Drew Costen
The first response to look at is Drew Costen’s, which he later posted on his blog as “Some thoughts on Catholic and Orthodox views of Scripture”:
To put it simply, if the Bible actually contradicts itself at all in its actual meaning (not referring to types of “contradictions” that can be resolved by understanding the difference between the two Gospels, of course), we can’t trust any of it to be true since we can’t know which parts are true and which aren’t. And if the Bible as a whole is true, there’s no way that the majority of the Christian (especially Orthodox and Catholic) doctrines can be true, as I believe my own eBook proves quite definitively (which is why I do think Andrew should re-read the whole book carefully). And if someone is going to say that we need to interpret the Bible based on the interpretations of the Catholic magisterium (or whatever the Orthodox equivalent of that is), since taking the context of the Bible as a whole into consideration completely contradicts their supposed interpretations — which I would argue aren’t actually interpretations at all, but are really just eisegesis, since there’s no actual way to get pretty much any of their doctrines out of the Bible if we’re assuming the Bible is inerrant, which means they have to be reading their doctrines into it instead — they might as well just throw the Bible out altogether and simply say their doctrines are simply based on some supposed apostolic chain of tradition (which is basically what they’re claiming anyway), because they have absolutely zero scriptural authority to base their doctrines on (which they don’t need anyway, as they claim to be the authority), especially since Scripture is really not only just superfluous to their authority and doctrines, but is actually a hindrance to them when it’s taken seriously.
To put it simply, they can’t refer us to Scripture as a basis for their authority (or, really, for any of their doctrines), since if Scripture is true, then Scripture as a whole contradicts basically everything they teach, and if Scripture as a whole isn’t true, we can’t trust any of it, and we then would have no reason to believe the parts they’re “interpreting” as the basis of their authority and doctrines are even true to begin with. So as logical as their bibliological — and even their epistemological — claims might seem to be at first glance, these claims have irreconcilable problems, at least as far as I can tell.
Drew presents us with a dilemma: either the Bible contradicts itself, or it doesn’t and “the Bible as a whole is true”. If the Bible contradicts itself, then there is no standard to tell us which parts are true and which aren’t, and any faith which claims to be based on Scripture (such as Catholicism and Orthodoxy) is baseless. If the Bible doesn’t contradict itself, then it does contradict orthodox Christian belief (such as the Trinity and Incarnation) and supports Concordant doctrine instead.
I believe that the view outlined in my post is able to thread the horns of this dilemma. First, it’s clear that apart from any framework of unity and inspiration laid upon the texts, the Scriptures do contain contradictions. This is the value of historical criticism: it allows us to view the texts as texts in themselves, apart from our frameworks of belief. Historical criticism shows us that the texts, considered merely as such, do have contradictions between themselves – and not just minor ones, like the number of fighting men in Israel (2 Sam 24:9; 1 Chron 21:5), but major developments, such as between polytheism and monotheism in ancient Israelite religion.
However, I do not concede that there are contradictions within the Scriptures. When we consider the texts not merely as texts, but as Scripture, we’re already imposing a unifying framework upon them. Drew does this in his response (probably unconsciously) when he refers to “the Bible as a whole”. This unifying framework cannot come from within Scripture itself, but must be imposed from outside. As Drew hints at in his post, the framework which one chooses tells us, not so much “which parts are true and which aren’t”, but which parts are central and which are peripheral. For example, should the Hebrew Bible texts which (in their original context and considered in themselves) support polytheism be made central and be used to interpret the texts which support monotheism, or vice versa?
This issue is precisely what I was talking about in my original post when I argued for the need for a “canon of truth,” the term that the early Church used to refer to its unifying framework. The canon provides a standard which isn’t foreign to the Scriptures (because its language and associations are drawn entirely from Scripture), but is imposed upon them and determines their center and periphery. For example, the canon opens with a declaration of faith in “one God, the Father Almighty,” which tells us that the monotheistic texts of Scripture are central and must be used to interpret the other texts.
Finally, Drew seems to assume in his argument that if the Bible were irreconcilably contradictory, there would be no basis for Christian faith. This isn’t correct. As Irenaeus pointed out in the 2nd century, even the regions of the Church which had no Scripture (because they were illiterate) shared the same faith. This is because the foundation of Christian faith is not a text or collection of texts, but the person of the crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ, faith in whom has been passed down by his apostles and their successors, as it would have been even if they left no writings at all (Adv Haer 3.4.1-2).
Aquadude
Another response was offered by “Aquadude” on the Concordant Discord server. He writes,
Never made sense to me how the church would need to be the final authority of scripture, especially considering Ezra was entrusted with compiling the OT, it doesn’t seem right that scripture would be canonized by an authority who are given no direct orders from God unlike the prophets. There was a RevaGo video that said that Paul was the final authority in compiling the Old and [N]ew [T]estament together, which makes the most sense to me.
https://youtu.be/627LWhattTM?si=3fToZ5BsrOE5SFoH
Also since you mentioned there no evidence being a New Testament until the late fourth century, how heavily are we supposed to rely on what was documented historically? Some people throw out half of Paul’s letters and even the Gospel of John because they are not dated early enough, just as an example.
I appreciate these good-faith concerns. First, in the video that “Aquadude” shares, Colossians 1:25 (“to complete the word of God”) and 2 Timothy 4:11-13 (“bring the scrolls, especially the parchments”) are taken as evidence that Paul compiled the entire Bible in the first century. Unfortunately, while this is a nice story, it doesn’t match the historical evidence at all which shows that the list of New Testament books remained fluid until it crystallized into its present form in the 4th century (see my previous post). Therefore, even if Paul compiled the modern Bible in the first century, it was immediately lost and independently recovered by a gradual process in the 2nd to 4th century Church.
[As an aside: the two verses to which “RevaGo” appeals don’t support the idea that Paul compiled the Bible in its present form. Paul tells us exactly what he means by “the word of God” in Colossians, and it isn’t the physical text of the Bible, but “the mystery… Christ in you, the hope of glory” (1:25-27). The reference to “scrolls” in 2 Tim 4:13 hardly indicates every one of the books of Scripture in their present order.]
The concern that the early Church wasn’t “given… direct orders from God” to compile the Scriptures is a legitimate one. However, the example of Ezra “compiling the OT” doesn’t support this concern, in fact, it helps to alleviate it. Ezra himself was given no “direct orders from God” that are recorded in Scripture; rather, we read that “the hand of the Lord was upon” him (Ezra 7:6, 28), which rather suggests indirect guidance. Likewise, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would “guide you [collectively] into all truth” (John 16:13). If we believe that the present list of Scriptural books is correct, then the discernment of Scripture must have been such guidance.
As for the fact that “some people throw out half of Paul’s letters and even the Gospel of John because they are not dated early enough,” this proves my point exactly. Apart from the discernment of the 2nd through 4th century Church, there are some books of Scripture that wouldn’t even be considered authentic. We would have very little reason to believe, for example, that 1 and 2 Timothy were really written by Paul. If you do believe that they were written by Paul, this is only because the Church throughout history has recognized those texts as authentic and inspired.
Aaron Welch
Concordant blogger Aaron Welch – who, let me reiterate, has been a great influence on me and my journey of faith, and to whom I dedicated my original post – also offered some responses on the Discord server. I think it’s worth reproducing his latest response in full, in which he explains his view of the historical reception of Scripture:
I believe that every inspired document that comprises the Greek Scriptures was recognized as inspired and authoritative by believers wherever these documents were available/known to believers. To be clear, I’m not saying that, in the first century, every believer or ecclesia was aware of/had in their possession every inspired document. What I’m saying is that any inspired book or collection of inspired books (regardless of how complete or incomplete the collection was) that was known to/available to any believers during the apostolic era would’ve been recognized as inspired/authoritative, and that, from the time that an inspired document was written (and began to be read and copied/circulated among believers) until the time of Athanasius, there was an unbroken chain (or rather various “unbroken chains”) of believers and professing believers who, collectively, recognized the inspiration and authority of every work that comprises the Greek Scriptures. And it is ultimately because of this state of affairs that we have in possession today translations of copies of the full collection of inspired writings that we now have. The very fact that a complete list of inspired documents was able to be recognized in the 4th century is due to the fact that all of these inspired books had, since the apostolic era, been recognized as inspired/authoritative by unbroken chains of believers/professing believers.
Think of it like various “streams” of believers and professing believers who were aware of (and thus recognized as inspired/authoritative) incomplete collections of inspired books of Scripture. At first, all of the “streams” were relatively small, but they all gradually grew bigger (with some being larger than others, depending on the location and number of believers). These “streams” continued to grow and combine until the majority of believers/professing believers had become aware of the full collection of inspired books (and this “stream” continues today). But the “stream” that was comprised of Scripture-affirming Christians in the 4th century only existed because of the streams that existed before them. It’s not like there was ever a time when all the “streams” disappeared, and then “the Church” of the 4th century “saved the day” so that we can now have the complete collection. No; the believers and/or professing believers of the 4th century were simply a continuation of the streams that began during the apostolic era.
To continue my “streams” analogy, we could say that, after the apostolic era ended, the “streams” became increasingly more contaminated and polluted by erroneous beliefs and practices (including beliefs that contradict the truth of the evangel). However, this “contamination” did not, for the most part, involve a rejection of Scripture, or a denial of its authenticity and inspiration. Those who began to hold to beliefs and interpretations of scripture that contradict the evangel (and other scriptural truth) did not realize they were doing so. They continued to affirm the inspiration of Scripture, and continued to profess faith in the evangel (as they understood it). Thus, there is no inconsistency in believing that, while we wouldn’t have the Bible we have today if it weren’t for those who came before us (including the Christians of the 4th century) - for it was necessary that they, and those before them, affirm the authenticity and inspiration of all Scripture - we need not (and should not) assume that the majority of Christians and Christian leaders of any post-apostolic era were actually members of the body of Christ, or that their doctrine was generally sound.
Aaron’s analogy of “streams” is helpful, but he oversimplifies the picture. It’s not the case that all the books that are now in the New Testament, and no others, were recognized as inspired from the beginning, and that as communities of believers came into contact with one another they recognized the inspiration of each others’ texts and built the present New Testament. There were non-canonical books, such as the Shepherd of Hermas and the Apocalypse of Peter, which were recognized as inspired by some but ultimately rejected, and canonical books, such as 2 Peter and Revelation, which were known and rejected by some but ultimately accepted.
It is only by appealing to the standard that crystallized in the late 4th century that we can retroactively see which Scriptural streams were legitimate and which were not. There were some streams that died out, some that got larger or smaller over time, and many streams gradually came together from the 2nd century onward until they formed the “river” of the New Testament in the 4th century. I don’t see how Aaron’s claim that the streams became “contaminated and polluted” before that point, to the extent that they failed to be true streams at all (“not… actually members of the body of Christ”), does anything but reduce the credibility of the New Testament to nothing. It seems arbitrary and inconsistent to believe that the early Church was guided by God in its reception of Scripture, but not in its reception of doctrine.
One of Aaron’s claims is confusing to me, but maybe I’m misunderstanding him:
It’s not like there was ever a time when all the “streams” disappeared, and then “the Church” of the 4th century “saved the day” so that we can now have the complete collection. No; the believers and/or professing believers of the 4th century were simply a continuation of the streams that began during the apostolic era.
This is precisely the argument that I’m making. Concordantism claims that the true Church almost disappeared, if not completely, before the 4th century, and the day was saved in the 19th century when A. E. Knoch (with his one year of biblical Greek classes) recovered the true faith of the apostles. The claim that the Church of the 4th century was a continuation from the apostolic era is the one I’m making (along with the rest of mainstream Christianity), and this is how we can trust that the Scriptures which were compiled into the 4th century are truly inspired.
Aaron offered a few other responses on the Discord server, and I’ll respond to some of the points he made, although most of his points were reiterated in his last response (which I pasted above).
Andrew, so does this mean that you’re now a “futurist” with regard to the prophesied “fourth kingdom” of Daniel 7 and its final, saint-persecuting ruler? I know that the Eastern Orthodox Church affirms (in accord with what was the dominant view among of the patristic writers) that, before Christ’s return, there’s going to be a specific, literal human individual who’s going to fulfill the prophecies concerning the “Antichrist”/”Man of Lawlessness.”
Also, something that I find a bit puzzling is why the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn’t affirm the premillennial doctrinal position (according to which Christ will return to earth to establish a literal, physical, one-thousand-year kingdom). For we know that the main eschatological view of early patristic writers (roughly 2nd to early 4th century) was premillennialism. Instead, the EOC affirms the amillennial position (an eschatological view that’s historically associated more with Augustine, and which found its first systematic expression in his work, City of God).
The only fully dogmatic beliefs in Eastern Orthodoxy are the doctrines promulgated by the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The Scriptures and the “consensus of the Fathers” are also non-negotiable parts of Tradition, which are open to interpretation (hence one can’t point to their own interpretation of Scripture or the Fathers and claim that it’s dogmatic). The rest of Tradition, including local councils, liturgical hymns, and iconography, is important but ultimately open to negotiation.
I’ve been attending an Orthodox parish for some time now, and I can’t recall hearing a single word about a future individual Antichrist. This view was not promulgated by any ecumenical council, and the early Fathers held diverse views about Antichrist (although most did believe in such a future individual). It is hardly to be found in the liturgical life of the Church. The Creed, which (as the canon of faith) determines the center and periphery of our faith, only declares that “[Jesus Christ] shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end.” It’s safe to say that insofar as the belief in a future individual Antichrist is a part of Tradition, it is extremely peripheral. I don’t believe in such a future individual, but because this belief is so peripheral to Christian faith, I could certainly be convinced otherwise.
Amillennialism is also not a dogmatic position of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but it’s much less ambiguous. The Creed and the hymns relating to the Last Judgment associate Christ’s return with the final judgment and the end of history as such. I think it’s overstating the case to say that the main view of the 2nd to 4th century Fathers was premillennialism (chiliasm). Probably the majority of the 2nd century Fathers were chiliasts (e.g., Epist Barn 15; Justin Martyr, Dial 80-81; Irenaeus, Adv Haer 5.23-35; Hippolytus, Comm Dan 4.23-24), but this was also tied to a chronological framework that’s been disproven since Christ didn’t return after several hundred years. Clement and Origen of Alexandria opposed chiliasm, and by the 4th century most Fathers were amillennialists, which is reflected in the Creed. In his City of God, Augustine just systematized what was already the received wisdom in his day.
Andrew wrote: “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.”
I believe we have just as little reason to believe that the texts to which I appealed were “composed pseudonymously in the second century” as we have reason to believe that the other writings that comprise the Greek Scriptures were “composed pseudonymously in the second century.”
Here are some articles that I believe demonstrate the authenticity of Paul’s pastoral letters… In support of the authenticity of Peter’s second letter… In support of the authenticity of John’s letters…
It’s also worth noting that Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 69–155 AD) explicitly referenced and quoted both 1 and 2 Timothy in his Letter to the Philippians (specifically, Polycarp quotes 1 Timothy 6:10 and 1 Timothy 6:7 in chapters 3 and 4, connecting these citations to his praise of Paul and thus demonstrating his reliance on them as Pauline and authoritative).
Aaron later realized, correctly, that I meant in my original post “that we would, today, have no reason to think that they’re authentic and inspired apart from what took place [or better, culminated] in the 4th century”. In fact, this is precisely the case with his response! Every one of the articles that Aaron linked to was written by people with prior commitments to the authenticity and inspiration of those texts. The only reason that they have such prior commitments is because they belong to Christian communities that accept the list of Scripture which developed in the 2nd to 4th century Church! Aaron even appeals to Polycarp’s acceptance of 1 and 2 Timothy, even though he argues that Polycarp fell away from the truth in the very post to which I was responding!
As far as what Andrew referred to as “the alleged apostasy,” I don’t think that even he can deny that, during the first few centuries of “church history,” a progressive change/transition in ecclesiastic organization/governance took place, and that, by the fourth century, the organization of “the church” was quite different than it was during the apostolic era…
While those who belong to the institutional Christian church (whether eastern or western) will undoubtedly say that this development in ecclesiastic organization and governance was a good thing, I see it as just an outward sign of (and as coinciding with) the doctrinal apostasy that I believe did take place.
This is true, although not quite so drastic. The Church developed from a two-fold structure of presbyter-bishops and deacons in the 1st century, to a three-fold structure of bishops, presbyters, and deacons in the 2nd century, and ultimately crystallized in the 4th century into the structure of patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, priests, deacons, and monastics that’s (more or less) found in the Orthodox Church today. In its ideal form, from which the concrete Church unfortunately departed at times, this structure is not built on power over others but on a process of mutual consensus (e.g., Apostolic Canon 34; I Nicaea 5-6; Antioch 19).
Merely describing the historical reality in this way doesn’t involve a value judgment (whether this was “a good thing” or “apostasy”). However, it was during this same period (2nd to 4th centuries), and within the same developing ecclesial structure, that the list of Scriptural books was also developed. Like I said earlier about doctrine, it seems arbitrary and inconsistent to accept the present form of Scripture as divinely inspired, while rejecting the structure of the Church that produced it as corrupted to the extent that it wasn’t even the true Church.
Nash
Another question was posed to me by “Nash” who is curious how an ex-unitarian trinitarian would interpret certain passages.
Curious about Mark 10:18 in particular. The only response I ever really hear is “oh, so you don’t think Jesus is good?” which is pretty easy to refute just by considering other sinless characters, such as the archangels. (Who nobody considers to be God, yet are also clearly “good” in a sense that’s shy of the untemptable moral perfection that God alone possesses per this verse)
This is easier to answer if we abandon later and Western concepts of what the Trinity means, and enter the mind of the early Church. The Creed dogmatically declares that the “one God” is “the Father Almighty”. We know God as the Father, and as such he cannot be conceived apart from his Son Jesus Christ, who is the perfect image of the Father, sharing in everything that he is except for being Father. Therefore, Jesus Christ is not God simpliciter, but as the Creed says, “Light of [or ‘from’] Light, true God of true God… of one essence with the Father”. In the words of Basil of Caesarea, “There is one God because there is one Father. But the Son is also God, and there are not two gods because the Son has identity with the Father” (Sab 3).
It’s also true that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God. As Gregory of Nyssa argues in his famous Letter to Ablabius, this is because the term “God” (theos) according to its etymology refers to an activity (theasthai, “beholding”), not to the divine nature, which is incomprehensible to us and beyond all naming. The activity of the Trinity is perfectly unified. For example, there are not multiple salvations or judgments, but one salvation and one judgment which is operated from the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are precisely the ones through whom and in whom the will of the Father is enacted. In other words, the Trinity is God and his Word and his Spirit, and this is one God.
Returning to Mark 10:18, Jesus says, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” In the early Church, “God” in this passage was understood to refer to the Father (Clement of Alexandria, Paed 1.8; Origen, De Princ 2.5.4; Contra Celsum 5.11; CommJohn 1.254; 6.245). Basil of Caesarea shares the same reading, and he adds,
…even in this passage the Son does not speak to the exclusion of himself from the good nature. But since the Father is the first Good, we believe the words “no one” to have been uttered with the understood addition of “first”… Otherwise how can this passage fall in with the rest of the evidence of Scripture, or agree with the common notions of us who believe that the Only-Begotten is the image of the invisible God, and image not of the bodily figure, but of the very Deity and of the mighty qualities attributed to the essence of God, image of power, image of wisdom, as Christ is called “the power of God and the wisdom of God”? (Letter 236.1)
Many people are called “good” in Scripture, so it must be that no one but God is good in some absolute sense. God is the first absolute Good, but not to the exclusion of Jesus Christ who is the perfect image of God the Father, who is therefore also the absolute Good (cf. Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium 11.1).
It’s also worthwhile to look at the context of the verse. The young ruler who refers to Jesus as “good teacher” (Mk 10:17) certainly doesn’t have absolute divine Goodness in mind. Jesus is the one who introduces the idea of divine Goodness into the conversation, and he doesn’t explicitly deny it for himself: “why do you call me good?” This was taken up by some 4th century and later Fathers, who argue that the merely human term “good teacher” was not proper enough for Jesus, and so he hinted at his own divine Goodness (e.g., Hilary of Poitiers, De Trin 9.15-18; John Chrysostom, Hom Matt 63.1). Indeed, after reiterating the second tablet of the Decalogue (commandments about fidelity to other humans), rather than quoting the first tablet (about fidelity to God) to the young ruler, Jesus exhort him to give away his possessions and “follow me” (Mk 10:19-22).
These two interpretations of Mark 10:18 are not mutually exclusive. In his question to the rich young ruler, Jesus directs the glory of absolute Goodness to his Father, while not denying (and even hinting at) the same glory for himself. This is perfectly consistent with the properly-understood doctrine of the Trinity.
No comments:
Post a Comment