Jesus Christ The Only Wise God

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

ByGraceThroughFaith

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2021
2,870
852
113
Dudley
trinitystudies.org
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Jesus Christ The Only Wise God

It is argued by some, that verses in the Bible, like John 17:3, where the Father is called, “The only True God”; and Romans 16:27, where the Father is called, “God only wise”; that Jesus Christ is not “God” (ὁ θεὸς), because in these passages, the Father is called, “the ONLY True God (τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν)”. These passages are used by some who deny that Jesus Christ is Almighty God, equal to the Father, and by those who wrongly assume, that Jesus Christ is a “lesser God”, than the Father. The early Church heretic, Origen, taught that the Father alone is “ὁ θεὸς”, and Jesus Christ is simple “θεὸς”, which is followed by the present day cult known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

It is clear from 1 Timothy 1:17, the Lord Jesus Christ is called, “The only Wise God”.

“Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God (μονω σοφω θεω), be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen”

This verse is not, as some assume, a Doxology by Paul to God the Father. The context of which these words are written, are clearly to the Lord Jesus Christ, and not the Father.

In verses 12-16, Paul writes:

“And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting”

Here Paul thanks Jesus Christ, who “enabled” him, and counted him “faithful”, and for the grace shown by Jesus Christ to him, which was “abundant”, with “faith and love”, in Jesus. Paul then goes on to say that Jesus Christ came into this world to save sinners, of whom he is the “chief”. That he “obtained mercy” from Jesus Christ, Who displayed in Paul “all long-suffering”, to be shown to all thereafter. All of this is gratitude and heart felt thanks, by Paul, to the Lord Jesus Christ, who put him “into the ministry”.

It is only fitting that after all of this, that Paul says what he does in verse 17, to Jesus Christ, for all that He has done for him, though he was “a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious”, and no doubt deserved to be punished by the Lord instead!

There is no reason, either contextually, grammatically, or theologically, to understand verse 17, as a Doxology to God the Father, and not Jesus Christ. It is only those who find it difficult to accept, that Jesus Christ IS Himself, Almighty God, and completely coequal to the Father in the Eternal Godhead, that they will try to dispose of any reference to Jesus Christ as GOD, as done in other places.

In the Greek of verse 17, Paul begins by saying, “τῷ δὲ”. The use of the particle “δὲ” here, is emphatic, as in “in fact”. A good example of this is seen in Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians, where in chapter 10, he begins verse 2, “δέομαι δὲ”, which should be translated as, “yea, I beseech you” (ASV, ERV). “Yea” is used to show, “more than this: not only so but — used to introduce a more explicit or emphatic phrase” (Webster ED). Paul is in 1 Timothy 1:17, giving praise to the Lord Jesus Christ, for all that He has done for, and shown him!

At the time that Paul was writing this Letter to Timothy, Jesus Christ was “invisible”, as He was in Heaven, and not on earth.

What of the use of “μόνος”, in John 17:3, and Romans 16:27, when use for God the Father? Does this mean that He “alone” is God, and no One else? In Isaiah 46:9 it says, “Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me”. And, in Psalm 86:10, “You perform great wonders because you alone are God”. The Hebrew “בַּד”, has the meaning “alone, only”. The Greek “μόνος”, is much wider than “only” in meaning, and can be used for, “above all others, unique”. This “Uniqueness” of the God of the Bible, can be seen in passages like Isaiah 37:16, “O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, enthroned above the cherubim, you are the God, you alone (μόνος), of all the kingdoms of the earth; you have made heaven and earth”. God is here contrasted above all the kingdoms of the earth, as UNIQUE.

However, though we read of “alone, only”, we cannot conclude that the Father ONLY is God, and neither Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit are. This is not what the Bible teaches.

In chapter 3 of this same Letter, according to the best textual evidence, Paul says of Jesus Christ, that He is, “θεος εφανερωθη εν σαρκι”, “God was manifested in the flesh”. In Romans 9:5, Paul says of Jesus Christ, “ο χριστος το κατα σαρκα ο ων επι παντων θεος ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας αμην”, “the Christ who is God over all blessed forever. Amen”. In Titus 2:13, Paul says, “της δοξης του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου”, “the Glory of our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ”. In Acts 20:28, Paul says of Jesus Christ, “την εκκλησιαν του θεου ην περιεποιησατο δια του ιδιου αιματος”, “to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood”. In Hebrews 1:8, 9: Paul says of God the Father’s words to Jesus Christ, “ο θρονος σου ο θεος...σε ο θεος ο θεος σου“Your Throne O God...therefore O God, Your God”. Jesus Christ is Almighty God.

In Acts chapter 5, we read the account of Ananias, and his wife Sapphira, who tried to lie to the Holy Spirit (τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, verse 3). In verse 4, Peter tells Ananias, that by lying to the Holy Spirit, he actually had lied “ῷ θεῷ”. The Greek does not allow any other reading than “God”, not “god” or “a god”, as here we have the definite article used, “ῷ”, which some wrongly conclude, is only used for the Father. In 1 Corinthians 6:19, Paul says, “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own”. And, in chapter 3, verses 16 and 17, we read, “Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple”. Clearly the Holy Spirit is Almighty God.

When we read of passages like Isaiah 45:21, “Is it not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me”. And, Deuteronomy 4:35, “To you it was shown that you might know that the Lord, He is God; there is no other besides Him”. It is clear that these do not refer to the Father only, but to the Three Persons in the One Godhead. This is clear from the verse in Isaiah, were we read of Yahweh, Who is Elohim, Who is The Saviour, and the words, “There is none except Me”, shows UNIQUENESS, but not ONLY, as Jesus Christ is The Saviour in the New Testament, as it does in John 4:42, “And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world the Christ (ο σωτηρ του κοσμου ο χριστος)” Yet, in Isaiah 43:11 it says, “I, I am YHWH; and beside me there is no Saviour”. YHWH is the ONLY Saviour, Who is The Lord Jesus Christ! Clear Testimony that Jesus Christ IS Almighty God, as are the Father and Holy Spirit. Three distinct but EQUAL Persons, One Godhead!

As I said, there is no reason that 1 Timothy 1:17, is addressed to Jesus Christ, which the context shows to be the Person Paul is speaking about
 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,779
2,436
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Jesus Christ The Only Wise God

It is argued by some, that verses in the Bible, like John 17:3, where the Father is called, “The only True God”; and Romans 16:27, where the Father is called, “God only wise”; that Jesus Christ is not “God” (ὁ θεὸς), because in these passages, the Father is called, “the ONLY True God (τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν)”. These passages are used by some who deny that Jesus Christ is Almighty God, equal to the Father, and by those who wrongly assume, that Jesus Christ is a “lesser God”, than the Father. The early Church heretic, Origen, taught that the Father alone is “ὁ θεὸς”, and Jesus Christ is simple “θεὸς”, which is followed by the present day cult known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

I don't think that's fair to Origen because he did not deny the Deity of Christ. He was just trying to explain the differences in the Persons of the Trinity. If there are no differences in the Persons of the Trinity, there is no Trinity. And so, the one God must be expressed as 3 distinct Persons. How Origen chose to explain this should not be used to describe him as an antitrinitarian heretic--that would be slanderous, in my view.

Otherwise, I agree with you. One God in 3 Persons. I personally explain the difference between the Father and the Son in a way similar to Origen--that's why I'm defending him. The fact that the Son is "lesser" in description than the Father does not mean that they are not co-equal in substance.

Jesus is a finite expression of the inexpressible infinite essence of God. As such, by definition he appears as something lower down the scale from the infinite God without ceasing to be the expression of that infinite Source of Deity.

They are both of the same essence. But one is expressing the other in a finite, human form, without sacrificing who he is as God.
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
917
407
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
1 Timothy 1:17

Some trinitarians present this verse as evidence of Jesus being God.

They use the KJV (because its Textus Receptus is flawed here).

“Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” - KJV.

But the best manuscript evidence reveals 1 Tim. 1:17 to say:

“Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.” - NASB and most other translations by trinitarians.

The trinitarian United Bible Societies’ A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament says about this verse:

“After [mono (‘only’)] the Textus Receptus inserts [sopho (‘wise’)] …. The word is no doubt a scribal gloss derived from Ro. 16:27;”
- p. 639, UBS, 1971.

The Expositor’s Greek New Testament (trinitarian) tells us this passage is a “noble doxology” to God the Father. -
Pp. 99, 100, Volume four.

Noted trinitarian scholar, A. T. Robertson tells us in his Word Pictures in the New Testament, “This noble doxology is a burst of gratitude for God’s grace to Paul.” - p. 565, Vol. IV.

Even some earlier trinitarian commentaries on the Bible who used the faulty KJV rendering of this scripture still accepted this as a doxology to God.

“He mentions it to the glory of God having spoken of the mercy he had found with God, he could not go on with his letter without inserting a thankful acknowledgment of God's goodness to him: Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. Observe, First, That grace which we have the comfort of God must have the glory of. Those who are sensible of their obligations to the mercy and grace of God will have their hearts enlarged in his praise. Here is praise ascribed to him, as the King eternal, immortal, invisible. Secondly, When we have found God good we must not forget to pronounce him great; and his kind thoughts of us must not at all abate our high thoughts of him, but rather increase them. God had taken particular cognizance of Paul, and shown him mercy, and taken him into communion with himself, and yet he calls him the King eternal, c. God's gracious dealings with us should fill us with admiration of his glorious attributes. He is eternal, without beginning of days, or end of life, or change of time. He is the Ancient of days, Daniel 7:9. He is immortal, and the original of immortality he only has immortality (1 Timothy 6:16), for he cannot die. He is invisible, for he cannot be seen with mortal eyes, dwelling in the light to which no man can approach, whom no man hath seen nor can see, 1 Timothy 6:16.” - Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Bible, 1 Tim. 1:17.

This is, at best, a doubtful, disputed piece of evidence for Jesus being God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: APAK

APAK

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2018
9,181
9,894
113
Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
1 Timothy 1:17

Some trinitarians present this verse as evidence of Jesus being God.

They use the KJV (because its Textus Receptus is flawed here).

“Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” - KJV.

But the best manuscript evidence reveals 1 Tim. 1:17 to say:

“Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.” - NASB and most other translations by trinitarians.

The trinitarian United Bible Societies’ A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament says about this verse:

“After [mono (‘only’)] the Textus Receptus inserts [sopho (‘wise’)] …. The word is no doubt a scribal gloss derived from Ro. 16:27;”
- p. 639, UBS, 1971.

The Expositor’s Greek New Testament (trinitarian) tells us this passage is a “noble doxology” to God the Father. -
Pp. 99, 100, Volume four.

Noted trinitarian scholar, A. T. Robertson tells us in his Word Pictures in the New Testament, “This noble doxology is a burst of gratitude for God’s grace to Paul.” - p. 565, Vol. IV.

Even some earlier trinitarian commentaries on the Bible who used the faulty KJV rendering of this scripture still accepted this as a doxology to God.

“He mentions it to the glory of God having spoken of the mercy he had found with God, he could not go on with his letter without inserting a thankful acknowledgment of God's goodness to him: Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. Observe, First, That grace which we have the comfort of God must have the glory of. Those who are sensible of their obligations to the mercy and grace of God will have their hearts enlarged in his praise. Here is praise ascribed to him, as the King eternal, immortal, invisible. Secondly, When we have found God good we must not forget to pronounce him great; and his kind thoughts of us must not at all abate our high thoughts of him, but rather increase them. God had taken particular cognizance of Paul, and shown him mercy, and taken him into communion with himself, and yet he calls him the King eternal, c. God's gracious dealings with us should fill us with admiration of his glorious attributes. He is eternal, without beginning of days, or end of life, or change of time. He is the Ancient of days, Daniel 7:9. He is immortal, and the original of immortality he only has immortality (1 Timothy 6:16), for he cannot die. He is invisible, for he cannot be seen with mortal eyes, dwelling in the light to which no man can approach, whom no man hath seen nor can see, 1 Timothy 6:16.” - Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Bible, 1 Tim. 1:17.

This is, at best, a doubtful, disputed piece of evidence for Jesus being God.
Great post Tigger sir..
This should be a typical (unitarian) non-Trinitarian statement (1 Tim 1:17) and yet even this scripture has to also been tampered with to alter its intended meaning. It is another desperate attempt to squeeze out another Trinitarian nonsensical idea from it that is clearly not there.

Mal 2:10 says... don't we have one Father (God)? Has he not, the one God, the Father, created us? God and the Father are equivalent and spoken of as the same person over 1300 times in the NT. And yet there still persists with these childish and useless attempts to turn this mighty strong current that only the Father is God, the other way. It's futile! When will this nonsense cease?
 

ByGraceThroughFaith

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2021
2,870
852
113
Dudley
trinitystudies.org
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
I don't think that's fair to Origen because he did not deny the Deity of Christ. He was just trying to explain the differences in the Persons of the Trinity. If there are no differences in the Persons of the Trinity, there is no Trinity. And so, the one God must be expressed as 3 distinct Persons. How Origen chose to explain this should not be used to describe him as an antitrinitarian heretic--that would be slanderous, in my view.

Church History is clear that Origen was a heretic. Here is what he said on Jesus Christ

"that the essence of the Father and of the Son was not the same, but that there was a difference of essence, thus paving the way for Arianism" (F J Foakes Jackson; The History of the Christian Church, p.163)

"To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, John 17:3 That they may know You the only true God; but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken and called the earth. It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is The God, and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father." (Commentary on John's Gospel, Bk II, Ch 2)

"The Holy Spirit is more honourable than all others and ranks above all other things made by the Father through Christ...Oregen said 'that the Son and the Holy Spirit are creatures" (Dr R S Franks; The Doctrine of The Trinity, p.94)
 

ByGraceThroughFaith

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2021
2,870
852
113
Dudley
trinitystudies.org
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
1 Timothy 1:17

Some trinitarians present this verse as evidence of Jesus being God.

They use the KJV (because its Textus Receptus is flawed here).

“Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” - KJV.

But the best manuscript evidence reveals 1 Tim. 1:17 to say:

“Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.” - NASB and most other translations by trinitarians.

The trinitarian United Bible Societies’ A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament says about this verse:

“After [mono (‘only’)] the Textus Receptus inserts [sopho (‘wise’)] …. The word is no doubt a scribal gloss derived from Ro. 16:27;”
- p. 639, UBS, 1971.

The Expositor’s Greek New Testament (trinitarian) tells us this passage is a “noble doxology” to God the Father. -
Pp. 99, 100, Volume four.

Noted trinitarian scholar, A. T. Robertson tells us in his Word Pictures in the New Testament, “This noble doxology is a burst of gratitude for God’s grace to Paul.” - p. 565, Vol. IV.

Even some earlier trinitarian commentaries on the Bible who used the faulty KJV rendering of this scripture still accepted this as a doxology to God.

“He mentions it to the glory of God having spoken of the mercy he had found with God, he could not go on with his letter without inserting a thankful acknowledgment of God's goodness to him: Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. Observe, First, That grace which we have the comfort of God must have the glory of. Those who are sensible of their obligations to the mercy and grace of God will have their hearts enlarged in his praise. Here is praise ascribed to him, as the King eternal, immortal, invisible. Secondly, When we have found God good we must not forget to pronounce him great; and his kind thoughts of us must not at all abate our high thoughts of him, but rather increase them. God had taken particular cognizance of Paul, and shown him mercy, and taken him into communion with himself, and yet he calls him the King eternal, c. God's gracious dealings with us should fill us with admiration of his glorious attributes. He is eternal, without beginning of days, or end of life, or change of time. He is the Ancient of days, Daniel 7:9. He is immortal, and the original of immortality he only has immortality (1 Timothy 6:16), for he cannot die. He is invisible, for he cannot be seen with mortal eyes, dwelling in the light to which no man can approach, whom no man hath seen nor can see, 1 Timothy 6:16.” - Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Bible, 1 Tim. 1:17.

This is, at best, a doubtful, disputed piece of evidence for Jesus being God.

It makes ZERO difference what "Trinitrian" scholars might say! I have proven beyond any doubt in the OP, that CONTEXT of verse 17, is about JESUS CHRIST, and not the Father! Show from the CONTEXT that I am wrong?
 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,779
2,436
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Church History is clear that Origen was a heretic. Here is what he said on Jesus Christ

You should read some more balanced views of Origen. There is a virtual consensus that some of his writings would not conform with what came to be the accepted creeds. But anticipating what would be in the creeds was an impossible task. It seems you can find a possible "heretical statement" in just about any Church Father you want to condemn. But Origen was a highly respected Church Father and should be treated as such.

2 Cor 3.15 Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.

Try writing as much as Origen did without making any mistakes, doctrinally. ;)

"that the essence of the Father and of the Son was not the same, but that there was a difference of essence, thus paving the way for Arianism" (F J Foakes Jackson; The History of the Christian Church, p.163)

Origen was not an Arian, and believed that the Son was Divine. The "difference of essence" I might describe as the difference between the Father and the Son. If you don't think there was a difference, then it is you who are the heretic! ;)

Finding the right words to describe differences in the Trinity seemed to take a lot of conversations, time, and councils. Before judging someone a heretic, you need to understand the context as well as what is meant by the words used.
 

ByGraceThroughFaith

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2021
2,870
852
113
Dudley
trinitystudies.org
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
You should read some more balanced views of Origen. There is a virtual consensus that some of his writings would not conform with what came to be the accepted creeds. But anticipating what would be in the creeds was an impossible task. It seems you can find a possible "heretical statement" in just about any Church Father you want to condemn. But Origen was a highly respected Church Father and should be treated as such.

2 Cor 3.15 Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.

Try writing as much as Origen did without making any mistakes, doctrinally. ;)



Origen was not an Arian, and believed that the Son was Divine. The "difference of essence" I might describe as the difference between the Father and the Son. If you don't think there was a difference, then it is you who are the heretic! ;)

Finding the right words to describe differences in the Trinity seemed to take a lot of conversations, time, and councils. Before judging someone a heretic, you need to understand the context as well as what is meant by the words used.

Before you keep posting here, you should research yourself and see what Origen actually believed
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
917
407
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
After more than 1600 years of trinitarian dominance, redefinition, rewording, and selective translating, it should not be surprising that the trinitarian translations of the existing (mostly late) copies of the manuscripts of those early Christian writers will at times appear trinitarian. See my Creeds study: Examining the Trinity: CREEDS

What would be very surprising would be, given the above conditions, that there would be any support for a non-trinitarian doctrine still left in modern trinitarian translations of the writings of these earliest Christians!

Trinitarian scholar, minister, and missionary, H. R. Boer admits: The very first Christians to really discuss Jesus’ relationship to God in their writings were the Apologists.

“Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world, but nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called Subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father.” - p. 110, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.

Other respected trinitarian scholars agree.

“Before the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) all theologians viewed the Son as in one way or another subordinate to the Father.” - pp. 112-113, Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity (trinitarian), 1977; and p. 114, The History of Christianity, A Lion Handbook, Lion Publishing, 1990 revised ed.

“The formulation ‘One God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers [those very first Christians who had known and been taught by the Apostles and their disciples], there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.” - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967.

Alvan Lamson is especially straightforward:

“The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ... derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ... Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact.” - Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries.

[information about Origen follows]
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
917
407
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Origen actually taught:

The agent of redemption as of all creation is the Divine Logos {‘the Word’} or Son of God, who is the perfect image or reflection of the eternal Father. Though a being distinct, derivative, and subordinate. - p. 551, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm (ed.), 1945.

Origen believed that

‘the Son can be divine only in a lesser sense than the Father; the Son is theos (god), but only the Father is autoqeoV (Absolute God, God in Himself).’ - p. 1009, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (trinitarian), ed. F. L. Cross (trinitarian), Oxford University Press, 1990 printing.

Ardent trinitarian Murray J. Harris likewise admits:

Origen, too, drew a sharp distinction between theos and ho theos. As qeoV, the Son is not only distinct from ('numerically distinct') but also inferior to the Father who is ho theos and autotheos (i.e. God in an absolute sense).’ - p. 36, Jesus as God, Baker Book House (trinitarian), 1992.

The trinitarian The Encyclopedia of Religion says:

“Origen himself will downgrade the Logos [‘downgraded’ in relation to God only] in calling it ‘second god’ (Against Celsus, 5.39, 6.61, etc.) or again in writing ‘god’ (theos) without the article, whereas he calls the Father ho theos [oJ qeoV], ‘the God’ [with the article].” - p. 15, Vol. 9, Macmillan Publ., 1987.

In fact, Origen specifically commented on John 1:1c which modern English-speaking trinitarians often translate as: “And the Word was God.” Yes, Origen, whose knowledge of NT Greek (“the language of the New Testament was his mother tongue”) was probably greater than any other Bible scholar (and certainly quantum levels above the speculations of any modern scholar), shows us that this verse should be properly rendered: “And the Word was a god.” ! - ANF, 10:323. (A 13th century manuscript seems to be the earliest source of Origen’s Commentary on John.)

Remember, this man is not only the best expert on NT Greek, but his great honesty and Christian character are not questioned even by his most severe opponents!

Trinitarian Latourette also says that “Origen held that God is one, and is the Father” - p. 49, Christianity Through the Ages, Harper ChapelBook, 1965.

Trinitarian Bernhard Lohse also concedes that Origen taught

that ‘the Son was a creature of the Father, thus strictly subordinating the Son to the Father’ and, ‘Origen is therefore able to designate the Son as a creature created by the Father.’ - pp. 46, 252, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Fortress Press (trinitarian), 1985.

For example, Origen writes:

there are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, angels]; and of these Christ was the highest and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power. - ANF 10:321-322.

Yes, Origen, like Justin Martyr, calls the Son of God a created angel, the highest of the angels, the Angel of God. He calls Jesus, the Word:

“the Angel of God who came into the world for the salvation of men”- p. 568, vol. 4, ANF.

These creatures [angels] were also called gods (in a proper, scriptural sense but clearly subordinate to God himself - see the BOWGOD study)! - ANF, 10:323.

Like Irenaeus (and most, if not all, Ante-Nicene Fathers), Origen considered “Wisdom” speaking at Prov. 8:22-30 to be Christ, the Son of God. He wrote:

“we have first to ascertain what the only-begotten Son of God is, seeing He is called by many different names, according to the circumstances and views of individuals. For He is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon:

“‘The Lord {“Jehovah” in the ancient Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts} created me {Wisdom, ‘the only-begotten Son of God’} - the beginning {see Rev. 3:14} of His ways, and among His works, before He made any other thing; He founded me before the ages. In the beginning, before He formed the earth, before He brought forth the fountains of waters, before the mountains were made strong, before all the hills, He brought me forth.’ {Prov. 8:22-25}

“He is also styled First-born, as the apostle has declared: ‘who is the first-born of every creature.’” {Col. 1:15} - ANF 4:246, ‘De Principiis’.

So once again we find clear non-trinitarian statements in Origen's writings.

It’s obviously not unexpected that the trinitarian re-copyists, translators, and re-definers would have caused original non-trinitarian statements to now read as trinitarian statements, but they certainly would never have allowed any non-trinitarian changes or additions to Origen's work! These non-trinitarian statements that still remain, therefore, must be original. Certainly Origen did not teach a trinity (or binity) even though trinitarian scholars have “credited” him with formulating the trinity doctrine!

[Origen's] De Principiis, the foremost treatise on systematic theology in the ancient Church, has survived in the main only in Rufinus'* largely emended Latin translation. - p. 551, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm, 1945.

_________________________________________

*RUFINUS ... (c. 345-410), monk, historian and translator .... He also studied for several years in Alexandria under Didymus the Blind [St. Didymus, a staunch Nicene trinitarian - p. 402], and was deeply influenced by his Origenism [Didymus tried to ‘prove’ that Origen had taught a trinity doctrine in his De Principiis - p. 1010] .... [Rufinus’] free translation of Origen’s De Principiis, the only complete text now surviving, was intended to vindicate Origen’s [‘trinitarian’] orthodoxy, and involved Rufinus in bitter controversy with his former friend, St. Jerome, who criticized the tendentious character of his rendering.” - p.1207, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Revised, 1990 printing, Oxford University Press.

“It is much to be regretted that the original Greek of the De Principiis has for the most part perished. We possess it chiefly in a Latin translation by Rufinus. And there can be no doubt that he often took great liberties with his author. So much was this felt to be the case, that [Roman Catholic “Saint”] Jerome [342-420 A.D.] undertook a new translation of the work; but only small portions of his version have reached our day. He strongly accuses Rufinus of unfaithfulness as an interpreter, while he also inveighs bitterly against Origen himself, as having departed from the Catholic Faith, specially in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity.” - ANF, 4:233.

In other words, Rufinus did not translate literally, but, instead, intentionally changed (or ‘corrected’) De Principiis so as to make people believe that Origen had taught the trinity! And this is the text that has been used by trinitarians ever since to “prove” that Origen taught the trinity! Furthermore, the famed trinitarian St. Jerome (ca. 400 A.D.) who accused Rufinus of dishonestly mistranslating Origen’s work noted with great bitterness that Origen DID NOT TEACH THE TRINITY!!!!
 
Last edited:

ByGraceThroughFaith

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2021
2,870
852
113
Dudley
trinitystudies.org
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Origen actually taught:

The agent of redemption as of all creation is the Divine Logos {‘the Word’} or Son of God, who is the perfect image or reflection of the eternal Father. Though a being distinct, derivative, and subordinate. - p. 551, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm (ed.), 1945.

Origen believed that

‘the Son can be divine only in a lesser sense than the Father; the Son is theos (god), but only the Father is autoqeoV (Absolute God, God in Himself).’ - p. 1009, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (trinitarian), ed. F. L. Cross (trinitarian), Oxford University Press, 1990 printing.

Ardent trinitarian Murray J. Harris likewise admits:

Origen, too, drew a sharp distinction between theos and ho theos. As qeoV, the Son is not only distinct from ('numerically distinct') but also inferior to the Father who is ho theos and autotheos (i.e. God in an absolute sense).’ - p. 36, Jesus as God, Baker Book House (trinitarian), 1992.

The trinitarian The Encyclopedia of Religion says:

“Origen himself will downgrade the Logos [‘downgraded’ in relation to God only] in calling it ‘second god’ (Against Celsus, 5.39, 6.61, etc.) or again in writing ‘god’ (theos) without the article, whereas he calls the Father ho theos [oJ qeoV], ‘the God’ [with the article].” - p. 15, Vol. 9, Macmillan Publ., 1987.

In fact, Origen specifically commented on John 1:1c which modern English-speaking trinitarians often translate as: “And the Word was God.” Yes, Origen, whose knowledge of NT Greek (“the language of the New Testament was his mother tongue”) was probably greater than any other Bible scholar (and certainly quantum levels above the speculations of any modern scholar), shows us that this verse should be properly rendered: “And the Word was a god.” ! - ANF, 10:323. (A 13th century manuscript seems to be the earliest source of Origen’s Commentary on John.)

Remember, this man is not only the best expert on NT Greek, but his great honesty and Christian character are not questioned even by his most severe opponents!

Trinitarian Latourette also says that “Origen held that God is one, and is the Father” - p. 49, Christianity Through the Ages, Harper ChapelBook, 1965.

Trinitarian Bernhard Lohse also concedes that Origen taught

that ‘the Son was a creature of the Father, thus strictly subordinating the Son to the Father’ and, ‘Origen is therefore able to designate the Son as a creature created by the Father.’ - pp. 46, 252, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Fortress Press (trinitarian), 1985.

For example, Origen writes:

there are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, angels]; and of these Christ was the highest and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power. - ANF 10:321-322.

Yes, Origen, like Justin Martyr, calls the Son of God a created angel, the highest of the angels, the Angel of God. He calls Jesus, the Word:

“the Angel of God who came into the world for the salvation of men”- p. 568, vol. 4, ANF.

These creatures [angels] were also called gods (in a proper, scriptural sense but clearly subordinate to God himself - see the BOWGOD study)! - ANF, 10:323.

Like Irenaeus (and most, if not all, Ante-Nicene Fathers), Origen considered “Wisdom” speaking at Prov. 8:22-30 to be Christ, the Son of God. He wrote:

“we have first to ascertain what the only-begotten Son of God is, seeing He is called by many different names, according to the circumstances and views of individuals. For He is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon:

“‘The Lord {“Jehovah” in the ancient Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts} created me {Wisdom, ‘the only-begotten Son of God’} - the beginning {see Rev. 3:14} of His ways, and among His works, before He made any other thing; He founded me before the ages. In the beginning, before He formed the earth, before He brought forth the fountains of waters, before the mountains were made strong, before all the hills, He brought me forth.’ {Prov. 8:22-25}

“He is also styled First-born, as the apostle has declared: ‘who is the first-born of every creature.’” {Col. 1:15} - ANF 4:246, ‘De Principiis’.

So once again we find clear non-trinitarian statements in Origen's writings.

It’s obviously not unexpected that the trinitarian re-copyists, translators, and re-definers would have caused original non-trinitarian statements to now read as trinitarian statements, but they certainly would never have allowed any non-trinitarian changes or additions to Origen's work! These non-trinitarian statements that still remain, therefore, must be original. Certainly Origen did not teach a trinity (or binity) even though trinitarian scholars have “credited” him with formulating the trinity doctrine!

[Origen's] De Principiis, the foremost treatise on systematic theology in the ancient Church, has survived in the main only in Rufinus'* largely emended Latin translation. - p. 551, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm, 1945.

_________________________________________

*RUFINUS ... (c. 345-410), monk, historian and translator .... He also studied for several years in Alexandria under Didymus the Blind [St. Didymus, a staunch Nicene trinitarian - p. 402], and was deeply influenced by his Origenism [Didymus tried to ‘prove’ that Origen had taught a trinity doctrine in his De Principiis - p. 1010] .... [Rufinus’] free translation of Origen’s De Principiis, the only complete text now surviving, was intended to vindicate Origen’s [‘trinitarian’] orthodoxy, and involved Rufinus in bitter controversy with his former friend, St. Jerome, who criticized the tendentious character of his rendering.” - p.1207, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Revised, 1990 printing, Oxford University Press.

“It is much to be regretted that the original Greek of the De Principiis has for the most part perished. We possess it chiefly in a Latin translation by Rufinus. And there can be no doubt that he often took great liberties with his author. So much was this felt to be the case, that [Roman Catholic “Saint”] Jerome [342-420 A.D.] undertook a new translation of the work; but only small portions of his version have reached our day. He strongly accuses Rufinus of unfaithfulness as an interpreter, while he also inveighs bitterly against Origen himself, as having departed from the Catholic Faith, specially in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity.” - ANF, 4:233.

In other words, Rufinus did not translate literally, but, instead, intentionally changed (or ‘corrected’) De Principiis so as to make people believe that Origen had taught the trinity! And this is the text that has been used by trinitarians ever since to “prove” that Origen taught the trinity! Furthermore, the famed trinitarian St. Jerome (ca. 400 A.D.) who accused Rufinus of dishonestly mistranslating Origen’s work noted with great bitterness that Origen DID NOT TEACH THE TRINITY!!!!

The Teaching of the Holy Trinity is not new to the New Testament, as it is clearly in the Old Testament

Isaiah 48 and The Holy Trinity