What did the early Church fathers believe about the infallibility of scripture?

[IowaLutheran]

Here is some interesting stuff from Origen on Scripture - from http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/origen_philocalia_02_text.htm#C20

"20. We have said all this for the sake of showing that the aim of the Divine power which gives us the sacred Scriptures, is not to select such things only as are presented in a literal sense, for sometimes the things selected taken literally are not true, but are even unreasonable and impossible; and further, that certain things are woven into the web of actual history and of the Law, which in its literal sense has its uses. But that no one may suppose us to make a sweeping statement and maintain that no history is real,84 because some is unreal; and that no part of the Law is to be literally observed, because a particular enactment in its wording happens to be unreasonable or impossible; or that what is recorded of the Saviour is true only in a spiritual sense; or that we are not to keep any law or commandments of His: that we may not incur such an imputation, we must add that we are quite convinced of the historical truth of certain passages. . . .

21. Still, there are places where the careful reader will be distracted because he cannot without much labour decide whether he is dealing with history in the ordinary sense, or not, and whether a given commandment is to be literally observed, or not. The reader must therefore, following the Saviour's injunction to search the Scriptures,93 carefully examine where the literal meaning is true, and where it cannot possibly be so; and he must, to the best of his ability, by comparing parallel passages scattered up and down Scripture, trace out the prevalent sense of what is literally impossible. Since, then, as will be clear to readers, the literal connection is impossible, while the main connection is not impossible but even true, we must strive to grasp the general sense which intelligibly connects things literally impossible with such things as are not only not impossible, but are historically true, and capable of allegorical |23interpretation, no less than those which never literally occurred. For, regarding the whole of Divine Scripture, we hold that every portion has the spiritual meaning, but not every portion the "corporeal"; for the "corporeal" meaning is often proved to be impossible. The cautious reader must therefore very carefully bear in mind that the Divine books are Divine writings, and that there appears to be a peculiar way of understanding them, which I will now describe."

Therefore, early on, it seems as if the ECFs acknowledged that some of the scriptural passages that modern fundamentalist Protestants take as literal historical truth were meant to be interpreted allegorically by the Church.

 

[simonthezealot]

Here is some interesting stuff from Origen on Scripture - from http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/origen_philocalia_02_text.htm#C20

"20. We have said all this for the sake of showing that the aim of the Divine power which gives us the sacred Scriptures, is not to select such things only as are presented in a literal sense, for sometimes the things selected taken literally are not true, but are even unreasonable and impossible; and further, that certain things are woven into the web of actual history and of the Law, which in its literal sense has its uses. But that no one may suppose us to make a sweeping statement and maintain that no history is real,84 because some is unreal; and that no part of the Law is to be literally observed, because a particular enactment in its wording happens to be unreasonable or impossible; or that what is recorded of the Saviour is true only in a spiritual sense; or that we are not to keep any law or commandments of His: that we may not incur such an imputation, we must add that we are quite convinced of the historical truth of certain passages. . . .

21. Still, there are places where the careful reader will be distracted because he cannot without much labour decide whether he is dealing with history in the ordinary sense, or not, and whether a given commandment is to be literally observed, or not. The reader must therefore, following the Saviour's injunction to search the Scriptures,93 carefully examine where the literal meaning is true, and where it cannot possibly be so; and he must, to the best of his ability, by comparing parallel passages scattered up and down Scripture, trace out the prevalent sense of what is literally impossible. Since, then, as will be clear to readers, the literal connection is impossible, while the main connection is not impossible but even true, we must strive to grasp the general sense which intelligibly connects things literally impossible with such things as are not only not impossible, but are historically true, and capable of allegorical |23interpretation, no less than those which never literally occurred. For, regarding the whole of Divine Scripture, we hold that every portion has the spiritual meaning, but not every portion the "corporeal"; for the "corporeal" meaning is often proved to be impossible. The cautious reader must therefore very carefully bear in mind that the Divine books are Divine writings, and that there appears to be a peculiar way of understanding them, which I will now describe."

Therefore, early on, it seems as if the ECFs acknowledged that some of the scriptural passages that modern fundamentalist Protestants take as literal historical truth were meant to be interpreted allegorically by the Church.

From the same writer...Origen speaks of the perfection of sxcripture...

CHAP. VI. ----The whole Divine Scripture is one instrument of God, perfect and fitted for its work. From Volume II. of the Commentaries on the Gospel according to Matthew: "Blessed are the peacemakers" 171
​

1. To the man who is both ways a peacemaker, there is no longer anything in the Divine oracles crooked or perverse,172 for all things are plain to those who understand; and since to such an one there is nothing crooked or perverse, he sees abundance of peace173 everywhere in Scripture, even in those parts which appear not to agree and to be contradictory to one another. But there is also a third peacemaker, he, viz. who shows that what to the eyes of others seems like disagreement in the Scriptures is not really so, and who proves that harmony and concord exist, whether between the Old and the New, or the Law and the Prophets, or Gospel and Gospel, or Evangelists and |43 Apostles, or Apostles and other Apostles. For,174 according to the Preacher,175 all the Scriptures, words of the wise, are as goads, and as nails well fastened, words which were given from collections from one shepherd, and there is nothing superfluous in them. And the Word is "one shepherd" of things relating to the Word, which do indeed sound discordant to those who have not ears to hear,176 but are in truth most harmonious.
2. For as the different strings of the psaltery or the lyre, each of which gives forth a note of its own seemingly unlike that of any other, are thought by an unmusical man who does not understand the theory of harmony to be discordant, because of the difference in the notes: so they who have not ears to detect the harmony of God in the sacred Scriptures suppose that the Old Testament is not in harmony with the New, or the Prophets with the Law, or the Gospels with one another, or an Apostle with the Gospel, or with himself, or with the other Apostles. But if a reader comes who has been instructed in God's music, a man who happens to be wise in word and deed, and on that account, it may be, called David, which being interpreted is "a cunning player," he will produce a note of God's music, for he will have learned from God's music to keep good time, playing now upon the strings of the Law, now upon those of the Gospel in harmony with them, now upon those of the Prophets; and when the harmony of good sense is required he strikes the apostolic strings tuned to suit the foregoing, and, similarly, apostolic strings in harmony with those of Evangelists. For he knows that the whole Scripture is the one, perfect, harmonious instrument of God, blending the different notes, for those who wish to learn, into one song of salvation, which stops and hinders all the working of an evil spirit, as the music of David laid to rest the evil spirit in Saul which was |44 vexing him.177 You observe, then, that there is a third kind of peacemaker, he who keeping close to the Scripture both sees the peace which pervades it everywhere, and bestows it on those who rightly seek the truth and are really eager to learn.

 

[Trento]

From the same writer...Origen speaks of the perfection of sxcripture...

CHAP. VI. ----The whole Divine Scripture is one instrument of God, perfect and fitted for its work. From Volume II. of the Commentaries on the Gospel according to Matthew: "Blessed are the peacemakers" 171​

1. To the man who is both ways a peacemaker, there is no longer anything in the Divine oracles crooked or perverse,172 for all things are plain to those who understand; and since to such an one there is nothing crooked or perverse, he sees abundance of peace173 everywhere in Scripture, even in those parts which appear not to agree and to be contradictory to one another. But there is also a third peacemaker, he, viz. who shows that what to the eyes of others seems like disagreement in the Scriptures is not really so, and who proves that harmony and concord exist, whether between the Old and the New, or the Law and the Prophets, or Gospel and Gospel, or Evangelists and |43 Apostles, or Apostles and other Apostles. For,174 according to the Preacher,175 all the Scriptures, words of the wise, are as goads, and as nails well fastened, words which were given from collections from one shepherd, and there is nothing superfluous in them. And the Word is "one shepherd" of things relating to the Word, which do indeed sound discordant to those who have not ears to hear,176 but are in truth most harmonious.
2. For as the different strings of the psaltery or the lyre, each of which gives forth a note of its own seemingly unlike that of any other, are thought by an unmusical man who does not understand the theory of harmony to be discordant, because of the difference in the notes: so they who have not ears to detect the harmony of God in the sacred Scriptures suppose that the Old Testament is not in harmony with the New, or the Prophets with the Law, or the Gospels with one another, or an Apostle with the Gospel, or with himself, or with the other Apostles. But if a reader comes who has been instructed in God's music, a man who happens to be wise in word and deed, and on that account, it may be, called David, which being interpreted is "a cunning player," he will produce a note of God's music, for he will have learned from God's music to keep good time, playing now upon the strings of the Law, now upon those of the Gospel in harmony with them, now upon those of the Prophets; and when the harmony of good sense is required he strikes the apostolic strings tuned to suit the foregoing, and, similarly, apostolic strings in harmony with those of Evangelists. For he knows that the whole Scripture is the one, perfect, harmonious instrument of God, blending the different notes, for those who wish to learn, into one song of salvation, which stops and hinders all the working of an evil spirit, as the music of David laid to rest the evil spirit in Saul which was |44 vexing him.177 You observe, then, that there is a third kind of peacemaker, he who keeping close to the Scripture both sees the peace which pervades it everywhere, and bestows it on those who rightly seek the truth and are really eager to learn.

ORIGEN
According to Origen tradition or “the Canon of Faith” is
the body of beliefs currently accepted by Christians.
He states that Church tradition is handed down from the
Apostles and is preserved in the Church, “the teaching of the
Church is preserved unaltered, handed down in unbroken.
succession from the apostles and is existing to this day in the
churches.”
In his exegesis of the Scripture, Origen refers to the tradition
and to the writings of the presbyters (the Fathers of the
Church). For example, concerning the parable of the good
Samaritan he writes, “One of the Presbyters (elders) said that
the man who was going down to Jericho is Adam, Jerusalem is
Paradise, Jericho the world, the thieves, the evil powers, the
Samaritan is Christ.” J. Daniélou says the same exegesis
had already appeared in lrenaeus) but since it is hardly likely
that Origen would call Irenaeus “one of the elders” the
common source of both passages must be the tradition in
question.
Origen believes that the true understanding of the Scripture
is only found in the Church. He says, “The true disciple of Jesus
is he who enters the house, that is to say, the Church. He enters
it by thinking as the Church does, and living as she does; this is
how he understands the word. They key of the Scriptures must
be received from the tradition of the Chruch, as from the Lord
Himself.”Origen: De Princiipus: Praef. 2.

When heretics show us the canonical Scriptures, in which every Christian believes and trusts, they seem to be saying:'Lo, he is in the inner rooms [ie., the word of truth] ' (Matt 24.6). But we must not believe them, nor leave the original tradition of the Church, nor believe otherwise than we have been taught by the succession in the Church of God."
Origen,Homilies on Matthew,Homily 46,PG 13:1667 (ante A.D. 254),in CON,392

 

[HisKid1973]

Good thread.. Thanks , I am learning alot.. Makes me wonder sometimes if the early doctors of the church might have "doctored" information to bias it to their side..shalom..kim

 

[Kristos]

Good thread.. Thanks , I am learning alot.. Makes me wonder sometimes if the early doctors of the church might have "doctored" information to bias it to their side..shalom..kim

If you question this, then you must question scripture as a whole, for it was these same people who preserved and passed down the writings that we, today, call the holy bible.

 

[simonthezealot]

. They key of the Scriptures must
be received from the tradition of the Chruch, as from the Lord
Himself.”Origen: De Princiipus: Praef. 2.

It's ironic you don't show this in context and its unattainable at CCEL, could it be because if you've read Origen and know he was, indeed, a rigid adherent of the Scriptures, making no statement without attaching some Scriptural basis.

 

[simonthezealot]

If you question this, then you must question scripture as a whole, for it was these same people who preserved and passed down the writings that we, today, call the holy bible.

What are you saying you believe everything from the DR's?
That is ridiculous!

 

[HisKid1973]

I had thought about that whole "catholic" thing..They could have easily translated things slanted to mean it referred to the "Catholic" rather that the church catholic..That whole latin thing would have allowed only what they wanted translated and those who didn't understand the language just went with what they were told.What a way to have complete control of the masses...pax..Kim

 

[ScottBot]

I had thought about that whole "catholic" thing..They could have easily translated things slanted to mean it referred to the "Catholic" rather that the church catholic..That whole latin thing would have allowed only what they wanted translated and those who didn't understand the language just went with what they were told.What a way to have complete control of the masses...pax..Kim

Kim, I really thought that you were above such pedestrian conspiracy theories.

 

[HisKid1973]

Kim, I really thought that you were above such pedestrian conspiracy theories.

No, I still waiver when I learn some new facts.. I don't try to make it personal tho..pax..Kim

 

[ScottBot]

No, I still waiver when I learn some new facts.. I don't try to make it personal tho..pax..Kim

I know, I've seen your posting history and consider you a very thoughtful and level headed person. Contemplating that the early Christian writers had some ulterior motive seems a bit base. They were, for the first 300 or so years, spreading the Gospel at the expense of their lives. Read up on the stories of Polycarp of Smyrna, and Perpetua (among MANY stories). They took their evangelical work up to the moment that death took them, one being burned at the stake, the other becoming a snack for lions in the Coliseum.

 

[HisKid1973]

I know, I've seen your posting history and consider you a very thoughtful and level headed person. Contemplating that the early Christian writers had some ulterior motive seems a bit base. They were, for the first 300 or so years, spreading the Gospel at the expense of their lives. Read up on the stories of Polycarp of Smyrna, and Perpetua (among MANY stories). They took their evangelical work up to the moment that death took them, one being burned at the stake, the other becoming a snack for lions in the Coliseum.

I'm not chucking the baby out with the bath water ..I am just find a few with spurious writing that seems to contradict themselves..

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

What did the early Church fathers believe about the infallibility or inerrancy of scripture?

With reference to the Inerrancy of Scripture I found the following

The doctrine of inerrancy flows very naturally from the Church's teaching that Scripture is the Word of God. If the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, if it is the Word of God and God is Truth...than all that He says must be truth. No error can be contained in anything spoken by God. So if the Bible is inspired it would be free of error.

From Jurgen's Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol 1, doctrinal index:

"27. No error can be found in the Sacred Scriptures"


The first passages cited by Jurgens is from the 1st Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. St. Clement was the third pope after St. Peter.

St. Clement of Rome, First Letter to the Corinthians (ca. AD 80): “Brethren, be contentious and zealous for the things which lead to salvation! You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which are true and are of the Holy Spirit. You well know that nothing unjust or fraudulent is written in them. [45,1]”


Next, he cites from St. Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, (ca AD 155): “[That the Scriptures contradict each other] -- I will not have the effrontery at any time either to suppose or to say such a thing. If a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind be brought forward, and there be a pretext for regarding it as contradictory, since I am totally convinced that no Scripture is contradictory to another, I shall admit instead that I do not understand what is spoken of, and shall strive to persuade those who assume that the Scriptures are contradictory to be rather of the same opinion as myself." [65]”


From St. Irenaeus' Against Heresies (ca. AD 180/199): “If, however, we are not able to find explanations for all those passages of Scripture which are investigated, we ought not on that account seek for another God besides Him who exists. This would indeed be the greatest impiety. Things of that kind we must leave to God, the One who made us, knowing full well that the Scriptures are certainly perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and by His Spirit. [2, 28, 2]”


St. Hippolytus of Rome, Commentary on Daniel (ca. AD 204): “Neither does Scripture falsify anything, nor does the Holy Spirit deceive His servants, the prophets, through whom He is pleased to announce to men the will of God. [4,6]”

 

[kepha31]

"...The Reformed Baptist author of the Christian Research Journal article claims, "The council had no idea that they (sic), by their gathering together, possessed some kind of sacramental power of defining beliefs: they sought to clarify biblical truth, not to put themselves in the forefront and make themselves a second source of authority." This statement, though brief, is littered with errors.

First, even if the proceedings of the Council were nothing more than a debate on Scripture, it is thunderingly clear that the participants believed they had the authority to give the definitive interpretation of the data. According to the position of the Protestant apologist, the Church had no final interpretive authority; if an individual Christian believed the conciliar arguments to be unbiblical, he could reject them. How different this is from the position of the Council itself. The very end of the original Nicene Creed reads: "And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that before He was begotten He was not, or that He was made of things that were not, or that He is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that He is a creature, or subject to change or conversion — all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them."

Again, recall that the real issue is whether or not the Council believed itself to be the final authority in interpreting the data regarding Christ's deity. Clearly, the Church that anathematizes (cuts off) those who disagree with its findings is a Church that believes itself to have the last word.

But there is another problem with the claim that the authority of Nicea rests solely on biblical authority. The Council did not declare that the doctrine it proposed was simply a restatement or clarification of the Scriptures, but that "the Catholic and Apostolic Church" believes it, and condemns the contrary. The Scriptures are not cited even once in the Fathers' definition, hardly a likely thing had they been adherents of some "Bible only" ideology. To be sure, the Fathers of Nicea were certain that the orthodox doctrine was found in Scripture, but because they most assuredly did not hold to sola scriptura, it never occurred to them to separate the Church's authority from the interpretation of Scripture. Rather, if anyone at that time held to a view akin to the "Bible only," it was the heretical Arians, who rejected the Church's definition because it used terms not found in Sacred Scripture, but rather taken from Greek philosophy.

The absurd, and the outrageously absurd.
In trying to make his argument that the Council attendees were Protestant, our apologist makes the outrageous claim that, "Convinced that Scripture is 'sufficient above all things,' Athanasius acted as a true 'Protestant' in his day." Oh really? Did Athanasius hold to the doctrine of sola scriptura? Everywhere in his writings, St. Athanasius takes the Church's faith as the rule whereby the Scriptures are to be rightly interpreted. This rule of ecclesiastical faith (Greek: ho skopos tes ekklesiatikes pisteos) he adopts as a canon for rightly establishing the sense of the sacred text. The Arian heretics, on the other hand, use their private opinion (Greek: ho idios nous) as their rule or canon of interpretation.

Glancing through St. Athanasius' Discourses Against the Arians, one will quickly see how classically Catholic his use of Scripture is: "Since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation according to their private sense, it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to show that they bear an orthodox sense" (Discourse 1, 37).

"This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that a very ecclesiastical sense" (Discourse 1, 44).

"This then is what happens to God's enemies the Arians; for looking at what is human in the Savior, they have judged Him a creature . . . But for them, learn they, however tardily, that 'the Word became flesh;' and let us, retaining the scope of the faith, acknowledge that what they interpret ill, has a right interpretation" (Discourse 3, 35).

"Had Christ's enemies thus dwelt on these thoughts, and recognized the ecclesiastical scope as an anchor for the faith, they would not have made shipwreck of the faith" (Discourse 3, 58).

And these are just snippets. Repeatedly throughout his discourses, St. Athanasius gives the Church's rule of faith, and then applies it to the passages of Scripture misinterpreted by the Arians. There is simply no other way to understand his defense of the Faith against them.
In his Letter to Serapion on the Death of Arius, St. Athanasius distinguishes the orthodox Faith from widely held opinion, not by reason of its Scriptural basis solely, as a Protestant would, but because it is the teaching of the Church. Thus, the dictum "Athanasius against the world" points out his defense of the Nicene Faith against those who reject the Church's interpretation of Scripture, not his defense of Scripture against the "established church" (as our Protestant friend claims in his article).
Athanasius declared: "For the Lord Himself judging between the threats of Eusebius and his fellows, and the prayer of Alexander, condemned the Arian heresy, showing it to be unworthy of communion with the Church, and making manifest to all, that although it receive the support of the Emperor and of all mankind, yet it was condemned by the Church herself" (Letter to Serapion, 4).
Perhaps our Protestant apologist is a bit disappointed that I have not yet engaged him in any quibbling about Greek. Well, he's offered me a beauty of an instance; in fact, it's his very favorite quotation from Athanasius, the one in which he pretends that Athanasius professes the doctrine of sola scriptura over and against Church councils. Speaking of the Arians, St. Athanasius says:
"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a council is needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in the divine Scriptures" (On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, 6).
Does St. Athanasius' original Greek really say that Scripture is "sufficient above all things"? No. In a very simple sentence which a first-year Greek student should be able to translate correctly, St. Athanasius declares "For divine Scripture is more sufficient than all [other writings, councils, etc.]." The sentence in transliterated Greek reads Esti men gar hikanotera panton he theia graphe. Here we do not have an absolute statement, but a comparative one. To say that Scripture is the primary source of doctrine is not to say that it is the sole source of doctrine. I do not know of any Catholic theologian, doctor, or council of prelates of any period in the Church's history who would not view arguments from Sacred Scripture as the more authoritative among various sources of doctrine. This quotation gives absolutely no support to the Protestant error of sola scriptura. The issue here in the Greek is subtle, yes, but seemingly too subtle for the Protestant apologist to have caught. Athanasius' entire anti-Arian corpus is nothing if not a scriptural refutation of heresy. The heretics claim Scripture as their guide. Fine, then let's show them how they err from Scripture itself. St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, all the doctors of the Church, patristic and scholastic, prefer scriptural authority. In doing so, they do not reject, but rather assert, the teaching of the Church..."
http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.4/coverstory.html

 

[archeaologist]

i agree

 

[archeaologist]

i agree with you

 

[BigNorsk]

It's ironic you don't show this in context and its unattainable at CCEL, could it be because if you've read Origen and know he was, indeed, a rigid adherent of the Scriptures, making no statement without attaching some Scriptural basis.

CCEL link: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.v.html

I searched CCEL

As well as the copy at New Advent at: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0412.htm

And could not find the quote.

Marv

 

[Trento]

It's ironic you don't show this in context and its unattainable at CCEL, could it be because if you've read Origen and know he was, indeed, a rigid adherent of the Scriptures, making no statement without attaching some Scriptural basis.

ORIGEN (c. 230 A.D.) ON APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION AND TRADITION
“The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the Apostles and remains in the Churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.” (Origen….“Fundamental Doctrines” 1, preface 2)
ORIGEN….A.D. 226 – 232 et postea

"Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, left only one Epistle of acknowledged genuinity. Let us concede also a second which, however, is doubtful." [Commentaries on John, qtd in Jurgens 479a


, “This was a comment on the epistles of St. Peter, which later were both confirmed as genuine., This discredits those who adhere to sola scriptura as well, since here, two centuries after Christ, they are still debating which books belong to the Canon of Sacred Scripture

.
Origen


"Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).



"When heretics show us the canonical Scriptures, in which every Christian believes and trusts, they seem to be saying:'Lo, he is in the inner rooms [ie., the word of truth] ' (Matt 24.6). But we must not believe them, nor leave the original tradition of the Church, nor believe otherwise than we have been taught by the succession in the Church of God."
Origen,Homilies on Matthew,Homily 46,PG 13:1667 (ante A.D. 254),in CON,392

"Now the cause, in all the points previously enumerated, of the false opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions about God, appears to be nothing else than the not understanding the Scripture according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of it agreeably to the mere letter. And therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us, we must point out the ways of interpreting them which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles." Origen, First Principles, 4,1:9 (A.D. 230).

 

[simonthezealot]

ORIGEN (c. 230 A.D.) ON APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION AND TRADITION
“The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the Apostles and remains in the Churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.” (Origen….“Fundamental Doctrines” 1, preface 2)
ORIGEN….A.D. 226 – 232 et postea

"Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, left only one Epistle of acknowledged genuinity. Let us concede also a second which, however, is doubtful." [Commentaries on John, qtd in Jurgens 479a


, “This was a comment on the epistles of St. Peter, which later were both confirmed as genuine., This discredits those who adhere to sola scriptura as well, since here, two centuries after Christ, they are still debating which books belong to the Canon of Sacred Scripture

.
Origen


"Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).



"When heretics show us the canonical Scriptures, in which every Christian believes and trusts, they seem to be saying:'Lo, he is in the inner rooms [ie., the word of truth] ' (Matt 24.6). But we must not believe them, nor leave the original tradition of the Church, nor believe otherwise than we have been taught by the succession in the Church of God."
Origen,Homilies on Matthew,Homily 46,PG 13:1667 (ante A.D. 254),in CON,392

"Now the cause, in all the points previously enumerated, of the false opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions about God, appears to be nothing else than the not understanding the Scripture according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of it agreeably to the mere letter. And therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us, we must point out the ways of interpreting them which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles." Origen, First Principles, 4,1:9 (A.D. 230).

Trento if you can't share where the below copy you posted came from how should anyone trust any of these random snippets...

YOU POSTED THIS:Both Marv and I searched for it with no luck...
link???
They key of the Scriptures must
be received from the tradition of the Chruch, as from the Lord
Himself.”Origen: De Princiipus: Praef. 2.

 

[BrendanMark]

His understanding of scripture is not literalist and biblicist, but theological and analytic. His ideas are formed through an understanding of the theology of Paul and John rather than through an accumulation of texts. He takes from John the theme of glory and presents an aesthetic theology.
Osborn, Eric – Irenaeus of Lyon [Cambridge 2001, p. 14]

Sola scriptura post-dates the Fathers, and particularly Irenaeus, by some time.