The “Philocalia of Origen” is an anthology of works attributed to Origen and probably compiled in the middle of the fourth century (350s-360s) by Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzen. According to translator George Lewis:
The volume which we now offer to our readers contains
a selection of scriptural problems and their solutions compiled by the divines
Basil and Gregory from the learned labours of Origen. It is said to have been
sent by the latter, Gregory the theologian, to Theodorus, who was then Bishop
of Tyana, as is shown by the letter3 addressed to him, which runs
thus:—
The festival, and your letter, and what is better, your anticipation of
the seas
on, and readiness to allow us to keep the festival beforehand. These are
the gifts of your piety. In return we give the best we have, our prayers. But
that you may have some memorial from us, and at the same time from Basil, we
have sent you a small volume of the choice thoughts of Origen, containing
extracts of passages which may be of service to scholars. Pray accept it, and
let us see that with the aid of industry and the Spirit you have found it
useful. (The Philocalia of Origen [trans. George Lewis; Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1911], ix)
Addressing foreknowledge, predestination, and free-will, we find
this very non-Reformed understanding of the “Golden chain of Redemption” in Rom
8 and other issues:
Chap. xxv.—That
the “separation” which arises from foreknowledge does not do away with Free
Will. From Book i. of the
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, at the words “separated unto the
gospel of God.”
1. The third point to notice is the phrase “separated unto the Gospel of
God”; and in the Epistle to the Galatians the Apostle says the same thing about
himself: “When it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me even from my
mother’s womb, to reveal his son in me.” They who do not understand that any
one who is predestined through the foreknowledge of God is the cause of the
events foreknown, take hold of such expressions as these, and think they can by
them establish their doctrine that men are so constituted by nature that they
must be saved. And some employ such passages to destroy man’s Free Will, and
also make use of the words in the Psalms, “The wicked are estranged from the
womb.” We may easily meet this by asking them to explain what comes next; for
it is written, “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon
as they be born, speaking lies. Their poison is like the poison of a serpent.”
And we will ask those who insist on the clearness of the words, whether the
wicked who were estranged from the womb, as soon as they were born went astray
and erred from the way of salvation, and whether this was their own doing. And
how could the wicked who were estranged from the womb, both go astray as soon
as they were born and also speak lies? For our opponents, I suppose, will never
be able to show that in the moment of birth they uttered an articulate cry, and
told lies. If, however, we observe the steps by which we approach
predestination in the argument of the epistle which we are examining, we shall,
once we have disposed of what inclines the simpler sort of readers to justify
the charge of injustice brought against God’s decree, be able to defend Him Who
separated from his mother’s womb, and separated unto the Gospel of God, Paul
the servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle. The words stand thus: “We
know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them
that are called according to his purpose. For whom he foreknow, he also
foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the
first-born among many brethren: and whom he foreordained, them he also called:
and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also
glorified.”
2. Let us, then, attend to the order of these statements. God first
calls, and then justifies, and He does not justify those whom He did not call;
and He calls, having before the calling foreordained, and He does not call whom
He did not foreordain; and the foreordaining is not the origin of His calling
and justifying; for if it were the origin of all that follows they who bring in
by a side wind the absurd doctrine of souls being “naturally constituted”4
might very plausibly have claimed the victory; but the foreknowledge comes
before the foreordaining, for “whom he did foreknow,” says the Apostle, “he
also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son.” So then, God first
surveyed the long series of events, and perceiving the will of certain men to
be inclined to godliness, and also their efforts to attain thereto when their
will was so inclined, and further, how they would wholly give themselves up to
a virtuous life, He foreknew them, for He knows the present and foreknows the
future; and whom He thus foreknew, He foreordained to be conformed to the image
of His Son. Now we know there is a Person, Who is the image of the invisible
God, and it is His image which is called the image of the Son of God; and we
think that this image is the human soul which the Son of God assumed, and which
for its merit became the image of the image of God. And it was to this, which
we think is the image of the image of the Son of God, that God foreordained
those to be conformed, whom, on account of His foreknowledge of them, He did
foreordain. We must not therefore suppose that the foreknowledge of God is the
cause of future events; but inasmuch as these events would follow the agent’s
own impulses, on this account He foreknew, for He knoweth all things before they
be: and inasmuch as He knoweth all things before they be, He foreknew certain
individuals and foreordained them to be conformed to the image of His Son; but
others He saw estranged. And if any one objects, and asks whether what God
foreknows might possibly not occur, we shall say it possibly might not; but
granting this possibility, there is no necessity that it should occur, or not
occur; and the events will not in the least be necessitated, but there is also
the possibility of their not occurring. The subject of possibilities, however,
belongs to the science of the skilled logician; so that if a man will cleanse
the eye of his mind, he may thus be able to follow the subtle arguments, and
may understand how, even in the course of ordinary events, there is nothing to
prevent the possibility of a given circumstance issuing many ways, though, in
fact, there will be only one out of the many, and that not necessitated; and
the foreknowledge of it means that it will be, but will not of necessity be;
for though it may possibly not occur, the prediction of it will not be
conjecture but real foreknowledge.
3. And let no one think that we have said nothing about the phrase
“according to his purpose,” because it may seem to hamper our argument; for
Paul says, “We know that to them that love God all things work together for
good, even to them that are called according to his purpose.” The critic should
observe that the Apostle also at once gave the reason for their being called
according to His purpose, saying, “Whom he did foreknow, them he also
foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son.” And who more fitting to
be included in the justifying calling by the purpose of God, than those who
love Him? And that the cause of the purpose and foreknowledge lies in our Free
Will is clearly shown by the words, “We know that all things work together for
good to them that love God”; for Paul all but said that if all things work
together for good, the reason is that they who love God are worthy of their
working together. And here let us ask our opponents a question, and let them
give us an answer. Just for a moment let us assume that we have some measure of
Free Will,—and we will tell them that this is a fact, though they seek to
destroy Free Will,—until on that assumption we can prove the unsoundness of
their view. If Free Will is indeed a reality, will God, when He considers the
chain of future events, foreknow what will be done by each possessor of Free
Will through the exercise of that Free Will, or will He not foreknow? To say
that He will not foreknow, is worthy of a man who knows nothing of the
omniscience and majesty of God. But if they will admit His foreknowledge, let
us ask them another question: Is His knowing the cause of future occurrences,
assuming that men have Free Will? Or does He foreknow because the events will
come to pass? And is it the truth that His foreknowledge is by no means the
cause of what will result from man’s Free Will? It is then possible for a man
created free, under given circumstances, not to do one thing and to do another.
4. For these reasons, and others like them which might be adduced, we
uphold the words, “Well done, good and faithful servant: thou hast been
faithful over a few things, I will set thee over many things: enter thou into the
joy of thy Lord,” and meaning attaches to all commendation. There is sound
reason also in the words, “Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou oughtest to
have put my money to the bankers.” Only thus can we maintain the justice of
what is said to those on His right hand, “Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit
the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was an
hungered, and ye gave me meat,” and so on; and to those on the left hand,
“Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the
devil and his angels: for I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat,” and so on.
But even supposing that the words “Separated unto the gospel of God,” and “He
that separated me from my mother’s womb,” imply some necessity, how could the
Apostle reasonably say, “I buffet my body and bring it into bondage, lest by
any means, after that I have preached to others, I myself should be rejected.”
And further, “Woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel.” For he clearly shows
hereby that if he did not buffet his body and bring it into bondage as much as
he could, he would be rejected after preaching to others, and that woe might
have been unto him if he did not preach the Gospel. Perhaps, then, it was under
these conditions that God separated him from his mother’s womb: God saw the
cause of the just separation, viz. that Paul would buffet his body, and bring
it into bondage, because he feared lest having preached to others he himself
might be rejected, and that, knowing there would be woe to him unless he
preached the Gospel, being moved with fear towards God so that he might not be
in woe, he would not hold his peace but would preach the Gospel. And this He
also saw Who separated him from his mother’s womb, and separated him unto His
own Gospel, viz. that he would be in labours more abundantly, in prisons more
frequently, in stripes above measure, in death oft; that of the Jews he would
five times receive forty stripes save one, that he would be thrice beaten with
rods, once be stoned; and that he would suffer all this rejoicing in
tribulations, and that, knowing that tribulation worketh endurance, he
would endure. For these reasons it was meet that he should be separated unto
the Gospel of God, as it was foreknown that he would be, and that he should be
separated from his mother’s womb. And he was separated unto the Gospel of God
not because his nature was specially endowed and by its constitution surpassed
the natures of men unlike him, but on account of his actions, first foreknown,
but afterwards realised, every one of them, through his apostolic fitness and
apostolic purpose. This is not the time to discuss the passage in the psalm,
for it was a digression; so, God willing, it shall be discussed in its proper
place, whenever we interpret the psalm. The foregoing will abundantly suffice
for the term “separated.” (Ibid.,
208-13)
