December
184-254 A.D. Origen on
Scripture
Baugus, Bruce. “Origen on Scripture.” Reformation21.
21 Nov 2014. http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/11/origen-on-scripture.php. Accessed 21 Nov 2014.
I've
been doing a little reading in Origen's On First Principles today
(written sometime before 225). It's a scandalous work on several counts, but is
likely the first attempt at a systematic exposition of the faith in the
post-apostolic era and not without its benefits. So, continuing my theme on
finding help in unexpected places (see my last post), I offer the following
quotes on the doctrine of Scripture.
Origen
opens his exposition of the faith with a strong statement on Scripture as the
absolute source and norm of theology:
All who believe
and are assured that grace and truth were obtained through Jesus Christ, and
who know Christ to be the truth, . . .derive the knowledge which incites men to
a good and happy life from no other source than from the very words and
teaching of Christ (trans. by Crombie; preface.1).
He
continues:
By the words of
Christ we do not mean those only which He spake when He became man and
tabernacled in his flesh; for before that time, Christ, the Word of God, was in
Moses and the prophets. For without the Word of God how could they have been able
to prophecy of Christ? And [if space permitted] . . . it would not be difficult
to show, in proof of this statement, out of the holy Scriptures, how Moses or
the prophets both spake and performed all they did through being filled with
the Spirit of Christ (trans. by Crombie; preface.1).
Though
not perfect, Origen appears to affirm something approaching the plenary divine
inspiration of Scripture.
Perhaps
more fascinating, and satisfying, is Origen's statement on the clarity of
Scripture:
The following
fact should be understood. The holy apostles, when preaching the faith of
Christ, took certain doctrines, those namely which they believed to be
necessary ones, and delivered them in the plainest terms to all believers, even
to such as appeared to be somewhat dull in the investigation of divine
knowledge (trans. by Butterworth; preface.3).
A
little over fourteen centuries later the Westminster divines would confess
something remarkably similar--that "those things which are necessary to be
known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and
opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the
unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient
understanding of them" (WCF 1.7).
But
most striking of all, I believe, is Origen's comments on the positive aspect of
the sufficiency of Scripture. After outlining those doctrines he believed to be
most clearly taught and necessary to know, he argues that,
by clear and
necessary statements [one] may ascertain the truth regarding each individual
topic, and form, as we have said, one body of doctrine, by means of
illustrations and arguments,--either those which he has discovered in holy
Scripture, or which he has deduced by closely tracing out the consequences and
following a correct method (trans. by Crombie; preface.10).
In
other words, "The whole council of God concerning all things necessary for
his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in
Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from
Scripture" (WCF 1.6).
I
am not suggesting Origen's view of Scripture lines up exactly with the one set
out in the Westminster Standards, only that on a few points it is closer than I
suspect some of you might have guessed and that is at least interesting and I
hope quite encouraging.
(I
suppose I should note that the only complete text we have of On First
Principles is a Latin translation prepared by Rufinus, a defender of
Origen against accusations of heresy, over the winter and early spring of
397-98. Jerome sharply criticized this translation and prepared his own, which
is mostly lost to us. But that debate had nothing to do with the passages
quoted above and besides, even if these lines have been corrupted, they still
date back to the end of the fourth century--which is not too shabby.)
No comments:
Post a Comment