Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 5
Origen’s question is pressing: “Are we to suppose that the providence…had no concern for those…for whom Christ died?”; what does accepting Origen’s argument imply about God’s providence over church history, and what would rejecting it imply about God’s care for the post-apostolic church?
Another way to ask: If Christ died for later Christians too, what does that suggest about God caring for and guiding the church after the apostles? What does it imply if you think God did not guide the post-apostolic church much?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
Accepting Origen’s argument implies God providentially cared for the churches in their received Scriptures and did not leave them with “false scriptures” while guiding unbelieving Jews. Rejecting it, as the speaker frames it, would imply God guided “blind guides” to preserve the right canon/text while leaving Christ’s people without guidance.
- Origen asks whether Christians should “reject… the copies in use in our churches” and “coax the Jews” to give “copies… free from tampering and forgery.”
- Origen’s key line: “Are we to suppose that the providence… had no concern for… the churches of Christ… those… for whom Christ died?”
- David calls it “a masterful defense” and says, “I know of no better answer.”
- David presses the implication: “Are we to believe… God providentially guided the scribes and Pharisees… while… he left the church… without any guidance?”
- He frames the choice sharply: “whose decision…?… men whom Jesus called blind guides or… the faithful church?”