Reconciling Universal Salvation and Freedom of Choice in Origen of Alexandria
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Dissertations (1934 -) Projects Reconciling Universal Salvation and Freedom of Choice in Origen of Alexandria Lee W. Sytsma Marquette University Follow this and additional works at: https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu Part of the Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Sytsma, Lee W., "Reconciling Universal Salvation and Freedom of Choice in Origen of Alexandria" (2018). Dissertations (1934 -). 769. https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/769 RECONCILING UNIVERSAL SALVATION AND FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA by Lee W. Sytsma, B.A., M.T.S. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin May 2018 ABSTRACT RECONCILING UNIVERSAL SALVATION AND FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA Lee W. Sytsma, B.A., M.T.S. Marquette University, 2018 Origen has traditionally been famous for his universalism, but many scholars now express doubt that Origen believed in a universal and permanent apocatastasis. This is because many scholars are convinced that Origen’s teaching on moral autonomy (or freedom of choice) is logically incompatible with the notion that God foreordains every soul’s future destiny. Those few scholars who do argue that Origen believed in both moral autonomy and universal salvation either do not know how to reconcile these two views in Origen’s theology, or their proposed “solutions” are not convincing. In this dissertation I make two preliminary arguments which allow the question of logical compatibility to come into focus. First, I argue that vague phrases such as “free will” or “freedom of the will” are not helpful descriptions of Origen’s thought, but instead we must understand the careful and technical way Origen defined moral autonomy. Second, I make the argument that Origen did, in fact, believe in a universal and permanent restoration of all fallen souls (the apocatastasis), and that this restoration was predetermined and foreordained by God. These two arguments introduce the follow- up question: how does Origen think it is possible for God to achieve this predetermined outcome of cosmic history, an outcome completely facilitated through the free and contingent decisions of creatures, without God somehow coercing those who might choose to consistently resist him? My aim is to demonstrate that Origen reconciled his belief in universal salvation and moral autonomy by drawing upon his multi-layered understanding of God’s foreknowledge in order to show how God uses his foreknowledge in the planning of salvation-history. Careful analysis of key passages reveals Origen’s belief that God not only foreknows our future choices, but that God also knows what free choices creatures would make in any hypothetical situation. Therefore, I argue, Origen believed that God preselects and arranges into a future timeline only those free choices of creatures which God foresees would eventually result in a universal restoration. In this way God is able to infallibly bring about the foreordained apocatastasis without violating moral autonomy as Origen defined it. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Lee W. Sytsma, B.A., M.T.S. Writing these acknowledgements was one of the hardest, yet one of the most joyful aspects of my dissertation. It is a testament to the sort of people who have enabled and supported me throughout this project that I have thought more about what to write in this space than in any other page of my dissertation. First and foremost I wish to thank my director Dr. Michel Barnes who guided and mentored my writing in more ways than I can count. I will forever value the way he generously offered his expertise, his careful reading, and his patience for my shortcomings, just as I will forever value his friendship. I am also grateful to my committee members, Dr. Mickey Mattox, Dr. Michael Cover, and Rev. Aaron Pidel. Their meticulous reading and wise feedback significantly strengthened my project in its final stages. I am grateful to my friends who have sustained and encouraged me, and who are no doubt tired of hearing about how fascinating Origen is. My thanks go to Sarah Pritchard for her unexpected and profound generosity to my family. I am thankful for Mark Chapman who has been an ever-present source of wisdom and a dear friend. I would like to especially mention my close friend Jonathan Morgan. Jon supported and encouraged me at critical times during my project and I am forever grateful for his friendship. Additionally, I am grateful for the ways both Jon and Mark have modelled that rare class of scholar who joins together high-caliber scholarship with Christ-centered devotion. I admire them both deeply. ii Most of all I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my family. I thank my late grandparents for their Christ-like examples and their absolute devotion to me. They taught me to love theology and to question deeply. I thank my parents, Jim and Joy, and my siblings Nicole, Anthony and Katherine, along with all my wonderful in-laws on both sides of my family, for their unceasing support, their unconditional love, and their many prayers. My brother Anthony helped me in more ways than I can state here, and I owe him much. Anthony not only supported me as a faithful proofreader (along with his wife Sara), but he was a constant source of encouragement and refreshment. Furthermore, his unceasing devotion to Christ in the midst of life’s difficulties has been an example I aspire to. In a way that is hard to articulate, I am forever grateful to my children – Genevieve, Henry, and Will – for their patience and love. For years they were forced to share Dad’s attentions with a long-dead churchman. I cherish each of you and I look forward to reminding you of my gratitude when you are old enough to understand it. It is difficult to know how to adequately thank my wife and soul-mate Meghann. I am eternally grateful to you. Your self-sacrificial love continually takes my breath away. Your encouragement, your strength, and your love did not just make this dissertation possible, but it also made possible the many years leading up to this point. Not only have you been the bedrock of our family, but you have performed this role with grace and dignity. You have been Christ to our family, you are my best friend, and I admire you beyond any other. Without reservation I dedicate this book to you. Finally, I thank and praise God for all good things, for answering the prayers of my heart, and for calling me to serve him. Soli Deo Gloria! iii ABBREVIATIONS Series or Major Works ACW Ancient Christian Writers ANF Ante-Nicene Fathers FOTC Fathers of the Church GCS Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller OED Oxford English Dictionary PG Patrologia Graeca SBL Society of Biblical Literature SC Sources Chrétiennes Works of Origen Cels Contra Celsum ComCt Commentary on the Canticle of Canticles ComJn Commentary on John ComMatt Commentary on Matthew ComRm Commentary on Romans Dial Disputation with Heraclides EpistGreg Letter to Gregory Hom1R (1S) Homilies on 1 Kings (1 Samuel) HomEzek Homilies on Ezekiel HomGen Homilies on Genesis iv HomJer Homilies on Jeremiah HomJosh Homilies on Joshua HomNum Homilies on Numbers PArch First Principles (Peri archon / De principiis) PEuch On Prayer (Peri Euches) Phil The Philocalia v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................. i ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER ONE: STATE OF THE QUESTION ............................................................. 14 Status Quaestionis and Literature Review ..................................................................... 17 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 43 CHAPTER TWO: ORIGEN’S UNDERSTANDING OF MORAL AUTONOMY ........ 44 Part 1 – Origen’s Theological Opponents ..................................................................... 44 Origen's “Gnostic” Opponents ................................................................................... 44 Early Christian Predestinarians .................................................................................. 53 Origen's Hermeneutic: God's Fairness and Goodness ............................................... 64 Part 2 – Origen’s View of Moral Autonomy ................................................................. 66 Revelation and Philosophy: Origen's Dual Supports for Moral Autonomy ............... 66 Origen's General Anthropology: the “Tripartite Person” and the “Dual Nature” ...... 69 Greek Vocabulary and Expressions of Moral Autonomy .......................................... 79 Epictetus vs. Alexander of Aphrodisias ..................................................................... 82 Origen Adopts the Stoic Model of Impression and Assent ........................................ 88 Origen's Alterations to the Stoic Model: 1) Tripartite Anthropology ........................ 92 Origen's Alterations to the Stoic Model: 2) Greater Potential for Moral Progress .... 97 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................