Is this why Origen was branded a heretic?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ryan&Amber2013

Puritan Board Senior
I was chatting with my coworker today. He said Origen was used on both sides in forming the Nicean creed. That those for it and against it would both cite his works to justify their position. So basically, he was trinitarian, but not in the way we understand it today. According to my coworker anyway. I hope this helps!
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
I was chatting with my coworker today. He said Origen was used on both sides in forming the Nicean creed. That those for it and against it would both cite his works to justify their position. So basically, he was trinitarian, but not in the way we understand it today. According to my coworker anyway. I hope this helps!

That is true.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
The official reason Origen was branded a heretic was because Justinian convened the 5th Council to condemn Origen's followers. He then strong-armed the bishops to add on a list of condemnations of Origen. Protestants generally don't accept any council after Chalcedon, so it's kind of a moot point.
 

Puritan Sailor

Puritan Board Doctor
I wondered the same thing, too. Liberal biblical studies are generally non-allegorical. Allegory implies a transcendent realm, and liberals don't believe that. Liberals believe only in historical particulars. They are anti-allegorical, if anything. In fact, on some supernatural elements in Genesis, Job, and the Psalms, liberals don't flinch from what the text says. They simply reject it on principle.
I think there may be some liberals who do approach them allegorically. Some would try to find the "kernel" of truth in the passage without having to take it literally as inspired Scripture. They treat the "substance" as a form of human wisdom or experience that we can learn from but don't treat it as actual history or truth on it's own terms. Perhaps that's not strictly allegory, but when you relativize the text, it's hard not to devolve into some form of allegory. Perhaps we could distinguish between academic liberals and pastoral liberals? Just thinking out loud...
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
I think there may be some liberals who do approach them allegorically. Some would try to find the "kernel" of truth in the passage without having to take it literally as inspired Scripture. They treat the "substance" as a form of human wisdom or experience that we can learn from but don't treat it as actual history or truth on it's own terms. Perhaps that's not strictly allegory, but when you relativize the text, it's hard not to devolve into some form of allegory. Perhaps we could distinguish between academic liberals and pastoral liberals? Just thinking out loud...

I think that is a good distinction. Academic liberals would over-analyze the text. Pastoral liberals are just twitter hippies.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
I went over some notes I had on Thomas Torrance. This is from one of his essays on Athanasius. From Divine Meaning: Studies in Patristic Hermeneutics.

Hellenism had to have allegory because Hellenism posited a chorismos between the sensible world and the intelligible world, and since they could never touch, allegory allowed one to “jump” from one world to the other. To this Irenaeus opposed typology. There is an inseparable relation between word and event (101). Therefore, “the distinction between aletheia and tupos is not that between intelligible and sensible…but between the preparatory action of God in history pointing forward to…his final action in the Incarnation and Atonement through which all things are changed and brought to their fulfillment” (102).
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
This is a really good read overall to see how many strange ideas in theology have surprising theological connections as far back as forms of Jewish mysticism. He has a whole section devoted to Origen and many of the views he held to that were rejected by the Church.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top