On the old churches, and why Protestants are still right.
(A response to a friend)
Well it’s a tough one, because those of a Greek orthodox persuasion are very into being Greek, and so the Greek theology is closely tied in with their sense of themselves and their thoughts of their own identity as a people. What I mean is, for them the fact that their theology is old and Greek, or old and Russian, or old and Armenian, or whatever is a powerful argument for it being correct, whereas for others those things hold no rational weight.
Every major heresy in the heretical canon of heterodox belief was born and flourished in the first few centuries of the Church, so for the thoughtful person, a doctrine being old is not necessarily good. Most old thoughts are bad ones. Arianism. Pelagiansim. Gnosticism. Etc. How would we know? What would the reasonable person think would be the deciding factor in a delineation of belief when there are competing interpretations of ancient lineage? Well, some would say, the judgment of the Church. But the Church was often persuaded by heterodox belief and later repented. Sometimes there were only a handful of Christians holding to the orthodox belief on the Trinity or the deity of Christ, for example. It often took centuries for the institutional Church to give up historically heretical content, if ever. The historical Church has been a notorious promoter of heterodox thought through the ages. That is not an arguable matter; it’s just history.
The Protestant view is that the only infallible resource, the ultimate arbiter in every matter of faith and morals, will always by necessity be, the writings of the Prophets and Apostles themselves, that we call the Holy Scriptures; the Bible. There is no avoiding it being the beginning and end of every theological conflict, because it is the content of every theological conflict. There is no amount of authority or power in an earthly office (the church) that can make them say what they don’t say or not say what they do say. And so they judge the decisions of men and even Church councils. All human decision can and will err, but the Scriptures cannot and do not err, therefore they themselves are the ultimate and final authority.
Someone will say to you about this, that that makes everyone judge for themselves what the Scriptures mean, and so it is by necessity. Even if someone chooses to believe that whatever the Church says must be correct, they have chosen what to believe. The question is, have they believed the right thing for the right reasons. The Church saying that the Church is right because the Church is right is not a reason, it is a confusion. It is an arbitrary act of power without rational justification and Christians are a reasonable people.
So if they want to make the claim, they will need to justify their authority. And how will they do it? How will they justify the identity, nature, offices, authority, and powers of the Church in history? There is no other option. They will need to argue from the Scriptures. And when they do, they have practically admitted what Protestants have simply revived as the dominant Christian knowledge tradition. That the Scriptures themselves are the ’sole infallible rule in all matters of faith and practice’. What we call “sola scriptura”, the fundamental article of the Reformation.
You can’t even know there is a Church unless Scripture tells you so.
And if someone says, you can’t know what the Scriptures are apart from the Church telling you what they are, we would need to ask, “What Church?”, and “How do you know that?”. If they say it is from the Scriptures, they have shown their argument to be circular and fallacious, because they would have needed to reference Scripture itself in order to know what Scripture was, which is the Protestant position; that the Scriptures carry their own authority. If they say it is not from the Scriptures, you may kindly disregard it as an argument from an improper authority, since nothing has the authority to justify the words of God.
Christopher Neiswonger
Christopher Neiswonger, christopher neiswonger, christopher neiswonger, chris neiswonger, chris neiswonger, chris neiswonger, neiswonger, neiswonger, neiswonger, neiswonger, neiswonger, neiswonger, neiswonger, christopher scott neiswonger.
Re. your final paragraph:
Instead of asking “What Church?”, how about “What Scripture?”
Did the Church determine, recognize, acknowledge what was Scripture? In antiquity by a very old Church with very old beliefs? Does the Church pre-date Scripture? It took not years, but centuries to really nail down the canon. Would that put you back to either supporting the Eastern Orthodox position or running the same circle 180 degrees out of phase.
It is often claimed that New Testament authority rests on apostlic authorship. But Mark, Luke, Acts, Hebrews(?), James, Jude were not. Mark & Luke were probably disciples of apostles. So are we resting on apostolic succession for their contribution?
These are not meant as rhetorical questions, but I look forward to your response.
Comment by Chuck — November 13, 2007 @ 10:45 pm |
Yeah… What Scripture?
And of course that would have been by a very new Church with very new beliefs, not an old Church with old beliefs. The question being, how do you know what those beliefs were? The question on point is the most important to answer. Whether or not the entity we call the Church was created, or better given an identity as such by God, prior to the speech of God that we call the Scriptures being given, is made irrelevant by the epistemological limitation imposed by the historical medium God chose as a vehicle of revelation. If there was a Church in existence prior to the giving of Scripture, that can only be known because you read about it in Scripture, or infer its prior existence from information that you find in Scripture.
The Apostle Paul existed.
The Apostle Paul wrote Scripture.
The Apostle Paul existed prior to writing Scripture.
The Apostle Paul believed and became part of the Church.
The Apostle Paul existed, believed, and became part of the Church prior to writing Scripture.
The only historical record that we have of the existence, faith, life, and writing of Scripture by the Apostle Paul are contained within the Scriptures themselves.
Therefore Scripture is the beginning and end of our possible knowledge of the Apostle Paul, his life, faith, practice, doctrine, authority, words, works, and ultimate significance.
There is no other mode of identification. There is nothing out-side of Scripture that gives you the identity, content, formulation, or mode of communication of the Church. Unless you care to posit some other first century A.D. text or some other record that we can examine for authenticity and veracity apart from Scripture, the Scriptures are it. There is nothing else. They themselves are the Historical record. They themselves are the testimony of the witnesses. You have no other source. You have no other record.
If we say “tradition”, we have unhinged ourselves from any meaningfully verifiable account of the authenticity and veracity of the Christian religion. We have destroyed it as a rational claim; a reasonable faith. By definition within the ambit of the early first century Church, we have no record of any tradition outside of the Scriptures and thus no way to measure what that tradition did or did not entail. The traditions that we do have are, predictably, the ones preserved within the Scriptures themselves. Any other, if there is one, God did not see it as important enough to preserve by instantiating it in clear propositional sentences (writing) so that it could transcend the boundaries of mere common practice. If there was such a tradition we couldn’t know it, and if we can’t know it, any kind of nonsense is provided a foothold by the mere claim of a tradition without any substantial argument.
It’s true that there are some other references made to the events that the scriptures speak of in extra-biblical accounts by pagan authors like Josephus, but they are merely in passing and of light value in determining the authenticity and veracity of the Scriptures themselves. What they show is that the Scriptures are not in any way obviously false. Perhaps even that some aspects are probably true. But they tell us little about the mode of baptism or justification or the extent of the Canon.
There is a historical Church carrying on through history. The issue is, that its identification can only be made by the application of deductive and inductive logic from the only reliable record that God has given us of His thought on the matter. To say that there is a Church, and the Church says the Bible is true, and then the Bible says the Church is the true Church is just confusing. So I’ll ask it again… What Church? Is the identity of the Church self justifying? And are the Scriptures not? Do you see the problem here, because I do, and I need to remain within the realm of fair understanding. To act against conscience is neither right nor safe. Unless you can convince me by Scripture or sound reason I cannot, I shall not, recant. God help me. Amen.
Christopher Neiswonger
Comment by Neiswonger — November 14, 2007 @ 12:17 am |
(In response)
That ideal of semper reformanda means more ‘always returning’ or reforming to the beginning than some kind of ‘always changing’ that the phrase is often accused of meaning.
And really, there is no necessary rule that the direct disciples of the Apostles had a better understanding of the Scriptures than we do since almost every New Testament work consists of lucid argumentation with the direct students of Apostles to correct their errant theology.
The early Church was by the Apostolic witness itself awash in error both moral and doctrinal. Add to that the fact that almost every major heretical position was born and flourished in the first few centuries of Christianity and the reasonable person with a sincere faith learns to be wary of antiquity. Nothing is good because it is old.
The doctrines of the early Church are as open to Scriptural justification as any other, and those things that stand the test of Scripture, shall be held, anything else, rejected. If there are better understandings today of the nuances of what Scripture teaches than the Early Church had the ability to sift out, then as long as the Apostles taught it, we are bound by a Christian duty to hold it as true.
These things, with more clarity than was taught by the Early Church includes Sola Scriptura and Justification by Faith Alone.
Neiswonger
Comment by Neiswonger — November 16, 2007 @ 7:18 pm |
Though only loosely tied to the post, I’m wondering if anyone has read “The Trail of Blood” By Dr. J.M. Carroll and have any thoughts on it?
Good post… and subsequent comments.
Jordan
Comment by Jordan — November 18, 2007 @ 1:01 am |
[...] On the old churches, and why Protestants are still right. [...]
Pingback by On The Old Churches And Why Protestants Are Still Right « Jesus Christology — November 21, 2007 @ 12:06 am |
In dealing with JW’s several times I’ve pointed out the circular argument (petitio principii) of the Watchtower and their claims. Good post Chris.
BTW, I’m really enjoying all your guys’ works on this blog, thanks for your hard work. SOLI DEO GLORIA
Comment by Jordan's brother — February 3, 2008 @ 3:40 am |