Origen quote - from AFF

Steven Avery

LetUsReason - Post 7

Which came first monarchianism or modalism?

Both Tertullian and Origen referred to Modalistic Monarchianism (Oneness) as being mainstream prior to the rise of heresies such as Arianism and Trinitarianism.

Page 181-182 of this link. Origen doesn't call them by the name, but it is obvious he is referring to Modalistic Monarchians rejecting an eternal Son-person. He admits that at that time, they were still the "general run of Christians" (or the majority).

Basic Christian Doctrine
The Nature of God &
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation

Origen of Alexandria (c. 200-253 A.D.) gave us an important clue as to what the early Oneness Modalists had taught about the Word (Logos) being the impersonal utterances of the Father deposited in words until the child was actuallyborn as a Son later on in time.In other words, they rejected an eternal Son person. And Origen identifies these Oneness believers as still being "the general run of Christians” in other words, still the majority in the early-to-mid-3rdcentury. In his Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 1, Chapter 23, Origen wrote.

“I wonder at the stupidity of the general run of Christians (the Christian majority) in this matter. I do not mince matters; it is nothing but stupidity ... they proceed differently and ask, what is the Son of God when called the Word? The passage they employ is that in the Psalms, ‘My heart has produced a good word;’ and they imagine the Son to be the utterance of the Father deposited, as it were, in syllables ... they do not allow Him... any independent hypostasis (substance of being), nor are they clear about His essence. I do not mean that they confuse its qualities, but the fact of His having an essence of His own.”
- Origen’s Commentary of the Gospel of John, Book1, Ch.23.
( http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-john1.html-Retrieved 3/3/20)

Trinitarian historians readily admit that Origen’s commentary here is addressing the Modalistic Monarchians as “the general run of Christians” who rejected the Semi-Arian belief about the Logos being a distinct god person with a different “essence of his own,” apart from the Father. Origen further admitted that the Modalists believed that the Son is the same substance (hypostasis) of the Father (in Book 2)–a belief perfectly in alignment with what Oneness believers today still hold.

- Origen’s Commentary of the Gospel of John, Book2.
( http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-john2.html - Retrieved 3/3/20 )

(NOTE : Pull out the second quote)
Last edited: