It is really only from this period [211 AD], when the pedagogic activity of previously independent teachers was placed at the service of a newly emerging monarchical style of episcopacy, that one can begin to speak of a “Catechetical School” in Alexandria.
I think Origen had some helpful intuition and insights into the Bible, but his teaching on the whole has damaged the Church. He was rightfully declared a heretic, twice I think. But the most harmful idea he proposed was that we should Spiritualize the text. The real meaning wasn't communicated by simply language but by something esoteric in nature. Of course, he could provide that esoteric spiritual interpretation, thereby setting himself up the authority even above the Bible itself, since his spiritual insight was needed to understand it.
Many other heresies, cults, and false church movements have come from this source, spiritualizing the text.
He was correct that we gain new insight about the Old Testament when reading the New Testament. There was a mystery revealed in Christ. The problem with Origen is that actual words of the New Testament explicitly tell us how the meaning of the Old Testament is enhanced. We don't need to look below the surface. We need to understand the New Testament and then let Scripture interpret Scripture. Beyond Origen, this happens both ways. We understand each part of the Bible better when we better understand all the other parts as the inspired words teach us.
I am not sure what is meant by "spiritualizing" the text, however, I think the text is often offering something more than a plain reading - at least how "plain reading" is understood in the post-Enlightenment West. One of my go-to examples is the first 11 chapters of Genesis. There is so much to learn there about God's relationship to man, and our relationship to God. Yet, in the West (at least in Evangelical churches) we have reduced these chapters to a history and science text, almost ignoring what God might actually intended to convey to us.
As to the words of the New Testament enhancing the meaning of the Old Testament, I agree. But this goes the other way as well. This really hit home for me when reading Boyarin's book on the Jewish Gospel.
I am thinking the opposite. We are products of Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, and for some, Calvin. We are tied to the grammatico-historical method of exegesis and ignore everything else. We *know* everything with certainty because, well, we’re so dang smart. Yet, it’s lead the greater church to endless division instead of uniformity and unity.
Is there a place somewhere between severe intellectualism (more than half my seminary profs had a BS in engineering) and fuzzy relativism?
There have been disputes and factions from the very beginning. Paul said they were necessary to show who is genuine in 1 Corinthians. Unity is a sign of Christianity, but it is an organic unity springing up from common doctrine, not forced on us by powerful bureaucrats.
Not a champion of bureaucracy—I’m a loyalist to Christian charity.
We continually go beyond “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” and Nicea, and instead of saying, “Praise God that you’ve found the way, the truth, and the life,” we argue about nearly everything.
American evangelicals send missionaries to Roman Catholic countries rather than praying for godly priests and revival …
Errata, yes. For me Nicea (as modified in the second council) is sufficient by which we can identify Christianity. At least that's how I see things today. This is why I recoil when a church will not offer communion or the Eucharist to someone who had a Trinitarian baptism, but wasn't baptized in "my tribe."
1 Corinthians 1: 10 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
I think Origen had some helpful intuition and insights into the Bible, but his teaching on the whole has damaged the Church. He was rightfully declared a heretic, twice I think. But the most harmful idea he proposed was that we should Spiritualize the text. The real meaning wasn't communicated by simply language but by something esoteric in nature. Of course, he could provide that esoteric spiritual interpretation, thereby setting himself up the authority even above the Bible itself, since his spiritual insight was needed to understand it.
Many other heresies, cults, and false church movements have come from this source, spiritualizing the text.
He was correct that we gain new insight about the Old Testament when reading the New Testament. There was a mystery revealed in Christ. The problem with Origen is that actual words of the New Testament explicitly tell us how the meaning of the Old Testament is enhanced. We don't need to look below the surface. We need to understand the New Testament and then let Scripture interpret Scripture. Beyond Origen, this happens both ways. We understand each part of the Bible better when we better understand all the other parts as the inspired words teach us.
thecrosssectionrmb.blogspot.com
I am not sure what is meant by "spiritualizing" the text, however, I think the text is often offering something more than a plain reading - at least how "plain reading" is understood in the post-Enlightenment West. One of my go-to examples is the first 11 chapters of Genesis. There is so much to learn there about God's relationship to man, and our relationship to God. Yet, in the West (at least in Evangelical churches) we have reduced these chapters to a history and science text, almost ignoring what God might actually intended to convey to us.
As to the words of the New Testament enhancing the meaning of the Old Testament, I agree. But this goes the other way as well. This really hit home for me when reading Boyarin's book on the Jewish Gospel.
I am thinking the opposite. We are products of Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, and for some, Calvin. We are tied to the grammatico-historical method of exegesis and ignore everything else. We *know* everything with certainty because, well, we’re so dang smart. Yet, it’s lead the greater church to endless division instead of uniformity and unity.
Is there a place somewhere between severe intellectualism (more than half my seminary profs had a BS in engineering) and fuzzy relativism?
There have been disputes and factions from the very beginning. Paul said they were necessary to show who is genuine in 1 Corinthians. Unity is a sign of Christianity, but it is an organic unity springing up from common doctrine, not forced on us by powerful bureaucrats.
Not a champion of bureaucracy—I’m a loyalist to Christian charity.
We continually go beyond “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” and Nicea, and instead of saying, “Praise God that you’ve found the way, the truth, and the life,” we argue about nearly everything.
American evangelicals send missionaries to Roman Catholic countries rather than praying for godly priests and revival …
Errata, yes. For me Nicea (as modified in the second council) is sufficient by which we can identify Christianity. At least that's how I see things today. This is why I recoil when a church will not offer communion or the Eucharist to someone who had a Trinitarian baptism, but wasn't baptized in "my tribe."
1 Corinthians 1: 10 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?