If You Don’t Have Evidence, Don’t Say You Do
any of you who know me, or who have been reading this blog for some time, know that I often struggle with just accepting the “party line” explanations about things. For me, it’s not good enough to say that “So-and-so stated it this way”, regardless of the reputation of said So-and-so. Their testimony might (and probably will) bear weight on the topic, if it is corroborated by others, but on its own, it doesn’t carry enough weight to convince me.
This has been part of my frustration with many theological topics. There seems (to my mind) to be a lot of just quoting other theologians out there. Theologian A quotes Theologian B in support of some point. Theologian B is actually just parroting Theologian C, however. So when Theologian A then turns to Theologian C as additional “evidence”, I get skeptical. Sometimes, it can even turn out that Theologian C quotes Theologian A, and the circle is complete.
One such topic that frustrates me is the topic of inerrancy. Now, please understand that I’m not bashing the idea of inerrancy. I think there may, indeed, be quite a bit of merit to it. However, I’m struggling with understanding the importance of that particular doctrine. More importantly, I’m struggling with the fact that both inerrancy and inspiration almost always carry a disclaimer with them that says that those characteristics are only certain “in the original manuscripts”. In other words, documents that appear to no longer exist. So what does it really buy us? If we leave that loophole open, how important is the doctrine, and of what use is it?
What frustrates me, as well, is the fact that the doctrine seems to not really be defended very clearly. A lot of presuppositions are brought to the table. Now, I realize that we all have presuppositions. But what frustrates me is when those presuppositions are 1) not recognized as such, and 2) treated as if they were already proven. Sometimes the presuppositions are so strong that “evidence” given is not evidence at all, or might even contradict the conclusion.
Recently, another blogger linked to a book edited by Norman L. Geisler called simply Inerrancy. It is actually a compilation of 14 papers written by different theologians. In the chapter entitled “The Early Church Through Luther”, Robert D. Preus begins with the following statement (pp. 357-358):
That the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant and of supreme divine authority, was a conviction held by all Christians and Christian teachers through the first 1,700 years of church history. Except in the case of certain free-thinking scholastics, such as Abelard, this fact has not really been contested by many scholars. Of course, many of the early church fathers and an even greater proportion of the medieval theologians did not directly address themselves to the subject of biblical authority. The former simply assumed the doctrine of biblical authority on the basis of an understanding of Scripture that was shared by both Tannaite Judaism and the early Christians. The latter developed a notable lack of interest in biblical studies and in seeking answers directly from Scripture for questions and concerns of the day….
But just as we can establish Scripture’s teaching of its own divine origin and authority on the basis of what is assumed rather than what is explicitly articulated there, we can clearly delineate the doctrine concerning Scripture held by the Christian church and its theological leaders from postapostolic times through the Reformation era…. On no other point do we notice such unanimity….
Here is a chapter that purports to give evidence that the church has always believed in inerrancy. For additional weight, the author also throws in “supreme divine authority” as something that was supposedly believed.
But does anyone else see the problem with the “evidence”? Here’s the premise again:
That the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant and of supreme divine authority, was a conviction held by all Christians and Christian teachers through the first 1,700 years of church history.
Now, one would expect this to be backed up with a plethora of evidence. This is a bold statement, and one which apparently warranted its own complete chapter in this book. But right after making this claim, the author then states:
Of course, many of the early church fathers and an even greater proportion of the medieval theologians did not directly address themselves to the subject of biblical authority.
Huh? This “conviction” was “held by all Christians”, and yet many of the writings we have don’t even directly address it? How can we know that it was held, then? Furthermore, with regard to the early church fathers, he goes on to say:
The [early church fathers] simply assumed the doctrine of biblical authority….
How can we know this? If a collation of writings from various authors in a particular period of time do not address a particular issue, how can we know that they “assumed” anything?? Oh, but it gets better! Don’t forget the medieval theologians who supposedly believed in the divine authority of Scripture unanimously as well.
[They] developed a notable lack of interest in biblical studies and in seeking answers directly from Scripture for questions and concerns of the day….
I’m sorry, but that doesn’t sound like biblical authority at all to me! How can one claim that a group of theologians believed a certain point when 1) they didn’t address it, and 2) they actually demonstrated evidence of moving in the opposite direction?!? A “notable lack of interest” in actually studying the Bible and/or seeking answers from it hardly indicates a profound belief in its inerrancy or divine authority.
The author appears to recognize that a lack of actual evidence might cause one to doubt his conclusion. So, he then uses an analogy that is supposed to make us feel better about his lack of evidence:
[J]ust as we can establish Scripture’s teaching of its own divine origin and authority on the basis of what is assumed rather than what is explicitly articulated there, we can clearly delineate the doctrine concerning Scripture held by the Christian church and its theological leaders from postapostolic times through the Reformation era….
I’m not even sure where to start with this paragraph. How can we “establish Scripture’s teaching” about anything if it’s not stated? We can do this “on the basis of what is assumed”? Assumed by whom? And what are the parameters on these assumptions? This is “argument from silence” at its worst and in awful proportions — and is the primary evidence given in support of a thesis!
Further, the notion that we can “clearly delineate the doctrine concerning Scripture” from people who, by the author’s own admission, didn’t even address the topic is ludicrous. Again, this is argument from silence. “They didn’t address it, so we can assume that they must have believed a certain way about it.”
Am I missing something? Does this make sense to anyone else??
And finally, the author concludes with this preposterous statement:
On no other point do we notice such unanimity….
I am speechless. Unanimity?? On an issue that is not addressed? Sadly, this is what seems to pass in evangelical circles as “proof” for something. It appears to be nothing more than coming to the table with one’s mind already made up about the conclusion, no matter what the evidence — or lack of evidence — might show. Surely we can do better than this, can’t we?
Until next time,
steve 
June 23rd, 2008 10:29
I agree with your argument with regard to evidence. Certainly there needs to be something more concrete. One point I would make however, is in response to your question, “How can we “establish Scripture’s teaching†about anything if it’s not stated?”
I am confident that you would agree with a Trinitarian view of God. I understand you to believe in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; three persons, yet one God.
Nowhere in Scripture is the Trinity specifically mentioned. We certainly see references to each of the persons of “the God-head”, and we can conclude by straightforward reasoning that the Trinity exists, but it isn’t explicitly stated.
That said, I do agree that the evidence presented in the particular work you sited is nonexistent. You are wise in your approach to embracing beliefs. Like the Bereans in Acts, we need to compare what we are told with the Scriptures to see if it is True.
June 23rd, 2008 14:26
While the doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture is one that I hold dear, I can appreciate your frustration with this type of argument.
I have recently witnessed (I think you have also) a hot debate in certain blogs on the doctrine of soteriology. It seems that most of the arguments that have been presented are “Dr. So-and-so say this” which is countered by a quote from Dr. Thus-and-such. Even scriptural references are interpreted in the light of ones favorite theologian’s opinion.
We tread on a slippery slope when we yield our right to interpret the scriptures for ourselves.
June 23rd, 2008 15:21
Steve,
I see that you are no longer a Mormon lover. Now you’re a Bible hating Mormon lover.
For the sake of readers other than Steve… he and I are friends who joke with one another. He’s probably the only person who will understand the statment above.
Now… for my real comment…
I think you would have enjoyed a discussion group that I took part in Sunday night. We discussed various “doctrines” of Scripture. While we focused on inspiration, we ventured into the topic of inerrancy. I’ve written a blog post (I think I have it scheduled for publication tomorrow) that will list some of the questions that we asked, specifically about Scripture and inspiration.
-Alan
June 23rd, 2008 17:45
Hey Steve,
I actually wrote a small series regarding the topic of inerrancy (you may have already read it – Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3).
I also agree with your complaints about arguments. I have especially come to the view that I don’t necessarily care what Theologian A, B, or C said about a topic. I want to know what God says about a topic. More often than not I find that people will quote someone because of their stature instead of the truth they may have revealed. I guess, in a way, I tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but at least I’m not drowning in dirty water.
Also, what you have quoted is remarkably similar to the type of arguments I see from Geisler himself. I would recommend that any serious thinker stay away from Geisler and friends. I don’t really think this is Philosophy, it’s more like rhetoric (the art of persuasive speech).
God’s Glory,
Lew A
June 23rd, 2008 17:58
Larry, in many ways I agree with you. However, you might be surprised to find out that I actually do take issue with some of the Trinitarian doctrine for the very reason that you stated. It is not “clearly taught” (as many like to claim) in scripture, nor is it ever presented in the New Testament as anything remotely essential to salvation. Yes, I believe in the Father. Yes, I believe in the Son. Yes, I believe in the Spirit. No, I don’t have any problem with saying they are “one”. But the doctrine of the Trinity that is based on Nicaean/Chalcedonian/Athanasian creeds has some flaws, not the least of which is the environment and manner in which they were formulated. For example, read my post “Know Your Heritage“, if you haven’t been reading here long enough to have seen it before. (It’s from just over a year ago.)
Gordon, great to hear from you, bro! You wrote: We tread on a slippery slope when we yield our right to interpret the scriptures for ourselves.
I agree. And I think the slope is even more slippery when we’re unable to be honest about the evidence or lack of evidence for any particular viewpoint.
It’s part of the humility aspect that I have tried to talk about on many occasions before. The willingness to say, “I might be wrong”, and the willingness to say, “My evidence is not solid here.”
Having said that, I would love to hear your take on the doctrines you mentioned either here or privately. (If not, that’s ok, too. I’m not trying to set you up for anything.)
Alan, you made me laugh out loud!! I can usually count on you for a great tongue-in-cheek response. You’ve pegged me pretty well here
(haha!!)
As for your “real comment”, that discussion group came to my mind while I was writing this, wishing I could sit in on it. I look forward to your post about it.
By the way, it was great to see you again a few weeks ago. Thank you for providing our lunch, too! The fellowship was sweet. It was, interestingly for us, the first time we had sat in a “church service” with our little girl. Brand new experience for me and I was quite nervous about her speaking out and disrupting!
Lew, I can’t remember if I read your series or not. I probably did, but will re-read it now to be sure. I wondered where Geisler was on this. Since he edited the book, I didn’t know if it was fair to assume that he actually approved of this line of “reasoning” or if he was impartial in it. Sounds like your experience with his writing has shown similar things. I know I read some of his stuff in Bible College (and maybe seminary, too), but I can’t remember back that far!
June 23rd, 2008 22:26
I’m with Lew and Gordon. I long ago quit caring about what the professors and clergy say about a lot of things, and worry more about what God says. And a lot of the minutiae they dwell on has little to do with the daily walk of Joe Average Christian.
I agree strongly with the need for individual reading and interpretation of the Scriptures–with the caution (I know, I’ve said this before) that we must keep a mental distinction between the words of Scripture and our interpretation of those words. And from what I’ve seen over the years, the professors aren’t any better at this than the rest of us.
One side issue that I hope will comfort someone here: The transmission of the NT through the centuries has been amazing. Despite the fact that everything had to be copied by hand for over 1400 years, the scholars who study the ancient Greek NT manuscripts have checked out all the variant readings and copyists’ errors–the problem readings all together add up to less than a page out of the whole NT, and none of the central doctrines of Christianity is compromised by them. We have better evidence for the NT text than for Homer or Plato, both in number of manuscripts and their age, and better documentation for the life of Jesus than for Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, or any other figure of ancient history (none of the first-hand accounts of Alexander have survived; all we have are third- and fourth-hand quotations, in copies as much as 1000 years later than the events). Regardless of what you may think about the doctrine of inerrancy as taught by modern evangelicals, I think the accuracy of the transmission of the NT to our day is something special–I kind of think God must have taken some interest in the matter. (BTW, if anybody is wondering, my source for this info is one of my old Bible college professors, who had done a doctoral dissertation on the documentation for Jesus compared to Alexander and others–I think he spent the rest of his career teaching about it.)
Phil Hawkins
June 24th, 2008 05:53
Every man is right in his own eyes, the Proverb says.
When my eyes view me as right, and I am heavily invested in having my role in others’lives continually reinforce my view of me; then I need to make sure the things that I say have “authority” behind them.
Your topic illustrates well only viewing Jesus as one’s righteousness, I think. Authority is in Him.
June 24th, 2008 13:00
Steve,
These are some things you and I have talked about before, though not particularly the book you have referenced. I agree for the most part with the post, but I want to tease a few things out.
When we do decide to quote theologian A, B, or C, in defense of a position, I think it needs to be done with humility. To a degree we need to take them seriously, as we should take everyone who would dare speak for God seriously. But I believe we run the risk that if I invalidate what Theologian A, B, or C says I also should open myself to the same scrutiny and that what I happen to say, though I may be using the words of Scripture, that I have not subjected it to my own interpretation. Many issues have been defended in the name of Christ with the defense that God said something on it–when what it boils down to is that the defender’s position is their own interpretation of something God said.
Sure, its OK to question the greats; I do it, too. But sometimes those “greats” do know what they are talking about.
By way of illustration of what Steve is talking about, I took a great deal of time examining the doctrines of grace. I do not know of any real textual reason to believe “irresistible grace”, other than John 6:44. I am not so sure that text is ample reason to believe in the doctrine as it is laid out by Calvinists, though I did listen to an intriguing sermon by Calvinist apologist John Piper; his rationale for the doctrine was a childhood illustration of a boy wrestling with his daddy and the boy was winning. However, when the daddy wanted to “throw” the boy, certainly he could. God can do the same. When He calls you, you cannot resist. I think there is ample justification in Scripture to sway the pendulum in the opposite direction, that men do resist God and some do unto death. The I in the tulip is more of a logical underpinning to make the doctrines hang together and not necessarily Scripturally based. But I’m not a Calvinist so I could be wrong there.
On the issue of inerrancy; I reread the Chicago Statement just to reacquaint myself with the document. It makes some claims that need to be examined. A few observations:
(1) Does the Bible claim inerrancy for itself?
(2) Is a belief in inerrancy necessary to saving faith/persevering in the faith?
(3) What about areas that are given over to logical extrapolation, which the statement declares are part and parcel of an inerrant approach, yet are based on no textual evidence, such as young earth creationism?
(4) Is inerrancy something that God enables us to believe, almost like saving faith?
(5) Should the anachronism of the term hinder its usefulness, because how did people before the canonization of the Bible get saved or even know what to believe?
I am not debunking inerrancy; I think it is an important doctrine. I believe the Bible, love the Bible, so I hope anyone reading doesn’t think that I have traded my “orthodoxy” for a mess of pottage. But these are legitimate questions that a lot of inerrantists do not want to (or won’t) deal with.
June 25th, 2008 19:48
Steve,
Since I haven’t actually read the book edited by Geisler, or the chapter by Preus, I realize I need to be a bit tentative in my response. However, reading over what you write here, I wonder if Preus’s argument might be rephrased something like this…
Though the actual term and technical definition of “inerrancy” are of more recent origin, many theologians and Christian thinkers down through history have ably defended the concepts of the total truthfulness and reliability of Scripture. Many others, especially during the medieval period, have not directly dealt with this issue. Since there was no significant objection raised during the first 1700 years of church history (with the minor exceptions of a few like Abelard), then it is probably a pretty safe assumption that all Christians up until around the time of the Enlightenment accepted the total truthfulness and reliability of Scripture as a fact.
I’m sure it would have helped Preus’s argument here to quote some of those who did address these issues (if he did not). Also, I don’t have the time to do the research right now to go back and try to find any of these quotes, either. But, I do remember reading a number of quotes from significant voices in church history that would indeed seem to confirm the general acceptance in the early church of “inerrancy” or, at least, its pre-Enlightenment equivalent.
June 26th, 2008 01:35
I’m very slow in responding to the last couple of comments, and I apologize. (Tony, put your hand down and sit quietly. I’m getting to you! hehe)
Phil, good to see you again. Thanks for bringing manuscript evidence into the topic. Yes, the NT has survived quite well in transmission over the centuries. It definitely gives credence to the idea that our Father has allowed these particular documents to be preserved. I wonder if there is as much evidence for some of the non-canonical books…
ded, all I can say is “amen”. Thanks for contributing.
Tony, my patient friend…
You’re right about opening ourselves to the same kind of scrutiny when we examine the statements of other theologians. And I, for one, am very open to scrutiny here.
As for the questions you ask, I agree that they are legitimate. Not sure if they’re rhetorical, or if you are asking me directly, but my answers would be:
1. No
2. No
3. We must be careful with these areas and not put too much stock in them or too much emphasis on them.
4. Possibly, but I’m not entirely sure what that means
5. Even though you may recall that I have trouble pronouncing the word “anachronism”, I do think it is an important word in this discussion. I think many of our views of the NT are anachronistic. (Which syllable does get the emphasis??)
Now, Tony, go answer my comment on your blog!!
(just teasing, bro)
David Rogers, I’m always grateful for your measured and considerate comments. You are a blessing!
It is quite possible that your rewording of the paragraphs is more accurate to what Preus meant to write. Maybe you should have edited the book instead of Geisler!
Preus does appear (from what I could tell in my reading of portions of the chapter) to go on to quote some who stated their beliefs on the topic, so that did get covered. I was just surprised that his opening paragraphs were written the way they were, and it seemed actually contradictory to his main thesis.
Getting back to your rewording of it, though, there are two issues that I see that stand in the way:
1. Preus didn’t just say that medieval theologians didn’t address the issue. He said they were moving away from turning to scripture for answers. That seems to me, like I pointed out, to actually argue against “authority of scripture” in their minds. The fruit of turning away from scripture for answers seems to indicate a view of scripture that was not very authoritative, so I don’t understand how he is using that to substantiate a claim of consistency over 1700 years.
2. While I am almost persuaded by your choice of words that “there was no significant objection” on the issue over those 1700 years, I’m not sure that leads to a “safe” conclusion that it was firmly held by most. (And it feels a little bit like your choice of words “accepted the total truthfulness and reliability of Scripture as a fact” creates a bit of a category shift, but I may be misreading that.) I think it’s equally possible that perhaps the lack of discussion on the topic could mean that it wasn’t really on the radar for most.
Certainly, in the New Testament, we see no mention (other than Peter’s possible reference to Paul’s writings as “scripture”) of written scripture outside the Old Testament, and no mention of “authority” of that scripture at all. But there are mentions (as you may have seen me say on Alan’s blog) of God speaking through his spirit, etc. Sometimes I even wonder if Hebrews 1:1-2 indicates the lack of a need for a New Testament canon at all. (I realize that sounds radical, but you, like many of my readers, seem to know my heart and intentions here. I’m just asking the questions.)
Perhaps another way to look at it (and I may flesh this out in a post at some point to give it more “air time”) is the relationship that God had with Israel. Here’s a nutshell recap of what we all know:
– When God created man, he had a very personal and intimate relationship with man
– Sin caused man to run from God, and damaged that relationship, requiring reconciliation to heal the damage
– God called Israel out of Egypt to be his chosen people in order to be a light to the world for him
– God called the entire nation to the mountain because he wanted to speak to all of them
– Israel, out of fear, refused and asked Moses to speak for them
– God conceded to this, and began a chain of speaking through prophets like Moses to the people
It is important to interject at this point an emphasis on the point that God’s choice was to speak to the entire nation — in a sense “face to face” with each person. It was Israel’s request for a mediator that caused the line of prophets.
– This is where Hebrews 1:1-2 comes into play. My paraphrase: “In days past, God used to speak to us through the prophets, but now He’s spoken to us directly through his son.” Then the book of Hebrews goes on to illustrate the superiority of the New Covenant and the doing away with the Old Covenant (the Law). Well, the Law and the Prophets were pretty much the written scripture that they had at the time Hebrews was written.
So for the writer of Hebrews to draw a contrast between how God used to speak and how he now speaks seems significant to me.
Likewise, Jesus didn’t give any indication that there would be more communication through written word. But he did talk a lot about the Spirit and how He would reveal truth to us.
In conclusion to this lengthy comment, I think there is some merit in the idea that God’s desire and plan is for personal communication. Can he speak through the written word? Absolutely. Of course. And does he? Absolutely. But does it make much sense to have a progression toward reconciliation and the revived personal relationship only to revert to him speaking only (or even primarily) through intermediaries (i.e., the authors of the New Testament)?
I’m not saying the New Testament is worthless or that I’m done with it. I just wonder what the proper place is for it. And I’m not sure the proper place is “this is God’s primary way of speaking to you”.
Am I making any sense??
June 26th, 2008 13:38
Steve,
Regarding your issue #1, it seems to me that one’s view of “medieval” theology hinges, to a certain degree, on the degree with which he/she accepts the Protestant meta-narrative that the medieval period consisted, by and large, of spiritual “Dark Ages,” precisely because the Christendom of that time neglected the study and application of the written Word of God. That is to say, it doesn’t appear there was an intentional rejection of the epistemological foundation of biblical authority, as much as a malignant (as opposed to benign) neglect of the foundation of our faith. In many ways, the Protestant Reformation (if you accept the meta-narrative) was a re-discovery of the centrality of the Bible as a necessary prerequisite for a correct understanding of the essence of the gospel message.
Regarding your issue #2, it seems to me that Jesus’ perspective on OT scriptural authority, combined with that of Paul, Peter, and other biblical writers, provides an adequate precedent for a similar approach to the NT. As you mention, Peter indeed seems to make this connection, with reference to Paul’s letters. Also, these same writers (especially Paul) appear to be cognizant, in the way they write, of a special authority that transcends that of other religious literature.
If we take away the sure foundation of Scripture as our epistemological starting point, that leaves us vulnerable to all sorts of heretical innovation in the name of subsequent Spirit-inspired revelation. The early church dealt with this particular question in the Montanist controversy.
To me, all this does not mean that the Holy Spirit does not still talk to us and continue to reveal the Father’s will, and other things, to us, as God’s children. However, we also have an objective guide, in Scripture, with the help of the combined wisdom of the faith community down through the ages, to help us interpret more accurately our understanding of the Holy Spirit’s promptings in our life.
June 27th, 2008 11:43
Possibly, but I’m not entirely sure what that means
Perhaps I didn’t phrase my thoughts well. I recently read by a noted theologian that believing inerrancy is impossible without faith.
He states that it takes faith to believe and embrace inerrancy and he compares it to saving faith. Of course the implication is that if you do not believe inerrancy then that makes your salvation suspect.
June 27th, 2008 11:45
Steve,
I agree with you that Geisler’s evidence is very fuzzy and incomplete. But, I feel that there are alot of so called theologeans and Bible Scholars out there today who have fuzzy evidence to backup their teachings that they try to say are scripturally sound. When in fact, they are nothing more than personal points-of-view.
It seems to me that some in Christian leadership who are celebrated and well known, have without questioning themselves, begun to believe their own theoligical points as being scriptual without going back to scripture to study it out. And, let’s face that fact that your average christian is pretty much brainwashed and believes just about everything they hear their pastor or some notable christian author say anyway.
As far as the relevancy of the New Testament today goes, For myself, I find that the more I read it and the Bible in general, the stronger my faith grows. Although, seeing God move in my life also increases my faith in Him. There are also many spiritual principles and concepts that we can pick-up by reading the New Testament and the entire Bible.
Also, when Jesus, finished His 40 day fast and satan come to Him and tried to get Him to compromise, Jesus used scripture to combat satan. That proves that scripture is an offensive and defensive weapon against the enemy. But, I definitely believe that the Holy Spirit is still leading us into all truth today. He definitely still my comforter.
Blessings,
Gary
June 27th, 2008 16:27
David, you’ve given me some food for thought here. At this point, I don’t agree with all you’ve written, but rather than “push back” anymore, I’m content to agree to disagree. I appreciate you, brother.
Tony, maybe my salvation is suspect, then?
Gary, agreed that there’s a lot of “fuzzy evidence” out there.
Let me be clear about something, though – I don’t believe I have argued for the NT being irrelevant. One of the dangers in this conversation is that people can assume that questioning the “party line” means a rejection of all that is true! That’s not where I’m at, though. Not at all.
June 27th, 2008 16:31
David, one quick question, though, in response to what you wrote:
What do you think the specific error of Montanism was?
June 27th, 2008 18:45
Steve,
Thanks for the question. You have led me to “google” Montanism and do at least a superficial “refresher course” regarding it. It seems like any reliable information is quite sketchy, and it is difficult to pin anything clearly heretical on Montanus or his followers. Some of the things do seem a bit strange, like, for instance, prophesying in the first-person voice of God, an emphasis on various ascetic practices, calling the town of Pepuza the New Jerusalem, and an apparent obsession with the imminent return of Christ (coupled with prophecies to that extent). Also, many people reached the conclusion they were heretics. And some even tried to cast out demons from Prisca and Maximilla, who left their husbands and families to follow Montanus and his teachings, and later succeeded him as leaders in the movement.
To their credit, they also seemed to have placed an emphasis on the ministry of the “laity,” and to have rejected the increasing clericalism in the early Catholic church.
In any case, it is hard to know the real truth about the Montanists, since, from what I gather, those in authority usually painted those they chose to brand as heretics as more extreme than what they really were.
Does all this in any way invalidate the point I was making? I am not sure. Even if the Montanists themselves were not heretics, there does seem to me to be a valid need to have some objective standard (e.g. Scripture) by which to measure supposed subsequent revelation, among which I think we both would agree there has been plenty of blatant heresy and falsehood down through the years.
June 27th, 2008 20:43
David, thank you for your honest answer, both in terms of what you actually read, and even in terms of having to Google to refresh yourself.
As a matter of fact, I did the same when you brought it up. And your take on it is pretty close to what I came away with, too. It doesn’t necessarily invalidate your point. You just might need a more solid example to use in making that point
With regard to the eschatology, the thought that I had when I read about their prophecies was that it is not very different from the stuff that comes from guys like Tim LaHaye and Hal Lindsey. And not only do they not get labeled as heretics, but people actually buy their books! hehe
But you’re right about details being sketchy and perhaps biased in the accounts. History is always written by the victor.
I would like to address one phrase you have used twice, though, in this comment thread, because I’m not sure I understand.
How is scripture an “objective standard”? I realize that’s usually the buzzword, but I’m not sure I understand. What is objective about it?
According to the record that we do have about Montanism, that movement was actually based on a verse in the gospel of John! Many sects and groups have likewise based their beliefs on the scripture. I feel like my beliefs are consistent with that revelation, and many of the questions I ask are based on a lack of evidence in scripture for what is being claimed.
Furthermore, isn’t there a problem of anachronism with saying that scripture is what keeps us from being totally subjective and open to heresy? What was the “objective standard” prior to the completion of the writing of the canon? And even after the canon was completely written, it was quite a while before it was even agreed upon as to which books comprised the canon of the New Testament — several hundred years, in fact.
One final question — does scripture claim to be the “objective standard”?
June 27th, 2008 21:42
God always communicates objectively. However, our interpretation of God’s communication is always subjective. This includes Scripture as well as dreams, visions, prophecies, etc.
-Alan
June 27th, 2008 21:49
Good point, Alan.
June 27th, 2008 23:02
Steve,
Yes, I had the same thought about the eschatology of the Montanists. The only difference, from what I have gathered, and if you can trust the records we have, is that they claimed to have had special mystical revelation from God to substantiate their beliefs. But, then again, so have some modern-day eschatalogical prophets (i.e. David Wilkerson).
Regarding “objective standard,” especially in light of Alan’s comment, perhaps it would be better to say “comparatively objective standard.” That is to say, I agree the Bible can be interpreted in different ways. And, in early church times, the allegorical method of interpretation, which most biblical scholars would consider very non-objective, was widely accepted. Yet, it still seems to me that, when you have to choose between someone who claims to have had “a word from God,” and the time-worn truths of Holy Scripture, it is a pretty easy choice.
Obviously, a big part of New Testament authority is bound up in the personal testimony of the apostles as eye-witnesses to Jesus’ life, death, and teaching.
As far as a record in the Bible itself to Scripture as an “objective standard,” Acts 17:11 comes to mind, where it says (apparently with approval) that the Bereans “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”
Also, I think the passage in 2 Peter to which we have already alluded several times is significant, when it says regarding Paul, “His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” This is interesting to me because it seems to confirm both the subjective nature of human interpretation as well as the objective nature of the revelation itself, both in the same verse.
As you well know, there are many other passages, especially in the Old Testament (i.e. Psalm 119, et al) that speak of the truthfulness and trustworthiness of Scripture. If, indeed, Scripture is completely truthful and trustworthy, it seems to me that it is a logical next step to claim that it is a reliable “objective standard” upon which to base one’s beliefs.
In regard to the establishment of the NT canon, it seems like the criterion from the beginning was apostolic authenticity. However, due to geographic and situational distances, it became difficult to determine with total confidence which writings were authentically apostolic, or authentically represented the tradition and teaching handed down by Jesus by way of the apostles. However, wherever and whenever the apostolic authenticity of a particular writing was accepted, it was also accepted as an authoritative and objective standard.
June 29th, 2008 11:41
To think that the untold numbers of versions/translations of the Bible have all preserved the original, inspired, inerrant content to the letter is pretty ridiculous… Makes about as much sense as insisting that Creation was accomplished in 6 literal, 24 hour days…
Can’t resist doing this
…to quote someone we both used to know… “if He’s God enough to inspire it, He’s God enough to preserve it.”
Knew you’d get a kick out of that…especially given your introduction regarding quotations…
But I do agree with it to a point…while I certainly don’t think the scripture has been translated time & again with absolute inerrancy and perfection, I do have to believe that God’s word is important enough to Him that He takes an active role in preserving the ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS of it’s message.
If He doesn’t care enough to preserve it’s central message…then why should we care to read it?
That said, I think we make a way bigger deal out inerrancy than God does…I believe He preserves it…”in the main”…in it’s central message, the message that will bring us into relationship & communion with Him. But I don’t know that He’s as concerned with the rest as we claim He is; I think He understood something from the beginning that we would do good to remember: that anything which passes through a human filter/conduit will have imperfection imparted to it. If He were concerned that scripture be absolutely without error, He never would have chosen to have it put to paper by men…
Wow, this has turned into a really long response!!!
I’ll shut up now…but i’m so glad to find your blog; looking forward to reading the past entries and hearing what you have to say. Thanks for making us think about these things…
Blessings,
Jereme
June 30th, 2008 11:54
Thanks for this post Steve. I have been hoping that someone would write about these things. If fact I was just asking myself this morning “where do we get the idea about the Trinity?” and made a mental note to find out. The comments are great too. Some real quality people hang out here.
July 3rd, 2008 17:48
Hi Steve
Its been a while since I stopped by..I see you’re still at it..:) Go get em brother! I like the way you think.
July 5th, 2008 16:24
A. While faith may indeed enable a belief in inerrancy, there is nothing scriptural that I know of which says faith in Christ provides faith in inerrancy. It seems to me that a faith in inerrancy is something we can do ourselves and may well be a convenient substitute for a real faith in Christ. After all, anyone can acquire an expertise in a written subject. It’s far more difficult to get to know Someone whom you’ve not met.
B. Had Peter read all of Paul’s writings when he made his scripture statement? Do we know that Peter regarded scripture as inerrant?
C. Copying from the InfoPlease dictionary, objective means:
1. being the object or goal of one’s efforts or actions.
2. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
3. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
4. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
So my reading of communications from God as recorded in the OT are often very much not objective — He was very much influenced by “personal feelings.” As God, He had every right to do so, of course. But it is not correct to call those communications objective simply because God was within His rights.
July 13th, 2008 19:55
I didn’t read all the comments here but enough to see comments regarding the Montanists….just a thought with regard to all groups thru history who were and are outside the religious system of the day…we have to remember that mostly all that remains of them are what their emenies knew and thought of them…