A Unitarian’s Candid Admission on Origen

Sam Shamoun

21 Oct 2026

Unitarian philosopher Dale Tuggy wrote a booklet on the historical and logical problems of the Trinity titled, What is the Trinity?: Thinking about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and published by CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, in 2017. In it he makes some admissions that actually refute his assertions concerning the early Christians’ understanding of the Trinity.

I quote those snippets here. All emphasis will be mine.

Other Christians have believed in the deity of Father, Son, and Spirit, but identiﬁed the one true God not with the Trinity, but instead with the Father alone. Famous examples include the learned Anglican minister and philosopher-theologian Samuel Clarke (1675-1729) and the towering intellectual of third-century catholic Christianity, the philosopher-theologian-apologist-biblical-scholar Origen of Alexandria (c. 185 - c. 254).

How could they believe in the deity of each of the three, and yet be monotheists? Again, they held the one God to be the Father only. The Son and Spirit were seen as divine in lesser ways or degrees than the Father.

Do you think that each member of the Trinity must be divine to the same degree, or in the same way? Or do you think that deity/divinity doesn’t come in diﬀerent kinds or degrees? Clarke and Origen would deny both claims, as they ﬁrmly believed that it would be a contradiction for another being to also be divine in the way that the Father (aka God) is divine. They would also point out that in the Bible angels and saved humans are described as divine, as “gods,” or as “Sons of God,” though this doesn’t put them on a par with Yahweh (the Father, the unique God) or even with the Son (Jesus).³⁷(4. The “deity” of Christ vs. the Trinity, pp. 39-40)

⁸What ancient sources call “monarchians” were catholics (mainstream Christians) c. 180-250 who disagreed with the then new logos theories, on which God ﬁrst (or eternally) emanated or expressed his logos, and then created the cosmos through him, the logos being the direct creator. Rejecting this idea of direct (logos, the pre-human Jesus or the divine nature united to him) creator vs. indirect creator (the Father, the one God), they insisted on only one creator, God, and some rallied around the slogan that they upheld the monarchy of the one God (hence the name given to them). While it is unclear how many mainstream Christians in this way outright rejected logos theories, it is likely that for some decades adherents of logos theories were a minority. See the complaints of two-stage logos theorist Tertullian (Against Praxeas in Tertullian’s Treatise Against Praxeas, translated by Ernest Evans (London: Society for Promotion of Christian Knowledge, 1949 [c. 213]), Chapter 3 ), and of one-stage logos theorist Origen (Commentary on the Gospel According to John in Origen: Commentary on the Gospel According to John Books 1-10, translated by Ronald Heine (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1989), 98 [Book II, Section 16].) (5. Get a Date, p. 47)

A leading champion of catholic orthodoxy at the end of this era was Tertullian of Carthage (c. 160-225). Arguing against the gnostic teacher Hermogenes, Tertullian explicitly asserts that the Father is older, nobler, stronger, more powerful, and “much more elevated in rank” than the Son.⁹ Quoting Proverbs 8, he insists that

...the very Wisdom of God [i.e. the pre-human Jesus] is declared to be born and created, for the especial reason that we should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone [i.e. the Father] who is unbegotten and uncreated. For if that which from its being inherent in the Lord was of Him and in Him, was yet not without a beginning, – I mean His wisdom, which was then born and created, when in the thought of God It began to assume motion for the arrangement of His creative works…¹⁰

This is what the patristic scholar Wolfson calls a “two stage” logos theory, which is typical for non-monarchian theologians in this era.¹¹ Eternally, God is wise, so his attribute of wisdom is eternal. But a ﬁnite time ago, when it was time to create, the theory is that God “uttered” his “word” or “wisdom,” that is, he, as it were, made his eternal wisdom to be a helper, through whom he will create.¹² This is to say, if by the logos /Word/Wisdom you mean a divine self, this came into existence a ﬁnite time ago, though God has always had Wisdom (etc.) as a property within himself. This scheme is pretty clear in all of Tertullian’s works.¹³ The point is that for this major champion of catholic theology in the years 197-225, the Son is neither eternal nor as divine as the Father. Nor is Tertullian an anomaly. Again, the two-stage logos theory is standard in this era, aside from “monarchian” dissenters.

The person who changed the emerging catholic mainstream from two- to one-stage logos theory was the massively inﬂuential Origen. He holds the divine logos and Spirit to exist eternally, but because of God. In eternity, God (the God, in Greek ho theos), aka the Father, causes (“begets”) his logos (Word), a second god (deuteros theos).¹⁴ In so doing he imparts a degree of divinity to the logos. The logos in turn eternally gives a degree of divinity to the Holy Spirit.¹⁵ But for Origen, the Son and Spirit are not divine in the same way as the Father, so as to make them the Father’s equal in power, knowledge, goodness, and so on. Only the Father is divine independently of any other being and to the highest degree. In second place is the logos, who gets his second greatest degree of divinity from God. In third place is the Spirit, who gets his yet lesser divinity from the Son.¹⁶

In one book Origen goes so far as to argue that

…we should not pray to anyone begotten, not even to Christ Himself, but only to the God and Father of all…¹⁷

In a later writing, though, Origen backs oﬀ this prohibition and allows prayer to Christ, who as high priest will

…bear our prayer, when it has reached him, up to his God and our God and to his Father and the Father of people who live according to the word of God.¹⁸

When did mainstream, non-monarchian Christians come to hold that the Son and Spirit never came into existence? No earlier than around the time of Origen’s On First Principles (c. 216-32). Earlier logos theorists all seem to presuppose that the logos came into existence a ﬁnite time ago, when it was time to create.¹⁹ (Ibid., pp. 47-51)

What about options 5 and 6? Would they add that the divine beings are composed of the same sort of matter, or even very same portion of matter? Presumably not. It is true that some earlier catholics like Tertullian held God to be composed of a spiritual sort of matter, and that he generated the Son by sharing a portion of his matter with him, so that it simultaneously constituted the Son and partially constituted the Father.¹⁴ But this view of God and the other members of the triad as material beings had been vigorously opposed by the leading teacher Origen.¹⁵ (7. “Substance” Abuse?, pp. 81-82)

In contrast, the sort of view which was dominant in the Eastern, Greek-speaking portion of the empire is now described as “duohypostatic.” Here God and his Word are two entities, two beings. In eternity God exists independently of anything else, but also in timeless eternity, he causes the logos/Word to exist. This Word is like him and divine. But unlike God, his existence depends on another (i.e. God). Thus, although divine, this logos is a lesser being, a subordinate deity. Some refused to call this Word “eternal,” thinking that this implies that he’s eternal and independent like God, but in this period most think that THERE’S NO TIME WHEN THIS WORD DOESN’T EXIST. This is often expressed by saying that he was “begotten” by God “before the ages.”¹⁹ In chapter 5 we saw this sort of view in the very inﬂuential Origen, who died in the middle of the third century. In early fourth century, this sort of view is defended by the famous church historian and bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260-340), the inﬂuential bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia (d. 342), and many others, as reﬂected in a number of councils (also called synods) held between 341 and 360.²⁰(Ibid., p. 85)

Comments

Tuggy erroneously assumes that since the ante-Nicene writers did not use the categories and/or language of the 4^th century AD Trinitarian writers, specifically those writing around 381 AD, that this mean they were not Trinitarians. This is both dishonest and misleading since these individuals are not required to speak or employ the same language and/or metaphysical categories to describe the Trinity in order to be Trinitarians. All that is required is that they denied that the Son and the Spirit were created from nothing, and affirmed that they are intrinsic to God’s own Being, since they have always existed with/in him.

Tuggy is also wrong and misleading about Tertullian and the others who wrote before and around his time denying the eternal personhood of the Logos or the Spirit. The fact is that they believed that the Logos and Spirit were already rational within God, which is God could hold discourse within himself since he was conversing with his Logos/Wisdom and Spirit.

Yet it is refreshing to find Tuggy admitting that the writers prior to Nicaea affirmed that the Word is uncreated, timeless with some arguing that the Logos is the direct Creator of the creation. His candid admission refutes his claim that these men were not Trinitarians, since they most certainly were. What they definitely were not were unitarians, modalists or arians.

With that said, I quote the reference which Tuggy mentioned where Origen speaks of praying to the Lord Jesus:

Chapter 26

And we are not to believe in demons, although Celsus urges us to do so; but if we are to obey God, we must die, or endure anything, sooner than obey demons. In the same way, we are not to propitiate demons; for it is impossible to propitiate beings that are wicked and that seek the injury of men. Besides, what are the laws in accordance with which Celsus would have us propitiate the demons? For if he means laws enacted in states, he must show that they are in agreement with the divine laws. But if that cannot be done, as the laws of many states are quite inconsistent with each other, these laws, therefore, must of necessity either be no laws at all in the proper sense of the word, or else the enactments of wicked men; and these we must not obey, for we must obey God rather than men. Away, then, with this counsel, which Celsus gives us, to offer prayer to demons: it is not to be listened to for a moment; for our duty is to pray to the Most High God alone, and to the Only-begotten, the First-born of the whole creation, and to ask Him as our High Priest to present the prayers which ascend to Him from us, to His God and our God, to His Father and the Father of those who direct their lives according to His word. And as we would have no desire to enjoy the favour of those men who wish us to follow their wicked lives, and who give us their favour only on condition that we choose nothing opposed to their wishes, because their favour would make us enemies of God, who cannot be pleased with those who have such men for their friends — in the same way those who are acquainted with the nature, the purposes, and the wickedness of demons, can never wish to obtain their favour. (Against Celsus, BOOK VIII; emphasis mine)