Origen was clearly Universalist, among his many heterodoxies. I found the following excerpt at the Pristine Faith Restoration Society website, written by Tim Warner:
Origen's Solution - Semi-Gnosticism:
The orthodox opinion about the creation and its destiny was not all that appealing to the educated Greeks. The idea that the material creation was to be redeemed, and the bodies of believers were destined for resurrection in a material form, was seen as silly to the intellectuals steeped in Greek philosophy. Origen, a third century Alexandrian writer, attempted to merge Christian orthodoxy with the same dualistic Greek philosophies that drove Gnostic thinking. Origen was skilled in Greek philosophy and Christianity. He attempted to make Christianity acceptable to students of Greek philosophy. In doing so, he went far beyond what the Apostles and prophets taught. He used an allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament to inject the philosophy of Plato into the Scriptures. Origen's theology had a familiar ring for Gentile Christians raised in the Greek culture steeped in philosophy, and seemed to harmonize the Bible with the familiar Greek poets. But, Origen's allegorical methodology subtly undermined the fabric of orthodoxy. By his skill in writing, his command of Greek philosophy, and his apparent zeal in winning over the intellectuals, Origen's influence began to sway Christian thinking away from Chiliasm.
While Origen acknowledged one God in both Testaments, he accepted the "cosmic destiny" ideas of Gnosticism, and opposed the eschatological physical Kingdom of Christ held by the orthodox writers before him. His world view was mostly vertical, like the Gnostics and Greek philosophers. Origen was a teacher, and head of the Alexandrian school. His theology was based on a teacher's mindset. Origen taught that the whole creation was a classroom for the education of mankind. God's interaction with man within the creation was a maturing process to make him fit for inhabiting his cosmic destiny. Origen believed souls existed prior to birth, but were sent to earth for training in the physical realm so they could excel in their "cosmic" roles after this training was ended. He denied the resurrection of the body for the saved. And he taught that in the end, everyone would be saved and achieve their cosmic destiny, including Satan himself!
Origen is considered the father of allegorical interpretation of Scripture at the expense of the literal meaning. Thanks to Origen, the allegorical interpretive methods, formerly used almost exclusively by Gnostics, became acceptable. It was Origen and his Alexandrian school that turned many of the churches away from the Pristine Faith to a hybrid orthodox - Hellenistic Faith. While Gnosticism itself, with its absurd speculations, was an external problem for the churches founded by the Apostles, Origen brought some of the subtle thinking and assumptions of Gnosticism into mainstream Christianity.
There seems no doubt Origen was Universalist. But what of Clement of Alexandria, who is also claimed to be a Universalist by the CUs? I have been unable to find any substantiation of this claim. Anyone have anything like proof of this?
One authority I respect states that Origen was the first universalist, at least of any note. Those earlier church fathers I have been able to research were decidedly non-universalist.
What I have seen in Clement's statements seem to be comments about a kind of purgatory and praying for the dead believers in purgatory. This is the claim of Catholics in support of their doctrine of purgatory.
Interestingly, the Catholics seem to have as good or better support from the scriptures for purgatory as the CUs have for Universalism.
Clement of Alexandria, Origen & Universalism
Clement of Alexandria, Origen & Universalism
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
Homer,
Yes, Clement of Alexandria was a universalist.
He has also been called "the first liberal". He, like his successor, Origen, at the Catechetical School in Alexandria, Egypt used the alleghorical method of interpreting the Bible.
Though I would rather not post what he said on a forum that's about the Bible; I'm going to go ahead and expose this man's teachings with two quotes:
Clement of Alexandria wrote:
"God's punishments are saving and disciplinary [in Hades] leading to conversion, and choosing rather the repentance than the death of the sinner, and especially since souls, although darkened by passions, when released from their bodies, are able to perceive more clearly because of their being no longer obstructed by the paltry flesh."
"If in this life there are so many ways for purification and repentance, how much more should there be after death! The purification of souls, when separated from the body, will be easier. We can set no limits to the agency of the Redeemer; to redeem, to rescue, to discipline, is his work, and so will he continue to operate after this life."
Not only was Clement "liberal"; he was blatantly and overtly GNOSTIC.
Rank heresy of the first order, imnsho.
(I never could stand reading this guy)!
For an expose' of his doctrines only,
Rick
Yes, Clement of Alexandria was a universalist.
He has also been called "the first liberal". He, like his successor, Origen, at the Catechetical School in Alexandria, Egypt used the alleghorical method of interpreting the Bible.
Though I would rather not post what he said on a forum that's about the Bible; I'm going to go ahead and expose this man's teachings with two quotes:
Clement of Alexandria wrote:
"God's punishments are saving and disciplinary [in Hades] leading to conversion, and choosing rather the repentance than the death of the sinner, and especially since souls, although darkened by passions, when released from their bodies, are able to perceive more clearly because of their being no longer obstructed by the paltry flesh."
"If in this life there are so many ways for purification and repentance, how much more should there be after death! The purification of souls, when separated from the body, will be easier. We can set no limits to the agency of the Redeemer; to redeem, to rescue, to discipline, is his work, and so will he continue to operate after this life."
Not only was Clement "liberal"; he was blatantly and overtly GNOSTIC.
Rank heresy of the first order, imnsho.
(I never could stand reading this guy)!
For an expose' of his doctrines only,
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
-
_Mort_Coyle
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:28 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
I just have to shake my head at seeing such a highly regarded early Christian theologian dismissed in such a ham-handed fashion.
Here is what Jonathan Hill says about Clement in his book The History of Christian Thought:
Here is what Jonathan Hill says about Clement in his book The History of Christian Thought:
Clement is given very high regard in Schaff's History of Ante-Nicene Christianity, as well as in church histories by Mosheim and Eusebius. Of Clement and Origen, the Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity states:Clement of Alexandria was head of the catechetical school that instructed those preparing for baptism. An extraordinarily erudite and capable theologian, Clement strove to prove to the world that Christians were not uneducated barbarians. His works, which burst with quotations from poets and philosophers alike, speak of an advanced Christian philosophy known and practiced by the spiritually and intellectually adept but unknown even to the comman run of Christians. In this respect Clemant's thinking is reminiscent of Gnosticism, and he did indeed describe the Christian sage as "gnostic" or "knower". But where the Gnostics claimed to possess a secret teaching handed down from the apostles, Clement believe that the advanced Chrstiian philosophy was publicly available in the Bible. But he argues that only those with great spiritual insight were capable of looking beyond the plain meaning of the words and understanding the deeper meaning of Scripture.
The Oxford History of Christianity lauds him with statements such as:The crucial achievement of Clement and Origen was to put over the gospel in terms which could be understood by people familiar with the highest forms of Greek culture. They established once for all the intellectual respectability of the new faith.
For a more contemporary source, Bruce Shelley's excellent Church History in Plain English refers to Clement of Alexandria as a "messenger of Christianity in philosopher's garb" and "the first Christian scholar" who was "versed not only in the Holy Scriptures but also in the knowledge of his time, including Greek philosophy and classical literature." Shelley describes Clement's mission:Clement's prose puts him in a higher class than any of his extant pagan contemporaries, and he was able uniquely to refute pagan critics ... who thought Christians an anti-cultural lot... The by-product of his work is to vindicate the proper place of the Christian intellectual within the community.
Shelley continues further on:He understood the questions and problems of the young people who came from such educational centers as Rome, Athens, and Antioch. They were just as dissatisfied with their instruction as he had been and now sought and found the last and highest wisdom in the Christian revelation. Many of the students, no doubt, had encountered Christanity before in the form of some heretical gnostic theory. Clement had to enter their world, disentangle their conceptions, and lead them slowly from error to the true knowlede of Christianity . He lived and taught like a philosopher and used the forms and the language of the gnostics of his time. Clement's purpose was clear. He seized not only the external garb and forms of expression of the contemporary pagan philosphers but also their problems. If, for example, he discussed the universe and its meaning (cosmology), so loved by gnostics, he did not do it with the intention of proving these ideas wrong offhandedly and then discarding them quickly, but instead he pointed out how the fundamental religious questions about the creation of the world, the existence of evil in this life, and the salvation through the Word, Jesus Christ, found their last and deepest answer in Christian revelation. He wanted to be an apostle to the Hellenistic intellectual world. His purpose was not purely or even primarily theological, but pastoral. He aimed to win not arguments, but men to Christ, and lead them to salvation.
But hey, what do all these guys know! We've got Rick in Ohio to parse it down to Clement being a "liberal" who was "blatantly and overtly Gnostic" and who taught "rank heresy of the first order". You sure could have saved all those historians a lot of work!The methods of Clement and Origen, however, were sharply opposed to those of the heretical gnostics. In building their philosophical case for Christianty, the gnostics left the apostolic gospel in shambles. But Clement and Origen remained thoroughly loyal to the essential message of Peter and Paul even as they presented it in philosophical form.
Clement and Origen differ from the gnostics in another important respect -- Christian behavior. Gnostic heretics were not interested in the training of character. But Clement insists that spiritual insight comes to the pure in heart, to those humble enough to walk with God as a child with his father, to those whose motive for ethical behavior goes far beyond fear of punishment or hope of reward to a love of the good for its own sake...
Clement's ministry, then, marked an important juncture in the progress of Christian doctrine. After him, Greek thinking united with Christian thought. In the great saints and theologians of later Eastern Christianity this bond was secured. Without it the staggering theological achievements of the first church councils would have been impossible. Origen's genius was dedicated to building on the foundation of this union.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
We may not have much sympathy for the allegorical method of interpretation that became such a hallmark of the Alexandrian school, through the influence of Clement and Origen, but there are several important things to remember about these men:
1) They were among the brightest minds of the second century church. Many Christian historians consider Origen to be the greatest theologian of the first three centuries;
2) Their influence was very early. Clement was probably born only 50 years after the death of the last Apostle, and was himself contemporary with Irenaeus and Tatian (who, just as a point of chronological reference. were the earliest witnesses we have to the fourfold gospel canon);
3) These men were not mere academic Christian scholars. Origen, like his father before him, was a willing martyr for the Christian faith—an indication of his passion for Christ;
4) If the church of Alexandria had become the prominent church in the world, rather than the Roman church, these men's doctrines would, no doubt, have been the orthodoxy with which we were raised;
5) Neither their allegorizing methods nor their universalism were the result of "liberalism" nor "gnosticism" in these men, but commended themselves from their reverence for and studies in the scriptures.
Whatever we may think of the conclusions these men reached, or of their methods of study by which they reached them, it seems to me that they deserve our respect, as our intellectual and spiritual superiors. There may be value in refuting their errors, where we think we find them, but they certainly deserve better than a cavalier dismissal.
1) They were among the brightest minds of the second century church. Many Christian historians consider Origen to be the greatest theologian of the first three centuries;
2) Their influence was very early. Clement was probably born only 50 years after the death of the last Apostle, and was himself contemporary with Irenaeus and Tatian (who, just as a point of chronological reference. were the earliest witnesses we have to the fourfold gospel canon);
3) These men were not mere academic Christian scholars. Origen, like his father before him, was a willing martyr for the Christian faith—an indication of his passion for Christ;
4) If the church of Alexandria had become the prominent church in the world, rather than the Roman church, these men's doctrines would, no doubt, have been the orthodoxy with which we were raised;
5) Neither their allegorizing methods nor their universalism were the result of "liberalism" nor "gnosticism" in these men, but commended themselves from their reverence for and studies in the scriptures.
Whatever we may think of the conclusions these men reached, or of their methods of study by which they reached them, it seems to me that they deserve our respect, as our intellectual and spiritual superiors. There may be value in refuting their errors, where we think we find them, but they certainly deserve better than a cavalier dismissal.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Danny,
Clement again:
"God's punishments are saving and disciplinary [in Hades] leading to conversion, and choosing rather the repentance than the death of the sinner, and especially since souls, although darkened by passions, when released from their bodies, are able to perceive more clearly because of their being no longer obstructed by the paltry flesh."
Clement opposed gnostic groups, but he brought foreign/pagan ideas into Christianity. His background was in Neo-Platonist and/or Hellenistic philosophy. In the above quote the gnostic/pagan idea of the soul being released from the body to "rise to higher levels of pure spirit" is clear: Matter (flesh) is evil, Soul (or spirit) spirit is good.
The first Christians were Jews and didn't have a "soul vs. flesh" dichotomy. Nor did they teach postmortem salvation of "the soul being released to pure spirit" (though we do see Paul did opposing gnostic/proto-gnostic teachings in several of his writings).
How Clement and Origen were both liberal is simple: they mixed theology with philosophy, seeing them as complimentary to one another. Tertullian once asked, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" as a rhetorical question. Tertullian has been called the first conservative in that, unlike Clement, Origen and others; he felt the Bible is not a book to speculate about, but was to be taken as the divine revelation as it is. He wasn't a fundamentalist but compareed to Origen and Clement he may as well have been.
Who is it that posts on this forum that is like Tertullian? (me). The Bible says all it needs to say, all we need to know, imo and in Tertullian's too! Who's the Origen? (you). You mix in other things with the Bible...a "liberal" or even a "progressive" approach.
We "Tertullians" you know, we're (Bob, Homer, Self).
The-Bible-Sez-N-Only-Sez-Guys. No big deal to understand that! "Conservatives". We say Clement taught heresy that came right out of pagan/gnostic stuff, adding things to the Bible that "aren't there" (ever heard 'argument from silence' around here?). I mean, what else is new? This has been going on for centuries.....
Rick
Clement again:
"God's punishments are saving and disciplinary [in Hades] leading to conversion, and choosing rather the repentance than the death of the sinner, and especially since souls, although darkened by passions, when released from their bodies, are able to perceive more clearly because of their being no longer obstructed by the paltry flesh."
Clement opposed gnostic groups, but he brought foreign/pagan ideas into Christianity. His background was in Neo-Platonist and/or Hellenistic philosophy. In the above quote the gnostic/pagan idea of the soul being released from the body to "rise to higher levels of pure spirit" is clear: Matter (flesh) is evil, Soul (or spirit) spirit is good.
The first Christians were Jews and didn't have a "soul vs. flesh" dichotomy. Nor did they teach postmortem salvation of "the soul being released to pure spirit" (though we do see Paul did opposing gnostic/proto-gnostic teachings in several of his writings).
How Clement and Origen were both liberal is simple: they mixed theology with philosophy, seeing them as complimentary to one another. Tertullian once asked, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" as a rhetorical question. Tertullian has been called the first conservative in that, unlike Clement, Origen and others; he felt the Bible is not a book to speculate about, but was to be taken as the divine revelation as it is. He wasn't a fundamentalist but compareed to Origen and Clement he may as well have been.
Who is it that posts on this forum that is like Tertullian? (me). The Bible says all it needs to say, all we need to know, imo and in Tertullian's too! Who's the Origen? (you). You mix in other things with the Bible...a "liberal" or even a "progressive" approach.
We "Tertullians" you know, we're (Bob, Homer, Self).
The-Bible-Sez-N-Only-Sez-Guys. No big deal to understand that! "Conservatives". We say Clement taught heresy that came right out of pagan/gnostic stuff, adding things to the Bible that "aren't there" (ever heard 'argument from silence' around here?). I mean, what else is new? This has been going on for centuries.....
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
Steve,
(I just saw your post).
You don't think the idea of postmortem salvation and it being "easier" to be "converted" after death when the soul is released from the body is anything like gnostic/pagan philosophy? Not even just a tad maybe? And that if Paul ever met Clement he might give him a slight chewing for this slight "gnostic tendency" there? I do!
Now that would've made Paul's chat about the ham sandwiches with Peter look like a 5-minute time out! (imo!)
These men's influence was early but not early enough for me. Whether their theology won or not doesn't matter, imo. Regardless of how smart and dedicated these guys were--and they were--I'm still that Tertullian-conservative type. Call me a "fundy" maybe, I don't know, one of "those people" I'm real big on biblical worldview and do all I can to get & keep one. I don't believe in liberal/progressive revelation, mixing in non-Jewish ideas, etc. Blah, blah, blah, you guys've heard all this outta me...I'm not saying anything new here. What's the point?
Anyways, have a good day,
Rick
(I just saw your post).
You don't think the idea of postmortem salvation and it being "easier" to be "converted" after death when the soul is released from the body is anything like gnostic/pagan philosophy? Not even just a tad maybe? And that if Paul ever met Clement he might give him a slight chewing for this slight "gnostic tendency" there? I do!
Now that would've made Paul's chat about the ham sandwiches with Peter look like a 5-minute time out! (imo!) These men's influence was early but not early enough for me. Whether their theology won or not doesn't matter, imo. Regardless of how smart and dedicated these guys were--and they were--I'm still that Tertullian-conservative type. Call me a "fundy" maybe, I don't know, one of "those people"
I'm real big on biblical worldview and do all I can to get & keep one. I don't believe in liberal/progressive revelation, mixing in non-Jewish ideas, etc. Blah, blah, blah, you guys've heard all this outta me...I'm not saying anything new here. What's the point? Anyways, have a good day,
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
Hi Rick,
You wrote:
"You don't think the idea of postmortem salvation and it being 'easier' to be 'converted' after death when the soul is released from the body is anything like gnostic/pagan philosophy? Not even just a tad maybe?"
Perhaps there are better examples from Clement that you could produce, but the quote you gave doesn't sound gnostic at all. I don't know whether the gnostics believed in postmortem reconciliation or not, but one does not have to have gnostic influence to think that such a thing may be taught in scripture. There are verses of scripture that give some people that impression.
If one believes that persons will be purged after death, it is not particularly strange to suggest that this process could be easier when wrought upon a soul that is not encumbered with the fleshly lusts inherent in the body. I do not see anything in this statement that resembles your charaterization of it, when you wrote:
"In the above quote the gnostic/pagan idea of the soul being released from the body to 'rise to higher levels of pure spirit' is clear: Matter (flesh) is evil, Soul (or spirit) spirit is good."
I didn't see any of these elements in Clement's statement. Perhaps you found a reference to the soul rising "to higher levels of pure spirit" and of "matter" being evil in some other part of his writings? Those ideas are not found in the portion you cited.
There may be reason to associate the idea of the spirit leaving the body at death with Greek philosophy (though Paul certainly sounds like he believes it, in some places). But, if so, it is not an idea peculiar to gnostics, since the majority of "conservative" ("Tertullian-like") Christians hold to such a concept.
It is more unpleasant to some of us than you may realize, to hear modern Christians, who have not been saved all that long, railing on their godly forebears, whose ideas come out of a lifetime of study and meditation on scripture. I have my own differences with Clement, Origen and even with Tertullian. But this does not give me the right to bring railing accusations against them, such as Michael would not dare even to bring against Satan.
The nature of your analysis of Clement's quoted statement, and your apparently-inadvertent misrepresentation of the positions of our present Christian Universalists, lead me to believe that you may be one who is prone to criticize first, and seek to understand later. I have not been able to grasp what warrant you feel there is for caustic remarks and sarcasm—which, whenever you use it, seems usually to misinterpret the one you are mocking.
Just a constructive criticism.
You wrote:
"You don't think the idea of postmortem salvation and it being 'easier' to be 'converted' after death when the soul is released from the body is anything like gnostic/pagan philosophy? Not even just a tad maybe?"
Perhaps there are better examples from Clement that you could produce, but the quote you gave doesn't sound gnostic at all. I don't know whether the gnostics believed in postmortem reconciliation or not, but one does not have to have gnostic influence to think that such a thing may be taught in scripture. There are verses of scripture that give some people that impression.
If one believes that persons will be purged after death, it is not particularly strange to suggest that this process could be easier when wrought upon a soul that is not encumbered with the fleshly lusts inherent in the body. I do not see anything in this statement that resembles your charaterization of it, when you wrote:
"In the above quote the gnostic/pagan idea of the soul being released from the body to 'rise to higher levels of pure spirit' is clear: Matter (flesh) is evil, Soul (or spirit) spirit is good."
I didn't see any of these elements in Clement's statement. Perhaps you found a reference to the soul rising "to higher levels of pure spirit" and of "matter" being evil in some other part of his writings? Those ideas are not found in the portion you cited.
There may be reason to associate the idea of the spirit leaving the body at death with Greek philosophy (though Paul certainly sounds like he believes it, in some places). But, if so, it is not an idea peculiar to gnostics, since the majority of "conservative" ("Tertullian-like") Christians hold to such a concept.
It is more unpleasant to some of us than you may realize, to hear modern Christians, who have not been saved all that long, railing on their godly forebears, whose ideas come out of a lifetime of study and meditation on scripture. I have my own differences with Clement, Origen and even with Tertullian. But this does not give me the right to bring railing accusations against them, such as Michael would not dare even to bring against Satan.
The nature of your analysis of Clement's quoted statement, and your apparently-inadvertent misrepresentation of the positions of our present Christian Universalists, lead me to believe that you may be one who is prone to criticize first, and seek to understand later. I have not been able to grasp what warrant you feel there is for caustic remarks and sarcasm—which, whenever you use it, seems usually to misinterpret the one you are mocking.
Just a constructive criticism.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Brothers (and any sisters reading),
Things are not so simple with Clement and Origen. Regarding the pagan influence on their ideas, the renowned medieval historian Jacques Le Goff, in his book "The Birth Of Purgatory", states:
Regarding Clement of Alexandria, Le Goff wrote:
Things are not so simple with Clement and Origen. Regarding the pagan influence on their ideas, the renowned medieval historian Jacques Le Goff, in his book "The Birth Of Purgatory", states:
(echoed by our universalists.)The two theologians were indebted to ancient Greece for the idea that chastisement inflicted by the gods is not punishment but rather a means of education and salvation, part of a process of purification.
Regarding Clement of Alexandria, Le Goff wrote:
In addition consider the following quote of Clement of Alexandria:Clement of Alexandria was the first to distinguish two categories of sinners and two categories of punishments in this life and in the life to come. In this life, for sinners subject to correction, punishment is "educational" (didaskalikos), while for the incorrigible it is "punitive" (kolastikos). In the other life there will be two fires, a "devouring and consuming" one for the incorrigible", and for the rest, a fire that "sanctifies" and does not "consume, like the fire of the forge...."
So it can be easily seen why the Catholics would insist that Clement taught purgatory rather than universalism, as Origen obviously did.All souls are immortal, even those of the wicked. Yet, it would be better for them if they were not deathless. For they are punished with the endless vengeance of quenchless fire. Since they do not die, it is impossible for them to have an end put to their misery.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
-
_Mort_Coyle
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:28 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
That was exactly my point.Things are not so simple with Clement and Origen.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: