Vincent of Lérins on Origen as a trial to the church

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
... Then who can express how much he was admired by all, how great his renown, how wide his influence? Who was there whose religion was at all above the common standard that did not hasten to him from the ends of the earth? What Christian did not reverence him almost as a prophet; what philosopher as a master? How great was the veneration with which he was regarded, not only by private persons, but also by the Court, is declared by the histories which relate how he was sent for by the mother of the Emperor Alexander, moved by the heavenly wisdom with the love of which she, as he, was inflamed. To this also his letters bear witness, which, with the authority which he assumed as a Christian Teacher, he wrote to the Emperor Philip, the first Roman prince that was a Christian.

As to his incredible learning, if any one is unwilling to receive the testimony of Christians at our hands, let him at least accept that of heathens at the hands of philosophers. For that impious Porphyry says that when he was little more than a boy, incited by his fame, he went to Alexandria, and there saw him, then an old man, but a man evidently of so great attainments, that he had reached the summit of universal knowledge.

Time would fail me to recount, even in a very small measure, the excellencies of this man, all of which, nevertheless, not only contributed to the glory of religion, but also increased the magnitude of the trial. For who in the world would lightly desert a man of so great genius, so great learning, so great influence, and would not rather adopt that saying, That he would rather be wrong with Origen, than be right with others. ...

For more, see Vincent of Lérins on Origen as a trial to the church.
 
I always feel icky after reading Origen. Yes, he suffered greatly for belief in Christ, but I can't stand reading him. The reception of Origen is a tricky subject. Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa appreciated him, whereas Jerome utterly despised him (though that would be Jerome's opinion of most people). Maximus liked some elements of him but completely destroyed his theology.
 
Origen is indeed an enigma. Many grossly heretical writings were spuriously attributed to him, although some views that were undoubtedly his are indeed heretical as well. Still, an impressive cadre of orthodox churchman expressed esteem for him and/or some of his views, including Eusebius, the Cappadocian Fathers, Athanasius, Rufinus, Huss, Erasmus, Zwingli, and Bullinger. Others, like Jerome, Theophilus, Justinian, and Luther utterly deplored him. In defending his 4/6 division of the Decalogue, Calvin positively cites Origen's agreement, and characterizes such as coming from a "purer age" of the church!
 
As much as I dislike the interpretive maximalist types of the Federal Vision, there are some differences between them and Origen. Origen was a Platonist (he may have known Plotinus). Origen's allegories corresponded to Platonic realities. James Jordan, by contrast, hates Plato. Typology at its best corresponds to historical realities. Allegory (not counting what Paul did in Galatians) is vertical. It connects man with a Platonic form.
 
What is interpretative maximalism?
James Jordan and David Chilton. It's basically finding any legitimate typology within Scripture and then reading the entire redemptive history into that thread. I am all for typology and more so than most Reformed people, but the interpretive maximalist types commit several linguistic fallacies (cf. James Barr's Semantics of Biblical Words)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top