Origen on attaining and naming God by reason and by revelation of the Logos

"It is true that God is derived from nothing. But when he [Celsus] says Neither is he attainable by reason, I draw a distinction in the meaning and say: If you mean the reason that is in us, whether conceived or expressed, we too would say that God is not attainable by reason. But if, because we have understood that 'in the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God', we affirm that God is attainable by this Logos, and is comprehended not by him alone, but also by any man to whom he reveals the Father, we would prove that Celsus' words were untrue when he says Neither is God attainable by reason. The assertion that he cannot be named also needs precise definition. If he means that none of the descriptions by words or expressions can show the attributes of Hod, the affirmation is true [...] But if you take the word to mean that it is possible by names to show something about His attributes in order to guide the hearer and to make him understand God's character in so far as some of His attributes are attainable by human nature, then it is not wrong at all to say that He can be named. In this way also we would make a distinction in the words For he has no experience which can be comprehended by a name. And it is also true that God is outside any emotional experience." (Con. Cel. VI,65)