Last month, Aaron Welch responded to some of my earlier blog posts about my preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation. Since he was such a big part of my own journey and growth in faith (and my decision to start a blog), I’d like to take this opportunity to thank him for engaging with my views. His responses certainly highlighted quite a few weaknesses in my reading of various passages. After a back-and-forth dialogue online, Aaron challenged me to better explain my hermeneutic for interpreting Scripture. In this post, I’ll try to do just that. Unfortunately I suspect that Aaron will be disappointed, only because my hermeneutic has grown so different from the ‘Concordant’ hermeneutic that he and I used to share.
In examining and refining my own hermeneutic in order to write this post, I’ve come to realize just how different my hermeneutic is today than in the past, even than just two years ago when I wrote the bulk of my articles about preterism. At that time, I would have described my hermeneutic as grammatical-historical, perhaps historical-critical. I subscribed to the principles that authorial intent determines the correct meaning of the text and that “Scripture interprets Scripture” (while recognizing the importance of extrabiblical literature for context). Now, I wouldn’t even say that I subscribe to the principle of sola Scriptura; if at all, only in an extremely qualified form.
In this post, I will explain my hermeneutic via three categories – community, canon, and Christ – which I believe should govern a Christian reading of the Scriptures. The first two categories govern the interpretation of any text believed to be inspired (even ‘Concordant’ interpretation of the Bible), while the third is distinctively Christian. [Aaron: I apologize if the hermeneutic that I describe here seems different to what I said in our earlier discussion… I hadn’t fully fleshed out these ideas at that time, even though they were in the back of my mind, and your challenge led me to reexamine and refine my principles of interpretation.]
Community
“The Bible” (derived from ta biblia, ‘the books’) is not a single text but a compilation of texts from diverse times, places, and authors. Apart from the collection of these texts by various communities of ancient Judeans, and later, early Christians, there would be little reason to see them as sharing a unifying message or being collectively authoritative. In fact, it should be uncontroversial that no text, or collection of texts, can be viewed as objectively inspired and authoritative apart from a community of faith. [1]
Various communities of faith possess different scriptures, collections of texts that they consider to be divinely inspired and authoritative. The Islamic community has the Qur’an, while different sects consider different collections of hadiths (‘sayings’) to be secondarily authoritative; the Jewish community has the Tanakh, and considers the Talmud (rabbinic commentaries on the Torah) to be secondarily authoritative; the Hindu community has the Shruti texts along with the secondarily authoritative Smriti texts. The Christian community has the New Testament along with various lists of Old Testament texts, including the texts of the Tanakh with various other books (accepted by Catholics, Orthodox, and other sects). The ‘Concordant’ sect falls under the Protestant umbrella of considering only the New Testament and books of the Tanakh to be inspired and authoritative.
Each of these communities has certain boundaries of belief that define them as communities of faith. The relationship between the community and its scriptures is a dialectical one: the boundaries of belief dictate which interpretations of scripture are considered acceptable, while the scriptures also inform those boundaries. For example, since the New Testament repeatedly and forcefully makes the claim that Jesus is the Christ, it would be nonsense to accept the New Testament while denying that claim. In turn, it would make very little sense to accept some scriptures while rejecting the community that produced and traditioned (or ‘canonized’) them.
Note that I’m not saying that, in order to accept certain scriptures as infallible and/or inerrant, one must also accept that the community which traditioned them is infallible and/or inerrant (an argument made by some Catholic apologists). This would lead to an infinite regress: in order to know that the Scriptures are infallible, we would need an infallible source to tell us that, but we would also need an infallible source backing up that one, and so on… [2] Instead, I’m saying that anyone who accepts the particular scriptures of a community of faith should also abide by the boundaries set by that community, or else they are inconsistent. This argument is epistemological, not ontological: in order to believe that the Scriptures are inspired, we must believe that the Church which produced and traditioned them was also guided by God. Thus, the community must possess primacy of interpretation over their own scriptures.
So far, nothing that I’ve said damages the ‘Concordant’ view. Members of the ‘Concordant’ community are perfectly consistent in accepting their list of Old and New Testament scriptures, while also abiding by their community’s boundaries of belief (which includes universal salvation, the non-deity of Christ, and dispensationalism).
The community which produced and traditioned the New Testament wasn’t merely an intellectual community, but was sacramentally united through baptism and communion. The community which Paul called the “one body” of Christ was entered into by “one baptism” and remained united by “one bread” (1 Cor 10:16-17; 12:12-13; Eph 4:4-6; cf. Rom 12:4-5; Eph 2:16; 3:6; Col 3:15). Furthermore, the process of traditioning the Christian Scriptures into their present form continued into the fourth century.
- The first indication of compilations of early Christian literature comes from the early second century: Polycarp’s reference to a corpus of Ignatius’ letters (Pol Phil 13.2) and 2 Peter’s reference to a corpus of Paul’s letters (2 Pet 3:15-16). Justin Martyr (ca. AD 150) frequently refers to the “memoirs of the apostles,” which based on his quotations includes the synoptic gospels.
- The first authoritative corpora of New Testament texts come from the mid to late second century: “Marcion’s canon” of the Gospel of Marcion and ten Pauline letters, and the “Muratorian canon” which included four gospels (including Luke-Acts and John), all thirteen Pauline letters, 1 and 2 or 3 John, Jude, and Revelation, along with the Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon.
- Irenaeus (ca. AD 180) refers to an authoritative corpus of four gospels (Adv Haer 3.11.8) and cites the Shepherd of Hermas as “scripture” (4.20.2), as well as citing every New Testament book except Philemon, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Jude. Tertullian (ca. AD 200) cites every New Testament book except James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John. Origen of Alexandria (ca. AD 230) cites every New Testament book except James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, along with some other early Christian texts (including the Shepherd of Hermas) that he considered divinely inspired. Eusebius (ca. AD 330) gives a list of New Testament writings that excludes James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation as disputed, and he rejects the Shepherd of Hermas.
- The now-accepted list of twenty-seven New Testament books is first attested in the mid to late fourth century: Athanasius refers to this list as “canonized” in his 39th festal letter (AD 367), and it was officially accepted in the West at the synods of Rome (383) and Hippo (393). However, disputes about the list of New and especially Old Testament texts continued beyond the fourth century.
This doesn’t disqualify Orthodox, Catholic, or most Protestant groups, which do claim continuity with the Church of the fourth century. However, it disqualifies restorationist groups like Mormonism, Iglesia ni Cristo, and the ‘Concordant’ sect, which reject continuity with the early Church. The ‘Concordant’ sect is internally consistent in its claim that the true Christian community disappeared after the apostolic age and was reconstituted in the 19th century, or that there was a continuity of ‘Concordant’ doctrine that is entirely invisible to history – but this is no more plausible from the outside than the similar claims made by Mormonism or any other restorationist group.
Objection: the early Church fell away after the death of the apostles, or even within their lifetime, as evidenced by e.g. 2 Tim 1:15 and contradiction between the New Testament and early Church. Aaron Welch argues cogently for this view in his article “They Will Not Tolerate Sound Teaching: Exposing Christianity’s Counterfeit Church”. There are many passages in the New Testament that warn against doctrinal apostasy, especially as Aaron points out “in the later writings (1 Tim 1:3-11; 4:1-3; 2 Tim 4:3-4; 1 John 2:18-20, 24; 4:1-3; 2 Pet 2:1-3, 20-21; Jude 1:3-4).”
However, the only reason we have these passages (and consider them authoritative) is precisely because this same Church traditioned them as Scripture. This tension within the argument seems irreconcilable to me. In fact, these same texts to which Aaron appeals (1 and 2 Timothy, 1 John, 2 Peter and Jude) show every indication from the outside of having been composed pseudonymously in the second century, after the alleged apostasy took place! Apart from the early Church’s acceptance of these texts as authentic and inspired, there would be no basis to interpret them in the way that Aaron does. Extra ecclesiam nulla scriptura, [3] and without scripture there is no argument.
A similar argument is that the true community of faith is expected to be in the minority, in both the Old and New Testaments. For example, see Elijah’s remnant in the time of Ahab (1 Kgs 19:9-18; Rom 11:2-4), and Jeremiah’s persecution by the other prophets, and Jesus’ statement that “there are few who find [life]” (Matt 7:14; Luke 13:23ff).
However, the example of Elijah illustrates the opposite point, that the true community will not die but will always possess at least a remnant (Rom 11:2-5). Although there were few who found life in the time of Jesus’ ministry, he told parables about how the kingdom of God would grow large (Matt 13:31-33). There were also times in Church history in which the party that ultimately won out was in the minority and/or persecuted (e.g., the mid-fourth century and the Iconoclasms). Finally, this argument simply doesn’t get at the root of the issue, which is that without the true Church surviving into the fourth century, there could be no New Testament at all.
Objection: doctrinal development in the early Church was enforced from the top down and is therefore false. The popular example is that Constantine I created the biblical canon and/or doctrine of the Trinity at the Council of Nicaea (which is a myth), but there are certainly examples of this. The Roman emperor played a large role in the seven ecumenical councils and in certain cases (especially Constantinople I) forced a particular decision. [4]
Although I once found this argument convincing, it’s actually fallacious. [5] An orthodox position may have been reached by coercion rather than dialogue, and it may have been enforced by unsavory methods, but this does not make it false. Merely describing the historical reality doesn’t negate the possibility of divine guidance; if it did, then the historical Jesus of Nazareth could never be reconciled with the Christ of faith. Christ’s death was also procured by unsavory men and means, while being God’s plan for salvation (Acts 2:23; 4:27-28).
Furthermore, by the principle described in Acts 5:34-39, [6] the true Church could never be wiped out by the authorities (cf. Matt 16:18). [7] It was morally wrong for the Roman emperors to persecute heretics, but the fact remains that if those heretics were the true Church – and the orthodox were not – then the emperor would have been “fighting against God” and not able to overthrow them. There were periods when the imperial authority was directed against the party that became orthodox (such as the mid-fourth century and the periods of iconoclasm), and the emperors even convened councils directed against them, but did not succeed. This means the empire couldn’t have been the only determining factor in the doctrinal development of the early Church.
Canon
The Scriptures, like virtually any collection of texts, have tensions and contradictions within them. Apart from the presupposition of inspiration and univocality, this is very clear. [8] For example, there is a clear tension between Paul and James regarding the role of works in salvation. This can be resolved in a few different ways. Hyperdispensationalists presuppose based on this tension that Paul and James taught different (yet equally legitimate) gospels, and therefore emphasize points of distinction between the two and deemphasize similarity. [9] The traditional approach is to presuppose that Paul and James taught the same thing, and therefore to emphasize points of similarity and deemphasize disagreement. Another approach, taken by Marcion and to a much lesser extent Martin Luther, is to deemphasize James entirely as uninspired, or less inspired than Paul (or vice versa).
Apart from certain presuppositions about which parts of Scripture are central and which are peripheral, there is no single objective way to resolve the tensions therein. Dan McClellan’s analogy of a Lego set is useful here: the Scriptures are like a box of Lego bricks, which can take a multitude of shapes depending on which pieces are taken to be central or peripheral, what order they’re placed in, and even which ones are left out. [10] McClellan says that there is no objective ‘picture on the box’ that can tell us what shape the pieces should take, since the Bible can’t tell us how to resolve the tension within itself.
A very similar analogy is made by the second-century Christian apologist Irenaeus of Lyons in his book Against Heresies, when he argues against the Valentinians:
Such is their hypothesis which neither the prophets preached, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles handed down [lit. ‘traditioned’]… They disregard the order and the connection of the Scriptures and, as much as in them lies, they disjoint the members of the truth. They transfer passages and rearrange them; and, making one thing out of another, they deceive many by the badly composed fantasy of the Lord’s words that they adapt. By way of illustration, suppose someone would take the beautiful image of a king, carefully made out of precious stones by a skillful artist, and would destroy the features of the man on it and change it around and rearrange the jewels, and make the form of a dog or of a fox out of them, and that rather a bad piece of work. Suppose he would then say with determination that this is the beautiful image of the king that the skillful artist had made, and at the same time pointing to the jewels which had been beautifully fitted together by the first artist into the image of the king, but which had been badly changed by the second into the form of a dog. And suppose he would through this fanciful arrangement of the jewels deceive the inexperienced who had no idea of what the king’s picture looked like, and would persuade them that this base picture of a fox is that beautiful image of the king. In the same way these people patch together old women’s fables, and then pluck words and sayings and parables from here and there and wish to adapt these words of God to their myths. (Adv Haer 1.8.4) [11]
Irenaeus uses the analogy of the mosaic of jewels in the image of a king, which can be rearranged into different pictures (a dog or a fox). Unlike McClellan, however, he asserts that there is a ‘picture on the box’ which tells us how to put the pieces together. There is a correct hypothesis – a classical literary term which refers to the plot or argument which is “placed (thesis) under (hypo)” the text(s) for correct interpretation. [12] The gnostics have a hypothesis which is not what the Lord taught nor the apostles traditioned, making them like those who rearrange Homeric verses to create a new story (Adv Haer 1.9.4). The correct hypothesis is the “canon [kanōn, ‘rule’] of truth received through baptism” which allows readers to discern the “image of the king” from the jewels (1.9.4). This “canon of truth” is
…the faith in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth and the sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was enfleshed for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who through the prophets preached the economies of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his future manifestation from heaven… (Adv Haer 1.10.1)
This formulation is clearly structured along the lines of the triadic baptism formula “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19; Didache 7.1; cf. Justin, 1 Apol 61; Hippolytus, Ap Trad 21). It also reflects the “one-God, one-Lord” formulae [13] (1 Cor 8:6; cf. Matt 23:8-11; Eph 4:5-6; 1 Tim 2:5; 1 Clem 46.6) and the Christ-creed material (1 Cor 15:3-4; Phil 2:6-11; 1 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 3:18-19, 22; cf. Luke 24:7, 46; Ignatius, Eph 7.2; 18.2; Trall 9.1; Smyrn 1.1-2), which originated with Jesus himself and the apostles and were further developed by the apostolic fathers. The language of the canon of faith is eminently scriptural and based in the writings of the apostles. [14] The relationship between Scripture and canon, just as between Scripture and community, is dialectical: the canon of faith is drawn from the Scriptures and governs the interpretation of Scripture.
Various formulations of the canon of faith are found across the Christian writers of the late second and third centuries (Irenaeus, Adv Haer 1.10.1; Epid 6; Tertullian, Praesc 13; Adv Prax 2; Virg Vel 1; Hippolytus, Noet 17-18; Novatian, De Trinitate; Origen, De Princ Pref.4). Although some of these formulae are more abbreviated, each author shares a common core: belief in one God the Father, [15] creator of everything; in the Lord Jesus Christ who is the Son and Word of God, through whom all things were made, who was proclaimed by the prophets, incarnated and born of a virgin, crucified, resurrected, and ascended; and in the Holy Spirit. [16] The fact that this core is shared by all of these authors, from various places, times, and relationships to the institutional Church, strongly supports the claim made by these authors that the canon of faith was handed down by the apostles (cf. Irenaeus, Adv Haer 1.10.1-3). [17]
The canon of faith developed over time into regional baptismal creeds, and ultimately into the Nicene Creed, which was standardized as the baptismal creed of the entire Church in the fifth century. [18] However, it retained the same basic outline and core. This canon serves as a fundamental guideline, the scaffolding on which a sound interpretation of the Scriptures must rest, the ‘picture on the box’ of the biblical Lego set. Without it, the tensions within the Scriptures cannot be objectively resolved, and any number of different interpretations are equally possible. In the words of the second-century Church father Clement of Alexandria, “The canon of the Church is the concord and harmony of the law and the prophets in the covenant delivered at the coming of the Lord” (Strom 6.15.125).
Objection: The Scriptures disagree with the canon of faith at various points, therefore it can’t be used as a guideline for interpretation. For example, the historical-critical reading of certain Old Testament prophecies calls into question the canonical claim that the prophets proclaimed the coming of Jesus Christ. The impersonal presentation of the spirit of God in the Old (and even New) Testament appears to contradict the canonical personality of the Holy Spirit.
This would be a valid objection if authorial intent were the only, or most important, factor in interpreting Scripture. However, that wasn’t the early Church’s approach to reading the Scriptures. This will become more clear in the next section of this post. Rather, because they recognized the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, they saw the human author’s intentions as secondary to the divine author’s intent, which must be discerned spiritually with the help of the canon of faith.
Origen of Alexandria especially developed this method of interpretation; although it’s found in earlier writers (e.g., Irenaeus, Adv Haer 4.26), he was the first to clearly systematize his hermeneutic. Origen distinguishes between three senses of Scripture: one of ‘body,’ which corresponds to the level of authorial intent; one of ‘soul,’ which involves taking a principle found in a passage and applying it elsewhere; and one of ‘spirit,’ which involves allegorizing a passage to apply it to a wholly new situation (De Princ 4.2.3-8). [19] All three senses are edifying, but certain heresies arise from only considering the ‘bodily’ sense, like Marcionism which perceives contradictions between the Old and New Testaments (4.2.1-2). Even certain “impossibilities” and contradictions are found in the ‘bodily,’ thus such passages don’t have a true ‘bodily’ sense, so that we don’t forget the divine inspiration and remember to seek out the ‘spiritual’ sense (4.2.9-3.15). We must learn to search the Scriptures and discern the “impossible,” with the guide of the “canon of piety” and of the Holy Spirit, in order to discover the ‘spiritual’ meaning (4.3.5, 14).
Although not all aspects of his hermeneutic were taken up, Origen’s influence was widespread, and the idea of multiple senses of Scripture – of which the ‘literal’ sense was just one and not the most important – was shared by many later Christians. Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus approvingly included his writing on this topic in their Philokalia (cf. Gregory of Nyssa, VM 2.89-101). John Cassian in the early fifth century exported Origenian hermeneutics to the West, and distinguished between historical, allegorical (typological), anagogical (eschatological), and tropological (moral) senses of Scripture (Conferences 14.8). Augustine also distinguishes four different senses and provides examples from the New Testament (De util cred 5-8).
Christ
The Christian faith is unique in that it doesn’t merely rely on timeless truths revealed through history, but on a specific historical event: the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. It’s important to remember that the earliest Christians had no written Scriptures, other than the Hebrew Bible which they shared with other Jewish sects. Their faith rested entirely upon the event of Christ, in whose light they were forced to reread their Scriptures before they could write about him themselves. According to Luke, the first thing that Jesus did after his resurrection was “beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the Scriptures… he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures” (24:25-27, 44-48).
The Scriptures are not innately understandable apart from the opening of the mind by Christ and the event of his death and resurrection. Indeed, we don’t read them simply because of the content they contain, but because of whom they reveal. “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life, yet it is they that testify on my behalf… If you believed Moses, you would believe me, because he wrote about me” (John 5:39-40, 45-47).
Paul shared the same perspective: “Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, the same veil is still there; it is not unveiled since in Christ it is set aside. Indeed, to this very day, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds; but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed” (2 Cor 3:14-16). The Scriptures can only be read in light of the revelation of God through the person of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 4:6), thus until his coming (and even “to this very day” among those who are without him), they were veiled. [20] This is how, for example, Paul can interpret the Exodus account as an account of Christ saving and judging his people (1 Cor 10:1-11), which is dubious as far as authorial intent is concerned.
If we recall back to what Irenaeus says about the canon of faith, this is what keeps our reading of Scripture in line with the correct hypothesis – what allows us to arrange the “jewels” into the correct picture. But this is not just any picture: it is “the image of the king” (Adv Haer 1.8.4; 9.4).
If anyone, therefore, reads the Scriptures this way, he will find in them the word concerning Christ, and a foreshadowing of the new calling. For Christ is the “treasure which was hidden in the field,” that is, in this world – for “the field is the world” – hidden in the Scriptures, for he was indicated by means of types and parables, which could not be understood by human beings prior to the consummation of those things which had been predicted, that is, the advent of the Lord. And therefore it was said to Daniel the prophet, “Shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the consummation, until many learn and knowledge abounds. For, when the dispersion shall be accomplished, they shall know all these things.” And Jeremiah also says, “In the last days they shall understand these things.” For every prophecy, before its fulfillment, is nothing but an enigma and ambiguity to human beings; but when the time has arrived, and the prediction has come to pass, then it has an exact exposition. And for this reason, when at this present time the Law is read by the Jews, it is like a myth, for they do not possess the explanation of all things which pertain to the human advent of the Son of God; but when it is read by Christians, it is a treasure, hid in a field, but brought to light by the Cross of Christ… In this manner, then, I have shown it to be, if anyone read the Scriptures. (Adv Haer 4.26.1) [21]
For Irenaeus, the correct interpretation of the Scriptures can’t be based on authorial intent, because they are only intelligible in light of their later fulfillment. The hypothesis of Scripture – the foundation upon which it stands, and to which it continually returns – is the crucified Christ, the Son of God. If our reading of Scripture does not lead us to Christ, then we have gotten something wrong. [22]
By the time of Irenaeus, the apostles who had known Jesus on earth and witnessed his crucifixion and resurrection were long gone. “Therefore,” Irenaeus says,
it is necessary to obey the presbyters who are in the Church, whom I have shown have the succession from the apostles [Adv Haer 3.2-4]; who with the succession of the bishops have received the sure gift of truth, according to the will of the Father. But others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves in any place whatsoever, are to be held in suspicion… [I]t is necessary to learn the truth from those who have the succession of the Church that is from the apostles… For these preserve our faith in one God who created all things; and they increase that love for the Son of God, who accomplished marvelous economies for our sake; and they expound the Scriptures to us without danger, neither blaspheming God, nor dishonouring the patriarchs, nor despising the prophets. (Adv Haer 4.26.2-5)
This continuity with the apostles is necessary, but not sufficient, to guarantee continuity of doctrine. The presbyters and bishops must be “sound and blameless in conduct,” not prideful, if they are to maintain true doctrine (4.26.3-5). Nevertheless, it is this apostolic succession within the community of faith that preserves the hypothesis and canon of the truth, and allows us to find the true crucified and risen Christ when we come to Scripture. [23] Christ is encountered not just in text or in history but in his living Body, the Church.
Conclusion
We’ve become too used to thinking of the Bible as a single, univocal book that reads as a narrative from Genesis to Revelation. This is an anachronistic perspective that didn’t become possible until the fourth century, or even more accurately, until the invention of the printing press. Before that point, for most believers, the Scriptures were a collection of texts that were primarily encountered in the liturgical life of the Church. The earliest Christians had no unique Scriptures of their own (“New Testament”), and had to reinterpret their existing Scriptures (“Old Testament”) in light of the event of the crucified and risen Christ, as their minds were opened by him (cf. Luke 24:27, 45-47).
The idea that the Bible is sufficient on its own for determining truth, when read by an individual, is not possible. Inspired and authoritative scriptures cannot exist apart from a community of faith that produces and traditions them, which therefore has primacy in interpreting the texts. Furthermore, no scriptures can be properly interpreted apart from certain presuppositions – canon(s) of faith – that determine what is central and what is peripheral. In the case of Christianity, the canon of faith is passed down through baptism. The Scriptures are not univocal, but a collection of polyphonous voices which the canon of faith turns into a symphony (cf. Clement, Strom 6.15.125).
The Christian faith has as its hypothesis the crucified and risen Christ, prior and fundamental to any interpretation of the Scriptures, belief in whom is passed down through apostolic succession. He is the true Word of God, because of whom the Scriptures are (secondarily) the word of God. Therefore, the Scriptures can only be correctly interpreted as revealed by the person of Jesus Christ in his Body, which is the Church.
______________________________
[1] Although someone might independently consider some text or texts authoritative for their own life, such a judgment would be subjective by definition.
[2] Even according to the Catholic view, the Catholic list of Scriptural books was not dogmatically defined until the Council of Trent in 1546 – previously only defined by regional councils, hence not infallible for Catholics – which means (according to the argument) that no Christian could have rationally believed in infallible Scripture until that time!
[3] “Apart from the Church, there is no Scripture.”
[4] For a good historical and theological overview of the seven ecumenical councils, see Sergey Trostyanskiy (ed.), Seven Icons of Christ: An Introduction to the Oikoumenical Councils (2016).
[5] This argument falls under the genetic fallacy, which is when a claim is dismissed (or accepted) on the basis of its origin rather than its content.
[6] “...if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them — in that case you may even be found fighting against God!” (Acts 5:38-39 NRSVUE)
[7] For a more developed argument, see Thomas Farrar, “Our Nicene common ancestor: an ecclesiological-historical argument for Trinitarian orthodoxy”.
[8] The benefit of the historical-critical method is that it allows us to examine Scripture from an external, purely historical and literary perspective, without presuppositions overriding authorial intent.
[9] For an example of this approach, see my old blog posts where I argued for hyperdispensationalism.
[10] See his video “The LEGO Bible” in which he quotes an excerpt from his book The Bible Says So: What We Get Right (and Wrong) About Scripture’s Most Controversial Issues (2025).
[11] Translation from John Behr, Formation of Christian Theology Vol 1: The Way to Nicaea (2001), 31.
[12] Karl Olav Sandnes, “The rule of faith: Getting the jigsaw puzzle right,” Studia Theologica 76, no. 1 (2021): 1-18.
[13] Note that in Irenaeus’ formulation of the canon, among others, the oneness of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are emphasized, while the third item of faith is simply “the Holy Spirit,” which indicates the combination of the “one-God, one-Lord” and triadic baptism formulae.
[14] Tomas Bokedal, “The Rule of Faith: Tracing Its Origins,” Journal of Theological Interpretation 7, no. 2 (2013): 233-255; Bryan M. Litfin, “Apostolic Tradition and the Rule of Faith in Light of the Bauer Thesis,” in Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts (2015), 145-165.
[15] God is specifically the Father of the Son Jesus Christ, a point which is emphasized in many of the formulations of the canon of faith.
[16] Some of the abbreviated formulae omit parts of this core, but all of these points are found in one or more of the formulations given by each of these authors.
[17] Bryan M. Litfin, “Apostolic Tradition and the Rule of Faith,” 161-165.
[18] The self-understanding of the early Church was that this development did not involve any innovation upon “the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), only further explication of that original deposit of faith. The extent to which this is correct is debatable. However, the development of the Christian Scriptures themselves took place during this same period, so it would be inconsistent to reject this doctrinal development while accepting the Scriptures.
[19] Origen interprets Prov 22:20-21 and the Shepherd of Hermas (Vis 2.4.3) to support this trifold hermeneutic. He allegorizes John 2:6 to state that some passages of Scripture only have a ‘psychical’ and ‘spiritual’ meaning, and lack a ‘bodily’ sense. As an example of the ‘psychical’ sense, Origen cites Paul’s quotation of Deut 25:4 in 1 Cor 9:9-10, and as examples of the ‘spiritual’ sense, he supplies Heb 10:1, 1 Cor 10:4, 11, Heb 8:5, Gal 4:21-24, and Rom 11:5.
[20] Compare this with Origen, CommJohn 1.33: “[B]efore the coming of Christ, the law and the prophets did not contain the proclamation which belongs to the definition of the gospel since he who explained the mysteries in them had not yet come. But since the Savior has come, and has caused the gospel to be embodied in the gospel, he has made all things gospel, as it were.”
[21] Translation from John Behr, The Mystery of Christ: Life in Death (2006).
[22] For an overview of how the early Church interpreted the Scriptures according to this Christ-centered approach, see John Behr, The Mystery of Christ.
[23] Note that this is different from the later doctrine of apostolic succession, which holds that bishops in the Church must have direct succession rom the apostles via laying on of hands. The second-century doctrine of apostolic succession, as found in Irenaeus, holds that presbyters and bishops maintain true belief via their unbroken line of continuity with the apostles. This doctrine, unlike the later one (which developed into the fourth century), doesn’t necessarily exclude Protestant churches from the apostolic succession, but it does exclude restorationist sects (such as the ‘Concordant’ sect) which lack continuity with the apostles.
