In a fascinating post drawn from Alex Poulos' blog, ETC's Peter Gurry notes this from Origen:
"As such, it’s reasonable for one to have faith in the maker of heaven and earth and all within them more because of the universe and the order in it, than because of the scriptures. Likewise, it’s reasonable for one to believe in Christ Jesus more because of the clear display of his power in the churches, and from the multitude of the might he shows in ruling the world, than because the scriptures. Only afterwards should one then come to the scriptures, and even then, one should ask again for grace from God, so that we don’t misunderstand what has been written."
Food for thought for us Sola Scriptura folk???
Of course Origen was not correct on all things theological ...
It seems to me ACTS 8 26-40 support Origen's position
30 Philip ran over and heard the man reading from the prophet Isaiah. Philip asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
31 The man replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” And he urged Philip to come up into the carriage and sit with him.
It should by now have become obvious to ALL Christians that the scriptures are 'given for our learning' so that interpretations will continue to be sought and arrived at for as long as this world exists. The question might be thus posited: "When will there be an interpretation of the scriptures that will suffice for ALL people in ALL places at ALL times?"
It seems to me, a mere 87yearold, that the Holy Spirit is constantly renewing our understanding of God's purposes for his human children - as we are open to divine enlightenment consistent with our capacity to learn. The Holy Scriptures are a guide-book - a selection of guide-books; words about God to lead us on a journey towards God. They are not God!
God's definitive Word is Christ, The Word made flesh.
Peter, I sense there is a dangerous tearing asunder of what is suitably and rightly joined in the Church of God. Your title is spurious.
Jesus, the Living Word of God, Word made flesh, is ever and only that Word duly “attested for us in Holy Scripture”. The quote is taken from the opening Thesis of the Barmen Declaration. Viz:
“Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death.
We reject the false doctrine, as though the church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God’s revelation.”
Any such ‘Christ’ therefore who may not be corroborated directly from this witness of Scripture is a spurious figment of our human imaginations. In the case of Barmen: Hitler’s and generally those churches who succumbed to his thrall. But the principle of Barmen applies generally. Just so for example specifically the Belhar Confession of 1986 in South Africa, which was inspired directly by the Barmen Declaration. And just so too any call to action in our own day “in the Name of Christ” is only a function of which ‘Christ’: that attested in the Scriptures, or from our own mystifications?
This does not set Barth against Origen, necessarily. It merely states we’d better sift the latter more discerningly: e.g. too his trinitarian subordinationism ... Now; there’s a contemporary hot button topic ...!
For goodness sake, Bryden, my titles are chosen to try to catch the eye of the person who may not otherwise linger.
Call it spurious etc by all means, but my titles have everything to do with marketing and little to do with, er, sober minded appraisal/evaluation/truth, unless those two matters should happily coincide :)
Aha! I was always of a mind that marketing was ... spurious!
No Ron, don't personalise comments about another commenter if you want your comment published
Post a Comment