The Seven Remissions of Sin according to Origen

[ServantofGod]

I have been reading a lot of material of the church fathers, and came across this by Origen. It really interested me, and I would like to share it.

According to Catholicism(or the former Roman Church) there are seven ways to be forgiven of sins(verses included where applicable):

1. The obvious one- Baptism

2. The suffering of martyrdom

3. Almsgiving(Luke 11:41)

4. Forgiveness obtained by the forgiveness of others(Matthew 6:14-15)

5. When one converts a sinner from his ways, the one obtains forgiveness(James 5:20)

6. Through an abundance of charity(1 Peter 4:8)

7. The hard and laborious act of penance(Psalm 31)

It beaks my heart to see how they were/are so deceived by Satan into a works based salvation. How blessed we are that God has revealed the truth to us, and has allowed us to believe!

Any thoughts and/or discussion on this would be enjoyed and I believe profitable.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I think you need to be careful about throwing the early church into the same category as Rome. Origen is working from different presuppositions than Rome. In Origen's day, there was no Pope or system of indulgences, etc. So don't rush to judge him too quick. I think most of the early church fathers would be shocked that anyone would accuse them of earning salvation by works. They understood the necessity of faith and the person and work of Christ. But they were not clear on how works and faith were related. They were not asking those kind of questions yet. They were more concerned at the time with the Trinity, Christology, repeling Gnosticism, and surviving persecution. That is why they can dazzle you with brilliant insights at one moment, and then dissappoint you in the very next paragraph. Try to understand how they define the terms and discern their presuppositions first before judging them too harshly. I think is was DTK here who called them the "early church babies." They were still working on the basics, that we now build on.

 

[ServantofGod]

My friend, not at all am I judging harshly. I for one love the works of the men from this era(Origen, Justin Martyr, ect...). I have received much invaluable learning and insight due to these men, and I highly honor and respect them. My idea was to show where the Catholic idea originated, not bash the men who believed it. I am afraid to sing their praise too much in fear that the moderators will feel that I am defending the Catholic doctrine. Forgive me if I sounded judgmental, that was not in my mind at all.

 

[J. David Kear]

Of course we need not be the judges ourselves since Origen and his teaching were declared heretical at the 5th ecumenical council in 553. This declaration was based on the controversies surrounding his teaching on the preexistence of souls, universal salvation and extreme subordinationism.

DK

 

[Puritan Sailor]

My friend, not at all am I judging harshly. I for one love the works of the men from this era(Origen, Justin Martyr, ect...). I have received much invaluable learning and insight due to these men, and I highly honor and respect them. My idea was to show where the Catholic idea originated, not bash the men who believed it. I am afraid to sing their praise too much in fear that the moderators will feel that I am defending the Catholic doctrine. Forgive me if I sounded judgmental, that was not in my mind at all.

Oh, I agree. I wasn't necessarily criticizing you. Many other people read these threads and I just didn't want them turned off to the early church. I too have found the early fathers very edifying. It is easy to trace the language and ideas Papists would later distort and develop, but you can also see the Reformation roots too. I was just adding , nothing more.

 

[Quickened]

Of course we need not be the judges ourselves since Origen and his teaching were declared heretical at the 5th ecumenical council in 553. This declaration was based on the controversies surrounding his teaching on the preexistence of souls, universal salvation and extreme subordinationism.

DK

Hi! I havent heard of that. Do you have any links or anything of that nature?

 

[J. David Kear]

Here is a link to the CRTA site where you can read The Anathemas of the Second Council of Constantinople (553 AD).

Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org

I would recommend reading a book like Early Christian Doctrines by J.N.D. Kelly for your background information.

I also agree with Patrick and do not want to discourage the study of the early church. Just about all of the early Church Fathers had some ideas that would not be considered orthodox today. However, it is extremely important to study them in order to understand the development of orthodoxy.

 

[Amazing Grace]

I have been reading a lot of material of the church fathers, and came across this by Origen. It really interested me, and I would like to share it.

According to Catholicism(or the former Roman Church) there are seven ways to be forgiven of sins(verses included where applicable):

1. The obvious one- Baptism

2. The suffering of martyrdom

3. Almsgiving(Luke 11:41)

4. Forgiveness obtained by the forgiveness of others(Matthew 6:14-15)

5. When one converts a sinner from his ways, the one obtains forgiveness(James 5:20)

6. Through an abundance of charity(1 Peter 4:8)

7. The hard and laborious act of penance(Psalm 31)

It beaks my heart to see how they were/are so deceived by Satan into a works based salvation. How blessed we are that God has revealed the truth to us, and has allowed us to believe!

Any thoughts and/or discussion on this would be enjoyed and I believe profitable.

What amazes me is how fast they veered from Apostolic doctrine.

 

[ServantofGod]

My friend, not at all am I judging harshly. I for one love the works of the men from this era(Origen, Justin Martyr, ect...). I have received much invaluable learning and insight due to these men, and I highly honor and respect them. My idea was to show where the Catholic idea originated, not bash the men who believed it. I am afraid to sing their praise too much in fear that the moderators will feel that I am defending the Catholic doctrine. Forgive me if I sounded judgmental, that was not in my mind at all.

Oh, I agree. I wasn't necessarily criticizing you. Many other people read these threads and I just didn't want them turned off to the early church. I too have found the early fathers very edifying. It is easy to trace the language and ideas Papists would later distort and develop, but you can also see the Reformation roots too. I was just adding , nothing more.

Speaking of the Church Fathers, would you consider the works of Tatian the Syrian and St. Cyprian of Carthage valuable to the work of the early church? I don't know much about them, but from what I have read from them, they seem pretty solid with the others. Tatian had some good debate with the Stoics of the time esp. in the realm of the resurrection of the dead.

 

[ServantofGod]

I have been reading a lot of material of the church fathers, and came across this by Origen. It really interested me, and I would like to share it.

According to Catholicism(or the former Roman Church) there are seven ways to be forgiven of sins(verses included where applicable):

1. The obvious one- Baptism

2. The suffering of martyrdom

3. Almsgiving(Luke 11:41)

4. Forgiveness obtained by the forgiveness of others(Matthew 6:14-15)

5. When one converts a sinner from his ways, the one obtains forgiveness(James 5:20)

6. Through an abundance of charity(1 Peter 4:8)

7. The hard and laborious act of penance(Psalm 31)

It beaks my heart to see how they were/are so deceived by Satan into a works based salvation. How blessed we are that God has revealed the truth to us, and has allowed us to believe!

Any thoughts and/or discussion on this would be enjoyed and I believe profitable.

What amazes me is how fast they veered from Apostolic doctrine.

Question: After the Apostles died, it seems as if most of who we would call "Reformers" came from whom we would consider the Catholic Church. They just were not there(I don't know of to many exceptions), but broke away from the "Church" and were considered heretics. Why does it seem as though the "Catholic" doctrine came into existence immediately following the Apostles, while the Reformed thinking was the result of Church Fathers leaving the common thinking of the day?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

My friend, not at all am I judging harshly. I for one love the works of the men from this era(Origen, Justin Martyr, ect...). I have received much invaluable learning and insight due to these men, and I highly honor and respect them. My idea was to show where the Catholic idea originated, not bash the men who believed it. I am afraid to sing their praise too much in fear that the moderators will feel that I am defending the Catholic doctrine. Forgive me if I sounded judgmental, that was not in my mind at all.

Oh, I agree. I wasn't necessarily criticizing you. Many other people read these threads and I just didn't want them turned off to the early church. I too have found the early fathers very edifying. It is easy to trace the language and ideas Papists would later distort and develop, but you can also see the Reformation roots too. I was just adding , nothing more.

Speaking of the Church Fathers, would you consider the works of Tatian the Syrian and St. Cyprian of Carthage valuable to the work of the early church? I don't know much about them, but from what I have read from them, they seem pretty solid with the others. Tatian had some good debate with the Stoics of the time esp. in the realm of the resurrection of the dead.

Tatian has some interesting insights. I found Athenagoras more informative than him. Plus, Tatian went heretical towards the end of his life and got mixed up in some gnostic tendencies if I remember correctly. I have found Cyprian very edifying and he also gives you a more thorough picture of an early theologian since he wrote so much. Plus, he was so articulate about ecclesiology, that he proves beyond a doubt there was no papacy in the early church. He has his quirks of course. But he has some great insights.

 

[ServantofGod]

Oh, I agree. I wasn't necessarily criticizing you. Many other people read these threads and I just didn't want them turned off to the early church. I too have found the early fathers very edifying. It is easy to trace the language and ideas Papists would later distort and develop, but you can also see the Reformation roots too. I was just adding , nothing more.

Speaking of the Church Fathers, would you consider the works of Tatian the Syrian and St. Cyprian of Carthage valuable to the work of the early church? I don't know much about them, but from what I have read from them, they seem pretty solid with the others. Tatian had some good debate with the Stoics of the time esp. in the realm of the resurrection of the dead.

Tatian has some interesting insights. I found Athenagoras more informative than him. Plus, Tatian went heretical towards the end of his life and got mixed up in some gnostic tendencies if I remember correctly. I have found Cyprian very edifying and he also gives you a more thorough picture of an early theologian since he wrote so much. Plus, he was so articulate about ecclesiology, that he proves beyond a doubt there was no papacy in the early church. He has his quirks of course. But he has some great insights.

Was it not Cyprian who made allowance, during the 4th Lateran Council, for salvation to exist outside of the Roman Church?(Unless that was a later Cyprian...)

 

[ServantofGod]

My mistake. It was Cyprian who made the claim: "nulla salvus extra ecclesiam"

Outside of the church there is no salvation. It was at the Fourth Lateran Council(1215) that made allowance for Cyprian to be wrong, and for salvation to exist outside the church, but not outside of Christ. But then the Fifth Council(1512) was called and reaffirmed Cyprian's doctrine.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Interesting how people change, culture changes, words written often retain their form, but entirely new meanings are poured into them. What Cyprian meant by his phrase in his day (3rd cent.) was certainly not the view of the Medieval Roman church; however, it appears in 1215 they were at least closer to Cyprian's thought than they were in 1512.

Which is to say, that in 1215 though there was schism East and West, there was probably reluctance to assert that outside Rome there was no salvation at all, given that Christendom was still seen as extending into the East including Byzantium. By 1512 Byzantium was no more, the popes had excommunicated the Eastern Orthodox (and been excommunicated themselves by the EO--this was officially in 1054, however even into the 13th century and beyond, there were efforts at reunion), the doctrine of the "Two Swords" had been thoroughly worked out (Boniface VIII, “Unam Sanctam, 1302,” and Rome considered herself the only true church anyplace.