|Fragment number||Vinzent 21
|Ancient source used||Eusebius, Against Marcellus|
|Modern edition||M. Vinzent, Markell von Ankyra: Die Fragmente (Leiden, 1997).|
It is clear that when Origen was writing these kinds of things he was using his own dogmas from the fact that he contradicts himself many times. So at any rate it is logical to recount the things he says about God in another place.. He writes, “For God did not begin to be a father as if he had been prevented from being one in the way that men who become fathers had previously not been able to be ones. For if God is always perfect and if he always has the ability to be a father and if it is good for him to be the father of such a son, why does he delay and deprive himself of the goodness, so to speak, of being able to be a father? Yet the same thing must also be said about the Holy Spirit.” Since Origen also wrote this, how could the “blessed” (according to him) Paulinus decide to conceal this as if it were not dangerous and yet use the exact opposite to support his own opinions for which not even Origen can be held responsible?
Translated by PSAM, revised AMJ
Last updated: 8-29-2012
No Responses yet