So, what came first, the Church or Scripture? Often, this kind of question is leveled at the Protestant in the hope that he or she will have to grudgingly admit- “the Church.” While some might dread such an answer, they shouldn’t. There was definitely an oral tradition circulating among believers prior to the New Testament, but the question that should be asked is “does this mean that the Church is what gives something infallible authority.”
When speaking with several Orthodox friends of mine, I have noticed that the question is often posed in order to show that Christianity was able to exist prior to the compilation of the New Testament documents and so the Church community is the necessary ingredient and not Scripture. However, I have a problem with this setup. My reasons for accepting the Scripture as the only infallible guide to faith and practice lies in its source- the apostles. After all, it was to the apostles that Christ promised to guide into all truth (John 16) and send the Holy Spirit to bring back to remembrance all that He said (John 14). I don’t have a problem with the existence of a prior oral tradition before the apostles (or those closely connected to them) wrote down their teachings. My concern is in actually receiving the apostolic word. And Scripture best preserves this for our time (see “By Whose Authority” posts).
It may be brought to the Protestant’s attention that an authoritative body was needed in order for the New Testament Scripture to be brought together. I would agree. However, it need not be agreed that the authoritative body must be infallible. Doing so would add another unnecessary step. What makes Scripture infallible? If the answer is an infallible Church, then what makes the infallible Church infallible? Whether one is Eastern Orthodox or Protestant, infallibility ultimately goes back to God through the apostles. The Protestant position simply eliminates the middle man in the infallible chain.
Hopefully, this will spark some good discussion
-
18 comments:
Here you are confusing material and formal causes. The Orthodox can take the Scriptre as materially infallible prior to formal canonization.
2nd since the apostolic writings are only known by you via tradition, to accept them is to accept the tradition that they entail as normative as well.
Acolyte: “Here you are confusing material and formal causes. The Orthodox can take the Scriptre as materially infallible prior to formal canonization.”
This post aimed at showing that the existence of the Church prior to the canonization does not necessitate that the Church is also infallible. There is nothing to necessitate the need for an infallible Church in order for the Scriptures to be infallible. Those saying otherwise should recognize this.
On the other hand, the Church was used in order to preserve and recognize these writings. That is not a problem.
Acolyte: “2nd since the apostolic writings are only known by you via tradition, to accept them is to accept the tradition that they entail as normative as well.”
Why think one has to accept everything in the tradition of a group preserving what was taught in Scripture? As Christians, it seems most sensible to go to the source of our Christian faith to know what is binding for faith and practice.
Asserting the conclusion again doesn't address the objections that I raised.
If you believe the church was used by God, then you agree that God used the church to canonize the apocrypha. Further, the "recognition" line only moves the problem, since it leaves the primary question, with what authority did they recognize the canon untouched, as well as leaving yourself open to the criticism that their recognition may have been mistaken.
If you are going to reject some things in the tradition, you'd need an extra-traditional criteria to do so. But since the bible is part of the tradition and depends on it, to undercut the one undercuts the other as well.
The source of our Christian faith was apostolic preaching committed to men and passed down. It was this that served as the basis for identifying apostolic and inspired works, not the other way around. How shall they hear unless someone is SENT? Who sent your ministers?
Acolyte
Very well stated.
Acolyte: “Asserting the conclusion again doesn't address the objections that I raised.”
Acolyte: “The Orthodox can take the Scriptre as materially infallible prior to formal canonization.”
Well sure, I would hope that they would.
“When speaking with several Orthodox friends of mine, I have noticed that the question is often posed in order to show that Christianity was able to exist prior to the compilation of the New Testament documents and so the Church community is the necessary ingredient and not Scripture.”
“It may be brought to the Protestant’s attention that an authoritative body was needed in order for the New Testament Scripture to be brought together. I would agree. However, it need not be agreed that the authoritative body must be infallible.”
This particular post was aimed at showing that the pre-existence of the Church and its recognition of the canon does not necessarily lead to the infallibility of the Church. Now, the Church may be infallible as are the Scriptures, but saying that the Church came before the Scriptures or preserved them does not lead to its infallibility. That is all that is being said here.
Acolyte: “If you believe the church was used by God, then you agree that God used the church to canonize the apocrypha.”
God didn’t have to necessarily use the Church. He could have used pagans to preserve the writings. I would not have to accept pagan beliefs to accept what was written. Just because God uses an institution for one thing does not mean he does the same otherwise.
And, in the case of the Apocrypha, I do not see good historical grounds for accepting it as Scripture. It looks as though the Church added onto the tradition of the Old Testament beyond what it should have (see earlier posts for a defense). If it could be shown that there is a strong historical case for those writings, I will have to rethink the whole Old Testament canon again.
I’ve been looking for someone to dialogue with on the Old Testament canon. Take a look at the earlier posts and we can go over evidence for or against it there.
Acolyte: “Further, the "recognition" line only moves the problem, since it leaves the primary question, with what authority did they recognize the canon untouched,”
The books themselves are given infallible authority by the Holy Spirit and the canon was recognized by the Church’s authority. I see no problem with that. The Church need not be infallible to recognize it or be guided by God in this instance.
Acolyte: “as well as leaving yourself open to the criticism that their recognition may have been mistaken.”
Sure. The test of apostolicity, orthodoxy, antiquity, and use could all be wrong though it is not likely. And perhaps the Church and later Christians were really not convicted by the Holy Spirit of the Bible’s infallible authority. You yourself could be mistaken in your “recognition” of the infallible Church. There is always that possibility.
Side, but related note: It is interesting that there seems to be a general agreement on which books in the OT are inspired before Christ, a disagreement between Christian Churches after, but complete agreement for the New Testament books. Lets chat about this under one of the canon posts. J
Acolyte: “If you are going to reject some things in the tradition, you'd need an extra-traditional criteria to do so.”
I reject anything from any tradition that says something is normative and binding for faith and practice that is not explicitly or implicitly laid out as such in Scripture under the New Covenant. By rejection, I mean that I reject it as normative and binding, but do not mean to say it should not be practiced unless forbidden by Scripture directly or in principle.
Acolyte: “But since the bible is part of the tradition and depends on it, to undercut the one undercuts the other as well.”
The books of the Bible were preserved by the early Church and are a part of the early Church’s tradition. But why think all parts of tradition are equal?
Also, why are the two are necessarily tied? God could have used some other means to preserve His word, but He didn’t. Why think God had to necessarily use the Church for preservation? Scripture more or less as it is, is not dependant on other parts of tradition besides the apostolic word in the beginning years.
Acolyte: “The source of our Christian faith was apostolic preaching committed to men and passed down. It was this that served as the basis for identifying apostolic and inspired works, not the other way around.”
Just to clarify, are you saying that Scripture was identified as Scripture because it was passed down by the Church?
Acolyte: “How shall they hear unless someone is SENT? Who sent your ministers?”
Those who confess Jesus as Lord and believe in their heart that God raised Him from the dead and go and share that news are those who are sent by God. At least this is what I glean from the part of Romans you used.
sorry for the long post. It might be easier if we focus on one thing at a time.
"I reject anything from any tradition that says something is normative and binding for faith and practice that is not explicitly or implicitly laid out as such in Scripture under the New Covenant."
Can you explain to me how sola scriptura is explicitly and/or implicitly laid out in Scripture?
There are many ways to show church authority and infallibility laid out in scripture.
1. The seat of Moses
2. The prime minister of the kingdom having the authority of the king. (Is. 22)
3. Peter receiving the keys from Jesus (Matt 16)
4. Peter being given the authority to bind and loose (Matt 16)
5. Apostles being given the same authority (Matt 18)
6. Apostolic succession: Judas is replaced in Acts. Paul implores Timothy to teach that which he has been taught.
7. Jesus' commission to the Apostles go out and teach...not go out and write.
8. Jesus promise that the Holy Spirit will guide them into all truth.
9. The gates of Hell will not prevail.
Authority necessitates infallibility because of the fact that the teaching has to be that which Christ taught. Once it ceases to be Christ's teaching, then it is no longer His Church.
Cat,
There is no need to apologize for the length of the post. As for moving it to another thread, I suspect all of the same topics will come up there as well as here, so for ease of discussion I am just posting here.
When I wrote that the Orthodox can take Scripture as materially infallible prior to formal canonization, I was responding to this comment of yours.
“Doing so would add another unnecessary step. What makes Scripture infallible?”
Perhaps there you had in mind formal canonization but it wasn’t clear to me that this was so. Something to consider, if you believe that the bible is formally and materially sufficient, why would there be a need to give a fallible list of inspired books? Wouldn’t the books of themselves be sufficient to indicate as much?
I grant that your post was aimed at showing that the pre-existence of the church and its “recognition” of the canon doesn’t necessarily imply that the church is infallible. What I do not grant is that this was actually accomplished. And the arguments I presented I think are sufficient to show why. Simply asserting the conclusion again doesn’t move the ball down the argumentative field.
Something else to consider. Even if the traditional argument doesn’t necessarily imply that the church is infallible the next option is not that the church is not infallible, but rather that it shows that it is probably infallible. But you don’t consider this option. Perhaps you don’t think it is a position worth mentioning. But reflect for a moment on most evidential apologetical arguments, which I am sure you think have some argumentative purchase. Do any of the arguments either singly or collectively for the Resurrection necessarily imply that it occurred? No, but yet I’d bet that you think they are sufficient to justify belief in it. Why isn’t this the case here?
If an authoritative body was necessary for the NT to canonized, doesn’t this imply that scripture at least during that period wasn’t sufficient? In which case, Sola Scriptura is a later theological development at best? It is also important to note what a canon was. A canon was a rule established by a bishop for a specific locale, which is why there were different canons.
Further, ex hypothesi on the view you proffer won’t it be the case that the canon is in principle revisable? And also won’t it be the case that it is established via human reason? And further still, won’t it be the case that every teaching form it will only have the normative force of human reasoning about God such that no one will be or could be obligated to believe it unless they understand it and assent to it? If so, this seems inadequate, for biblical teaching obligates a person regardless of their assent and understanding. That is the normative force of the bible exceeds what human reason can grant. Therefore, reasoning transcendentally, a necessary condition for that normative force would be an infallible decision. Consequently, an infallible church is not an unnecessary step. And what this brings to light is that Protestants and Orthodox actually have different targets in mind. Protestants aim to produce teachings that comport with reason and are always open to revision, whereas the Orthodox don’t. This is why the appeal to the principle of parsimony is mistaken for hat principle requires that the explanatory goals be equal between the two models and they aren’t.
Regardless of the adequacy of the church’s judgment to include the apocrypha, it is a fact that the apocrypha was viewed as canonical. Further, it seem irrelevant as to whether God could have used some other means to canonize the apocrypha since your reasoning leads you to conclusions that you do not accept. Either you must reject the reasoning or revise it in some way or accept the apocrypha as canonical.
Further the example of pagans is a case of comparing apples and oranges. In order for the comparison to be legitimate, it would have to the case that the pagans were the repository of God, divinely empowered to teach his word, etc. That just isn’t the same breed of cat. And it isn’t clear to me that on my view he church is an “institution.” Rather it is a society of people.
The question at issue was not whether there are good historical grounds for accepting it as scripture. The point was that the church accepted it as such. So if you accept that the church was used by God to canonize the bible in a non-infallible way, then you accept that the apocrypha is scripture on that basis. To say that the church made a mistake in the canon as you seem to do contradicts your previous claim that you believe God used the church to canonize the bible, assuming of course that divine providence didn’t guide them into error.
Secondly, there are a number of books included in the canon of the OT which you accept which I can’t see any good reason to accept on historical grounds as inspired. Take Ruth. What possible historical evidence would lead you to believe it is inspired? Secondly, given that inspiration is not a historically detectable character, I can’t imagine what possible historical evidence could show that a given text was inspired. Third, no historical evidence will necessarily imply that a given text is inspired since historical inquiry is inductive by its very nature. To be sure some Hebrews thought of it as inspired, but I can’t see the legitimate inference from, some Hebrews thought it was inspired, to, it is inspired. Fourth, there is plenty of evidence to show that the Jewish canon for a significant period of time was quite fluid between various sects of Jews. And it was a wider canon that the church for the most part inherited.
As I noted previously, to appeal to recognition only moves the problem since we want to know with what authority did the church recognize it? To state again that they were recognized with church authority leaves the question unaddressed, What authority did the church have to recognize, divine or human? And the church would need to be infallible in its recognition if it is to present the teaching with the degree of normativity of divine teaching. Otherwise it is just human teaching about God. So the fork in the road is this, do you believe the faith is delivered to humans or constructed by humans?
And here is another question to consider, Was their recognition sufficient? You seem to think it wasn’t since you think they goofed on the apocrypha. And you then seem to think that your recognition is, since you judge them to have made a mistake. But which is more probable and plausible, that you made the mistake or they did?
Given that the church in your judgment already made a number of serious mistakes in canonizing the apocrypha. If the church goofed already and for quite a long time, it seems significantly higher probability than “unlikely” that they have done so in other areas.
Further none of the tests you cite are either sufficient or necessary for canonization.
Apostolicity-We only know which works are apostolic via later tradition, which you reject as binding, and so on that basis we should reject those works as well. 2nd Not everything an apostle wrote was inspired, why think that what you have from apostles and their associates are inspired? Which explicitly claim to be? Further given that it is possible for an apostle to fall away, as did Judas, and Paul intimates even for himself and the few number of apostles that actually wrote anything , it is possible that all of the writings are that of apostacized apostles. And even if an apostle believed that his writing was inspired and you had evidence that he thought so, how would this imply that it was so inspired?
Orthodoxy-This is circular since we’d need to know what counted as right belief prior to the identification of the canon. 2nd this cuts against sola scriptura, since it implies the existence of extra biblical criteria against which we measure works to determine their canonicity. 3rd a work can contain genuine teachings and not be inspired.
Antiquity-A work can be old and not be inspired.
Utilization-Given your view of the church, the church could use a work and it not be inspired. The church could fail to use a work and it be inspired.
It is quite true that I could be mistaken in my belief that the Orthodox church is the true church, but this is comparing apples and oranges and here is why. My belief in the church isn’t supposed to function as a sufficient basis for the church to be infallible. It is only supposed to be a jointly sufficient basis for knowing that the church is in fact so. It is important to be clear on the different conditions for different things-one is epistemic and the other set is relative to metaphysical realities.
I don’t agree that there is general agreement on OT works prior to Christ. Also, agreement on the NT canon took well over three hundred years.
Noting that you reject anything from tradition that says something is normative that is not explicitly and implicitly laid out in some part of the tradition (scripture, since scripture is a tradition) will imply that you reject the canon since it is part of tradition and not explicitly or implicitly laid out in some part of scripture. I can’t see how this helps your position. And further, citing scripture doesn’t count as an extra-traditional criteria to adjudicate the matter since scripture is tradition as well.
I don’t have to think that all parts of tradition are equal, but I had better be clear on the nature of their normativity and the degree to which they have it. Further, if you can’t give what you don’t have then the normativity of tradition has to be at least equal with that of scripture since scripture is tradition.
Scripture as it is dependent on tradition for a considerable period of time after the apostles. Take for example the fact that the gospel manuscripts prior to 250 or so are anonymous and are only known to have the titles they do via tradition. Not to mention the fact that there is no formal canonization of the entirety of scripture for nearly another two centuries. And added to this the fact that the process selected specific manuscript families and not just names of books either. Which manuscript family of Jeremiah for example is canonical since they diverge by entire chapters between the LXX, the DSS and the Masoretic tradition?
Scripture was identified as inspired by bishops who passed down their own canon. The faith that they received acted as a hyper-canon on identifying apostolic works. This is why Paul instructs his Timothy to entrust the right pattern of words to trustworthy men. This is nothing other in part than your criteria of orthodoxy. Scripture is primarily for use by the man of God, for teaching, correction, etc. and the man of God is the apostolically sent and ordained minister.
The confession you give is inadequate to identify those who are sent since any JW or first century Ebionite could assent to it. Further sending refers to traditional Jewish practice of authorizing delegates, commissioning them and sending them out. Consequently, according to the Bible, this passage can’t be glossed in the way you offered as just any believer.
So I’ll press the question, who sent your ministers? In the Bible ministers are sent in two ways. Either by extraordinary or immediate commissioning or ordinary or mediate commissioning. The first requires direct sending by God and is attended to by miracles/prophecy. Moses would be a key example. Ordinarily commissioned ministers are sent from those who have been extraordinarily commissioned. Your position seems to lack both.
Thanks for the irenic exchange. I appreciate it.
Wow. This is what I get for being gone for most of the day!
I’m glad to see this post has sparked so many questions, but I think that many of these are going beyond the intent of this particular post.
After Nate’s work on the Trinity, we (or maybe just me) will try and have some new posts up on the following:
1) Sola Scriptura: Principle laid out in Scripture?
2) General look at Church infallibility in Scripture (concentrating on the EO view of course though the previous post on Acts 15 should already be helpful)
3) “The Church of the Egg?” series continued
4) Maybe addressing an argument Perry thinks is important
Acolyte: I would like to move specific questions on the Apocrypha to a new thread even though canonical questions could easily be moved there too. Still, I now see that there are some interests that go beyond this post and would like to explore them as well.
“I grant that your post was aimed at showing that the pre-existence of the church and its “recognition” of the canon doesn’t necessarily imply that the church is infallible. What I do not grant is that this was actually accomplished.”
Good to hear. I would be happy to address your other concern in another post. Would you mind putting it in simple syllogistic form? Or, is this argument in some form on your blog?
“And the arguments I presented I think are sufficient to show why. Simply asserting the conclusion again doesn’t move the ball down the argumentative field.”
The asserting of the conclusion was merely aimed at showing what the purpose of this particular post was.
“But you don’t consider this option. Perhaps you don’t think it is a position worth mentioning.”
This post was not meant to be all inclusive…there is plenty more to write and explore still ^_^
As for everything else, I personally try and stay on topic or limit what I have to say in the hopes of maintaining a truth conducive environment- so as to not drown out the issue actually being put forward. I’m sure that you simply want to make your views heard and that is something respectable. However, I would like to make sure that what is important is voiced and properly addressed (having an abundance of info where some belongs and some does not hinders that).
So, how about this: would you be up for making one or a series of posts on our blog addressing the one or two points you find most important? That would definitely save me the time of creating a post geared towards your claims and would ensure that your concern could be heard without any unintentional twisting.
If you are up for it and my other blog mates are, I am sure we can have some fruitful discussion.
-----------------------------------
Oh, and just for the heck of it:
“The confession you give is inadequate to identify those who are sent since any JW or first century Ebionite could assent to it.”
Tell Paul that. I only took it from the context of the piece of verse you gave me. ^_-
Cat,
If you wish to move the questions on the apocrypha to a distinct post, it’s your blog. As for putting the arguments in a more strict format, I think they are adequate as they stand for conversational purposes, but feel free to formulate them as you wish.
As I was not ignorant concerning the goal of the post, re-asserting the conclusion wasn’t necessary and didn’t add to or move the argument. And while the post isn’t meant to be all inclusive, it would be beneficial to anticipate plausible responses from the other side.
For the most part, everything I wrote either directly addresses your points or follows the line of thinking. If I am not on topic, then I can’t see how your comments are either. I would expect that you are able to defend point by point the arguments you put forward, otherwise you wouldn’t post them. So I expect you to defend your position. If you wish to restrict discussion to narrow the focus, then this can be done when the post is written. But it is your blog so you can focus on those comments you think are most germane.
The confession you give isn’t adequate as it stands for identifying those who are sent. And in context, Paul does not give it as a means to do so. He only gives it as an adequate salvific response to the message from those who are sent.
It would seem that you have some concerns that go beyond the mere pre-existence of the Church equalling infallibility. The offer is still available: would you like to make a case for one of these other views on our blog?
David, I am sorry I skipped over your comment so quickly. I will try and not be so easily distracted by other comments in the future.
Your comment def addresses this post and since you are bringing up a number of Scriptural arguments, I will check each one and address them in an upcoming post if they can be used in support of Easter Orthodoxy (there are some Catholic views that I am not knowledgeable enough to counter).
Cat
I am not really asking you to address (although, you are obviously free to do so)my arguments as I am asking you to make a real case for Sola Scriptura. Most arguments that I hear for SS are things like: right reason and proper basicality or attempts to proof text. None of these are satisfactory arguments.
Cat,
as for the offer, I don't think I need to re-write what I have written into a separate post. I took the time to respond to everything in your and nate's posts line by line.
David- Alright. Well, they would still be interesting to go over. Maybe more of an e-mail chat sometime. I would love to hear how the Catholic Church arrives at their interpretation.
"as I am asking you to make a real case for Sola Scriptura."
We are in the process of planning this out now. There are many parts to cover and we need to decide which part of the SS argument to cover first and how we as a team will get it done. I personally still need to do more research (a lot) to see if it is actually not a historically new concept.
Just out of curiosity, what sorts of questions or issues to you think advocates of SS do not address when directly defending it head on? The question is open to acolyte too if he wants to answer.
Acolyte-
"as for the offer, I don't think I need to re-write what I have written into a separate post."
Heh I guess we could just copy and paste it into several posts or make it into a small book. But that's fine, I'll maybe pick up some of what you said in the next part of the series after we finish with our bigger project.
Cat
To which Catholic interpretation are you referring?
Whichever you find most convincing
Post a Comment