Critique of Origen's Trinitarianism

Rather, it is possible to convince others by the evangelists and the apostles. And these are the spoken words: having repeated the formula concerning Father and Son and Holy Spirit, a few of those remaining from that time are to be set forth; concerning the Father, as being undivided and without division, he becomes Father of the Son, not putting him forth, as some suppose. For if the Son of the Father is a thing put forth and a generation from him, like the generations of living creatures, it is necessary for the one putting forth and the one being put forth to be a body.

Origen wrote these things, not desiring to learn the simplicity of the word from the holy prophets and apostles, but daring to narrate a second hypothesis of the word, having given it to himself. For that Origen writes such things using his own dogmas is evident from which he also many times overturns his own teachings. In another passage where he speaks concerning God, it is necessary to remind the reader.

And he writes thus: For God the Father did not begin to be a father being hindered, as men who become fathers are, by the fact of not being able to be fathers yet. For if God is always perfect, and there is in him the power to be himself Father, and to be a good Father of such a Son, why is it necessary for him to cast himself down and to make himself secure, and, so to speak, as it is possible to be Father, does he not become Father? The same thing, however, must be said concerning the Holy Spirit.

How then, after Origen had written even this, did the blessed Paulinus, according to him, consider it not dangerous to conceal this, but to use it for the construction of what seemed right to him against the opponents, whose argument I would not say even Origen could be able to refute? And Paulinus, being persuaded by these spoken words and by this man's father, is not hesitant to say and to write the same things, sometimes calling Christ a second god and this one having become a more human god, sometimes defining him to be a creature. For he held that Christ is a creature, even towards us, when pursuing the heretics at Ancyra.

And because of this, he does not call himself the Son of God, but everywhere he calls himself the Son of Man, so that through such a confession he might prepare the man to become a son of God through the fellowship with him, and after the end of the work, again, as the Word, he might be united with God, fulfilling that which was foretold by the apostle: 'then he himself will subject to him all things who have subjected all things to him, so that God may be all and in all' (1 Cor 15:28). For it will be like what it was before.

For the Word 'was in the beginning' (John 1:1) was nothing other than the Word. But the man having been united to the Word, who was not previously, has become a man as John teaches us, saying, 'and the Word became flesh' (John 1:14). Therefore, it seems he mentions only the Word, whether the divine Scripture mentions the name of Jesus or Christ, appearing to name the Word of God who is after the flesh of the human. And if anyone promises to be able to show the name of Christ or Jesus solely upon the Word before the new covenant, he will find this said prophetically, as is also clear from this: 'the kings of the earth and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ' (Acts 4:26).

So it is evident from every side that it is not fitting to fit any name other than that which the most holy disciple and apostle of the Lord, John, said at the beginning of the Gospel, due to the simplicity of the Word. Since Christ and Jesus are preached after the ascension of the flesh, and as life and the way and the day and the resurrection and the door and the bread (John 14:6), if anything else were named by the divine Scriptures, it does not befit us to ignore the first name, that he was the Word. For this reason also the most holy evangelist and disciple of the Lord, being very awake in the spirit, remembering the beginning from above and nothing newer, said, 'In the beginning was the Word' (John 1:1), and 'the Word was with God, and the Word was God' (John 1:1), in order that he might show that if there is a new and newer name, it is from the new economy of Him according to the flesh.

For Sabellius himself, having slipped from the right faith, knew neither God accurately nor His holy Word. For he who did not know the Word ignored also the Father. For he says, 'no one knows the Father except the Son' (John 1:18), that is, the Word; for the Word provides the knowledge of the Father through himself. In this way also toward those who claim to know God like the Jews, while rejecting His Word, through whom...