meeting of the Catholic Church in Constantinople sometime around A.D. 553, called the Council of Nicaea [sic]" (Out on a Limb, 234–35).
Historical facts provide no basis for this claim. In fact, there was no Council of Nicaea in A.D. 553. Further, the two ecumenical councils of Nicaea (A.D. 325 and A.D. 787) took place in the city of Nicaea (hence their names)—and neither dealt with reincarnation. What did take place in A.D. 553 was the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. But records from this Council show that it, too, did not address the subject of reincarnation. None of the early councils did.
The closest the Second Council of Constantinople came to addressing reincarnation was, in one sentence, to condemn Origen, an early Church writer who believed souls exist in heaven before coming to earth to be born. New Agers confuse this belief in the preexistence of the soul with reincarnation and claim that Origen was a reincarnationist. Actually, he was one of the most prolific early writers against reincarnation! Because he is so continually misrepresented by New Agers, we have included a number of his quotes below, along with passages from other sources, all of which date from before A.D. 553when the doctrine of reincarnation was supposedly "taken out of the Bible."
The origin of Shirley MacLaine’s mistaken notion that Origen taught reincarnation is probably Reincarnation in Christianity, by Geddes MacGregor—a book published by the Theosophical Publishing House in 1978. The author speculates that Origen’s texts written in support of the belief in reincarnation somehow disappeared or were suppressed. Admitting he has no evidence, MacGregor nonetheless asserts: "I am convinced he taught reincarnation in some form" (58). You may judge from the passages below whether this seems likely.
Origen
"[Scripture says] ‘And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" and he said, "I am not"’ [John 1:21]. No one can fail to remember in this connection what Jesus says of John: ‘If you will receive it, this is Elijah, who is to come’ [Matt. 11:14]. How then does John come to say to those who ask him, ‘Are you Elijah?’—‘I am not’? . . . One might say that John did not know that he was Elijah. This will be the explanation of those who
find in our passage a support for their doctrine of reincarnation, as if the soul clothed itself in a fresh body and did not quite remember its former lives. . . . [H]owever, a churchman, who repudiates the doctrine of reincarnation as a false one and does not admit that the soul of John was ever Elijah, may appeal to the above-quoted words of the angel, and point out that it is not the soul of Elijah that is spoken of at John’s birth, but the spirit and power of Elijah" (Commentary on John 6:7 [A.D. 229]).
"As for the spirits of the prophets, these are given to them by God and are spoken of as being in a manner their property [slaves], as ‘The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets’ [1 Cor. 14:32] and ‘The spirit of Elijah rested upon Elisha’ [2 Kgs. 2:15]. Thus, it is said, there is nothing absurd in supposing that John, ‘in the spirit and power of Elijah,’ turned the hearts of the fathers to the children and that it was on account of this spirit that he was called ‘Elijah who is to come’" (ibid.).
"If the doctrine [of reincarnation] was widely current, ought not John to have hesitated to pronounce upon it, lest his soul had actually been in Elijah? And here our churchman will appeal to history, and will bid his antagonists [to] ask experts of the secret doctrines of the Hebrews if they do really entertain such a belief. For if it should appear that they do not, then the argument based on that supposition is shown to be quite baseless" (ibid.).
"Someone might say, however, that Herod and some of those of the people held the false dogma of the transmigration of souls into bodies, in consequence of which they thought that the former John had appeared again by a fresh birth, and had come from the dead into life as Jesus. But the time between the birth of John and the birth of Jesus, which was not more than six months, does not permit this false opinion to be considered credible. And perhaps rather some such idea as this was in the mind of Herod, that the powers which worked in John had passed over to Jesus, in consequence of which he was thought by the people to be John the Baptist. And one might use the following line of argument: Just as because the spirit and the power of Elijah, and not because of his soul, it is said about John, ‘This is Elijah who is to come’ [Matt. 11:14] . . . so Herod thought that the powers in John’s case worked in him works of baptism and teaching—for John did not do one miracle [John 10:41]—but in Jesus [they worked] miraculous portents" (Commentary on Matthew 10:20 [A.D. 248]).
"Now the Canaanite woman, having come, worshipped Jesus as God, saying, ‘Lord, help me,’ but he answered and said, ‘It is not possible to take the children’s bread and cast it to the little dogs.’ . . . [O]thers, then, who are strangers to the doctrine of the Church, assume that souls pass from the bodies of men into the bodies of dogs, according to their varying degree of wickedness; but we . . . do not find this at all in the divine Scripture" (ibid., 11:17).
"In this place [when Jesus said Elijah was come and referred to John the Baptist] it does not appear to me that by Elijah the soul is spoken of, lest I fall into the doctrine of transmigration, which is foreign to the Church of God, and not handed down by the apostles, nor anywhere set forth in the scriptures" (ibid., 13:1).
"But if . . . the Greeks, who introduce the doctrine of transmigration, laying down things in harmony with it, do not acknowledge that the world is coming to corruption, it is fitting that when they have looked the scriptures straight in the face which plainly declare that the world will perish, they should either disbelieve them or invent a series of arguments in regard to the interpretation of things concerning the consummation; which even if they wish they will not be able to do" (ibid.)"
The essay referenced below is a must read for anyone wanting to fully explore the context of some of Origen's statements and peruse accurate quotes from Origen on this subject...This writer exposes the shallow scholarship of most proponents of this extra-biblical idea.
Early Christianity and Reincarnation: Modern Misrepresentation of Quotes by Origen
John S. Uebersax PhD
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jsuebersax/origen1.htm
Excellent research
Gary,
I have read the article from Wikipedia you reference and have downloaded the Catholic Answers article. (I wish they'd printed it in larger text tho, kinda hard on my old eyes!) I refer you to Catholic Encyclopedia: Origen and Origenism www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm. Also The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy www.iep.utm.edu/o/origen.htm
As I read the many articles I find they use many of the same thoughts, almost the same wording in fact, so it takes a bit of work to find the original sources. However it does show there is much agreement on many of the points about his life, works and philospohy.
No one doubts Origen was a giant amongst the early church fathers, that his influence was great, matched only by Augustine, that he was greatly influenced by Neo-platonism, especially Plotinus, considered by many to the the father of Neo-platonism. His allegorical analysis showed that he was also influenced by Neo-pythagorean thought. I won't go into that here, for now.
You are correct in saying that Origen probably did not believe in Reincaration as commonly understood. That is why I titled my posting "Origen and Preexistence of the Soul". He believed, as I understand it, on successive progression of the soul, but not in transmigration of the soul into anything other than human forms, each one depending upon the level of consciousness currently attained. A soul could go to a lower level depending upon the actions of the prior life. This was the basis of his idea that man was given freedom to choose. Implied in this is, of course, the idea that we are also fully responsible (reponse-able) for our actions. We can, by his reasoning, attain salvation via use of free will, as did Peligius and others, a point sharply criticized later by Augustine. This leads me to pursue the topic of the nature of man. I'll address that in a future posting.
Origen was, by most accounts, a very conservative theologian. That's what, in the minds of many, makes his thinking so powerful. Preexistence of the soul is classic Neo-platonism, thinking that greatly influenced most of the early church fathers.
Realizing that there is a limit to the amount of reading any one reader will engage in on a blog, I, by neccesity, left out many details. Eg., The Fifth Ecumenical Council and it's anathemas was not directed at Origen per se, however Justinian did take the opportunity to condemn Origen, a sort of "while we're at it let's dump this guys writings as well".
Steve has suggested creating a white paper on the early church fathers. While I am open to the idea I realize the immensity of the task. It would take the combined efforts of several of us. None of us have the whole picture and can by cross referencing and cross fertilization develop a more complete picture. (Quite appropriate for "Cross"Left, right!)
What really attracts me to Origen was not only his thoughts on preexistence of the soul but his emphasis on freedom, that Our Creator has given us a free will, that we need not have an intercessor, that we have direct contact to and with Our Creator and Christ, the Logos. It was this thinking, that we do not need a priesthood per se, that attracts me to him. Guidance and counseling perhaps, but not a blind adherence to priestly thought.
Whether or not we in fact do a white paper will depend not only on time and energy, but how it relates to the mission of CrossLeft, how such a paper might help us fulfill Kety's original vision of balancing the Christian voice.
We progressive Christians are challenged today by the same forces that Origen faced. Not only is the Institute for Religion and Democracy attempting to suppress independent thinking but as Frank points out, Opus Dei is an even more powerful and largely hidden force advocating strict adherence to orthodoxy. These forces are tough and are not opposed engaging in savage attacks on progressive thinkers. If we are to take them on we'd better be well prepared. Just ask Frank or read his postings to hear of the personal attacks he has sustained over the years. He's a man of great courage and fortitude, a real modern tiger (one who occasionally blows off some steam by engaging in a hissy fit every now and again! I love him just the same. :) )
As I have some science to offer on the topic I'll refrain from further commentary here.
Thank you for your detailed analysis. It is just this level of thinking, of committment to progressive thinking that inspired me to initiate the Theological Panel. We have so many good minds here, such deep thinkers that I do sincerely believe, in 2004, Kety was onto something, that she heard an inner voice that said domination of the Christian community by extreme orthodoxy was not morally defensible, prompting her to take corrective action. Here we all are now, engaging in discussion of soul level topics, attempting to rediscover the original Christian voice, one devoted to the social gospel, and to mutually find ways to meet and overcome todays challenges.
Peace my friend.
Rich
more great research
Gary,
thanks for this research. This is what i was talking about whhen I affirmed your view about focus on the Bible. Other texts can be useful but must be validated through research for their authenticity and for a deeper understanding of the meaning of the work.
I know little about the early church, but I know that the early church had to work out the theological issues of the religion. Some issues were decided and some we struggle with today, and some we have updated for our time (like the role of women in the church).