Origen did believe in baptismal regeneration. As one scholar noted:
There are other places, however, where Origen makes
particular distinctions in “renewal” and “regeneration” language. Baptism
“takes place with the renewal of the Spirit” (καὶ παλιγγενεσίας ὀνομαζόμενον
λουτρὸν μετὰ ἀνακαινώσεως γινόμενον πνεύματος) (Jo. 6.169), or is
defined as “regeneration (regeneratio) in water and in the Holy Spirit”
(nunc autem ‘in specie’ regeneratio est in aqua et Spiritu sancto) (hom.in.Num
7.2.2).154 In both of these examples, the Spirit’s work of renewing or
regenerating cannot be separated from the rite of baptism. Both of these terms
refer to the Spirit’s particular role in the overall process of salvation,
particularly to vivification that accompanies the rite of baptism. (Justin J.
Lee, Origen and the Holy Spirit [Forschungen zur Kirchen- und
Dogmengeschichte 124; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2023], 221)
However, at times, he writes
as if one can receive water baptism and not receive the Holy Spirit. This might
seem like a major inconsistency in his soteriology (and one should be open to
inconsistencies in individual authors), a knowledge of the material/formal
reception of the grace of the sacrament is important. In many traditions, it is
acknowledged that one can receive the “matter” of the sacrament (water in baptism;
the “matter” of ordination would be the laying on of hands, to give another
example), but because of certain issues, one will not receive the grace promised
until those hindrances are repented of. As Lee wrote:
. . . though baptism is without a doubt important to
Origen, it does not guarantee the coming of the Spirit. His emphasis on the
worthiness of the recipient for the Spirit’s presence is present also in his
theology of baptism. Instead, Origen distinguishes water baptism from the
baptism of the Spirit. Baptism of the Spirit is a significant theological
concept for Origen; it not only marks the Spirit’s entry into a believer but is
an event initiated by Christ for the salvation of believers, contrasted sharply
with the judgment of the baptism of fire.
In hom.in.Num 3.1.2, a discussion about
catechumens and baptism, Origen states the following:
Non enim omnes qui ex Israel hi sunt
Israelitae, neque omnes qui loti sunt aqua continuo etiam sancto Spiritu loti
sunt; sicut, e contrario, non omnes qui in catechumenis numerantur alieni et
expertes sunt Spiritus sancti. Inuenio enim in Scripturis diuinis nonnullos
catechumenorum dignos habitos Spiritu sancto et alios accepto baptismo indignos
fuisse sancti Spiritus gratia.
For not all who are from Israel are Israelites, (Rom 9.6)
nor are all who have been washed in the water immediately also washed by the
Holy Spirit; just as, on the contrary, not all who are numbered among the
catechumens are estranged from and devoid of the Holy Spirit. For in the holy
Scriptures I find that some catechumens were worthy to be indwelt by the Holy
Spirit, and others who had received baptism were unworthy of the grace of the
Holy Spirit.
Origen’s point is that water baptism does not guarantee
the possession of the Holy Spirit. Using the examples of Acts 10 and Acts 8,
Origen shows that Cornelius was not baptized before he received the Spirit,
while Simon Magus did not receive the Spirit in spite of his baptism. The
Spirit’s presence is instead conditioned on purity: the believer’s life and
character lead to the Spirit’s indwelling presence, rather than simply an
external rite.191 Those like Simon who “approached this grace with hypocrisy” (sed
quoniam cum hypocrisi accessit ad gratiam) are similarly “filled with all
deceit and deception, son of the devil, enemy of all justice (Acts 13.10)” (O
plene omni dolo et fallacia, fili diaboli, inimice omnis iustitiae) and
thus do not receive the Spirit.
Though most catechumens do not yet possess the Holy
Spirit, it is entirely possible that some already do and others will never,
even when they are baptized.
What purpose does baptism have for the believer then? For
Origen, one must be baptized to enter the kingdom of heaven. But water baptism
is not viewed as a “single act that constitutes a person a Christian”; rather,
it is “only a stage marking the achievement of an acceptable level of morality
during the catechumenate and obligating the Christian to maintain that level and,
if possible, advance beyond it.” For Origen, the washing with water “is a
symbol of the soul’s purification as it washes from itself all the filth which
comes from evil” and is the “beginning and source of divine gifts” (Jo.
6.166).The washing thus “prepare[s] the way for [the Spirit] in advance of
those who approached it genuinely” (Jo. 6.167), those who come with an
attitude of humility.For those who approach baptism rightly, baptism is a
“washing of regeneration” or “bath of rebirth”, which takes place by the hands
of Jesus through the renewal of the Spirit (cf. Titus 3.5).The washing of
regeneration and rebirth is what Origen also calls the “baptism of the Spirit”
(Luke 3.16), where the Spirit comes to dwell in the believer.This occurs only
for those who have died to sin (com.in.Rom 5.8.3) and are cleansed by
the law (hom.in.Lev 6.2.5).199 Much like with the gifts and graces of
God, baptism offers the gift of the Spirit for those whose lives and attitudes
are worthy of the Spirit’s presence. But, Origen notes, while many are
baptized, the renewal of the Spirit in baptism, which is from God, does not
appear in everyone “after the water” (Jo. 6.169).Therefore, as Origen
stresses, water baptism is “a benefit for the one who repents,” but results in
greater judgment for those who do not (Jo. 6.165).Origen’s theology of
baptism, then, is more practical and symbolic than sacramental; while no doubt
a significant event for a believer, what is more important are the actions and
attitudes of the believer, as well as the Spirit’s actual indwelling in Spirit
baptism. (Justin J. Lee, Origen and the Holy Spirit [Forschungen zur
Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 124; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2023],
189-91)
As Miller noted about Origen
and the reception of water baptism and the Holy Spirit (note: Origen is clearly
not a proto-Calvinist; in the following and the section above, he clearly believes
one must be “worthy” to receive the Holy Spirit [!]):
Origen maintains that the Holy Spirit comes not to all
human beings, but only to those who are worthy, the saints. For example, he
writes in Peri Archon 1.1.3 that the Holy Spirit is he in whom “all, who
may have deserved to be sanctified by his grace, are said to have a share.” He
adds later that “participation (participationem) of the Holy Spirit is
possessed by the saints (sanctis) only.” Although Origen often discusses
the Holy Spirit as coming only to the saints, he twice contradicts himself on
this point, writing that the Holy Spirit is given to all beings. In Peri Archon
1.3.4 Origen writes, “For without a doubt everyone who treads the earth, that
is, who is earthly and corporeal, is a partaker (particeps) of the Holy
Spirit, receiving him from God.” Likewise, in Peri Archon 2.7.2 he
writes, “But we reckon that every rational creature without any difference
receives a participation (participationem) of him [the Holy Spirit] in
like manner as of the wisdom of God and of the word of God.”
Now that we have examined who is able to receive the
Spirit, showing that Origen likely considers the Spirit to come only to the
saints, we can now determine the moment when a person becomes worthy to receive
the Spirit. As Rius- Camps points out, Origen indicates that baptism is the
time when many people, though not all, receive the Spirit. Yet, Rius-Camps
overstates the case when he says that ascertaining the moment a believer
receives the Spirit is “the greatest difficulty” in Origen’s theology. This is because
Origen makes the reception of the Spirit contingent on the state of the
individual being baptized, which he relates in Homily on Ezekiel 6.5.1:
“You were not washed with water unto salvation” (Ez
16:4). Let us see what happens to Jerusalem lest the same fate befall us. It
may be said, for example: A woman has now been washed, but one asks whether
this leads to salvation, in order that we too may have fear. This is why the
words are added: “Unto salvation.” Not all are washed “unto salvation.” We who
have received the grace of baptism in the name of Christ have been washed; but
I do not know who has been “washed unto salvation.” Simon was washed, and
“after being baptized he continued in the company of Philip” (cf. Acts 8:13).
But because he was not washed “unto salvation,” he was condemned by him who
said to him in the Holy Spirit: “Your money perish with you!” (Acts 8:20). It
is immensely difficult for someone who is washed to be washed unto salvation.
Pay attention and listen to what is being said here, you catechumens; prepare
yourselves, and you may come to the washing and be washed “unto salvation.” May
you not be washed like some who are washed but not “unto salvation.” Such a one
receives the water but does not receive the Holy Spirit (cf. John 3:5). The one
who is washed unto salvation receives water and the Holy Spirit.
Origen differentiates between receiving only the water of
baptism and receiving the Spirit in addition to the water: not all who are
baptized are saved since only those who receive both water and the Spirit in
baptism gain salvation. Origen gives some indication of how one may receive
both water and the Spirit by exhorting the catechumens in his audience to
“prepare yourselves,” suggesting that a certain amount of preparation is
necessary to receive the washing “unto salvation.” A more detailed description of
the reception of the Spirit provides clarification as to the reason for this
preparation. In Homily on Numbers 3.1.2 Origen explains that reception
of the Spirit is dependent on the state of the individual. For this reason,
people receive the Spirit when they are worthy, even if that occurs before
baptism:
I am talking about certain catechumens with whom perhaps
some even of those who have already received baptism may be grouped. “For not
all who are from Israel are Israelites” (Rom 9:6), nor are all who have been
washed in the water immediately also washed by the Holy Spirit; just as, on the
contrary, not all who are numbered among the catechumens are estranged from and
devoid of the Holy Spirit. For in the holy Scriptures I find that some
catechumens were worthy to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and others who had
received baptism were unworthy of the grace of the Holy Spirit. Cornelius was a
catechumen, and before he came to the waters, he merited to receive the Holy
Spirit (cf. Acts 10:47). Simon had received baptism, but because he approached
this grace with hypocrisy, he is rejected from the gift of the Holy Spirit (cf.
Acts 8:13, 18–19).
Some are worthy of the Holy Spirit before being baptized,
while others are still unworthy even after baptism. The preparation Origen
refers to in Homily on Ezekiel 6.5.1, therefore, must refer to the
process by which a person becomes worthy to receive the Holy Spirit. The person
so prepared might receive both water and the Spirit in baptism. Since Origen
discusses the reception of the Spirit in the context of baptism in both Homily
on Ezekiel 6.5.1 and Homily on Numbers 3.1.2, it appears that
baptism is one of the primary times when a person receives the Spirit. Indeed,
Origen’s exhortation to prepare in Homily on Ezekiel 6.5.1 implies that
those who do prepare will be washed “unto salvation” at their baptism. Yet,
baptism is not the only time one receives the Spirit since the reception of the
Spirit remains dependent on the worthiness of each individual and not on the baptismal
ritual.
Origen lays out what kind of person is worthy of the Holy
Spirit in Peri Archon 1.3.5. He first lays out where the Spirit is not
found, writing, “But the operation of the Holy Spirit certainly comes by no
means either into those who are without life, or into those who are indeed
animate but cannot speak. But neither is it found in those who indeed are
rational but are placed in ill will and have not yet been wholly turned to
better things.” He then goes on to specify where the Holy Spirit is found: “But
I think that the work of the Holy Spirit is in those alone who already are
turning themselves to better things and are advancing through the ways of Jesus
Christ, that is, who are in good deeds and continue in God.” The Holy Spirit is
not present in those who are wicked, but only in those who do good—in order to
receive the Spirit, one must no longer be wicked. The problem is that in Peri
Archon 1.3.7 Origen says that the Holy Spirit is responsible for helping a person
put off the old things and live a new life: “The Holy Spirit . . . creates a
new people for himself and ‘renews the face of the earth’ (Ps 103:30) when,
through the grace of the spirit, ‘the old man with his deeds being put aside’
(Col 3:9), they have begun to ‘walk in the newness of life’ (Rom 6:4).” These
two passages reveal ambiguity in Origen’s thought. In the first, one must no
longer be wicked, but be “wholly converted to better things” in order to
possess the Spirit; in the second, the Spirit helps a person move from the old
way of life to a new life, suggesting that one can become good only by
possessing the Holy Spirit. (Micah M. Miller, Origen of Alexandria and the Theology
of the Holy Spirit [Oxford Early Christian Studies; Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2024], 139-40, 141-43)
Miller also noted that:
The ambiguity with respect to who is able to receive the
Holy Spirit corresponds to similarly ambiguous statements Origen makes
regarding the roles of free will and divine aid in matters of salvation. At the
beginning of his long exposition on free will in Peri Archon 3.1, Origen
explains that the church’s teaching on a future judgment makes it necessary
that humans are responsible for their decisions. He writes, “Things worthy of
praise and blame are within our own power.” Yet, in Peri Archon 3.1.19
Origen also says, “Since human willing is not sufficient to attain the end, nor
is the running of those who are, as it were, athletes, sufficient to gain ‘the
prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus’ (Phil 3:14) (for with God’s
assistance these things are accomplished), it is well said that ‘it is not of
him that wills nor of him that runs, but of God who has mercy’ (Rom 9:16).” On
the one hand, the first passage says that human beings are responsible for
choosing the good; on the other hand, the second details that humans stand in
need of divine aid in order to achieve salvation. This lack of clarity on the
relationship between free will and divine aid corresponds to Origen’s account
that one must choose the good to receive the Holy Spirit while also standing in
need of the Spirit to move from evil to good things. The lack of clarity
regarding the roles of the human person and the Holy Spirit in moving to the
good makes sense, then, given Origen’s similar lack of clarity on the roles of
free will and divine aid in salvation. This tension seems to be the result of a
desire to both preserve free will and allow for the role of divine work within
a person’s transformation. This tension, then, appears to lead Origen to
emphasize human free will at certain points, while emphasizing God’s role in
the process of transformation at other points. (Ibid., 143)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
