Earlier this month, a series of exchanges on the subject of the validity of how “Concordant” believers interpret Scripture versus how Christians within the Eastern Orthodox tradition interpret Scripture was initiated after a former “Concordant” believer – Andrew P. – wrote an article criticizing “Concordantism” (as he calls it) and defending the Eastern Orthodox position to which he now holds. After I (and two other “Concordant” believers) responded to his first article, Andrew went on to write a follow-up article (which, after additional responses, was followed-up by a third and final article).
One of the other “Concordant” believers involved in this exchange – i.e., Drew Costen – has shared all of his responses to Andrew’s articles on his Biblical Universalism blog. For those who haven’t yet read Drew’s article, I highly recommend it: Why I’m not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox (in fact, the reader may find it helpful to read Drew’s article before reading mine).
In contrast with Drew’s responses to Andrew, my responses to Andrew’s first two articles were originally shared on, and confined to, the “Concordant Believers Discord” (https://discord.com/channels/786096045046235136/863782095109095424). However, I’ve decided to follow Drew’s lead and make my third (and likely last) response to Andrew into a blog article (I’ve also incorporated some of the content of my response to Andrew’s second article into this article, as well).
Now, central to the position for which Andrew P. has argued in his criticisms of how “Concordant believers” interpret Scripture is the following claim made in the first of his most recent blog articles (How should Scripture be interpreted?):
“It’s inconsistent to accept the New Testament as inspired without claiming continuity (and especially sacramental continuity) with the early Church up to at least the late fourth century.”
In his follow-up article (Responding to Concordant critics), Andrew concluded his response to me as follows:
“…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.”
In response to this view, I don’t think there’s anything arbitrary or inconsistent about believing the following:
1. Because of historical circumstances that originated in the apostolic era, the people belonging to the successive communities of faith that were the result of what happened in the apostolic era were, for the most part, able to correctly identify which books are Scripture (and which aren’t) for nearly 300 years after the apostolic era ended (and that this resulted in the institutional church near the end of the 4th century being able to officially affirm a complete list of the books);
2. The doctrinal integrity of the people who belonged to the successive communities of faith that were the result of what happened in the apostolic era (and who were, for the most part, able to correctly identify which books are Scripture and which weren’t for nearly 300 years after the apostolic era ended) underwent a progressive deterioration after the apostolic era ended, resulting in a state of affairs in which the majority of those who still correctly identified and revered the books of Scripture no longer even believed the most fundamental, essential truths of Scripture that should characterize all who profess to believe the evangel of the grace of God that Paul heralded among the nations.
It seems to be Andrew’s assumption that, in order for the Christian leaders of the late 4th century to have recognized and officially accepted the correct books that constitute the Greek Scriptures, they needed to be believers, and to have belonged to what Paul referred to as “the ecclesia of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). According to this assumption, if the Christian leaders of the 4th century hadn’t been members of the “true Church,” we wouldn’t have gotten the canon-affirming outcome that we got, and no one today could be justified in believing that these Christian leaders ensured that we have a Bible with all the correct, inspired books.
However, I don’t think there’s any good reason to accept the validity of this assumption. We need not believe that Athanasius and other Christian leaders of the late 4th century were members of the same ecclesia referred to in 1 Tim. 3:15 in order to believe that these men were able to correctly identify all of the inspired books of Scripture, and accept as “canon” the books that Athanasius listed in his letter. It’s my understanding that the “canon-affirming” state of affairs reflected in Athanasius’ letter was historically determined by, and only happened because of, the apostolically-influenced circumstances of the 1st century (such that what took place in the late 4th century was inevitable given what took place in the 1st century).
What I think Andrew has needed to demonstrate (but what I don’t think he has demonstrated) is that, if Christians living during the 2nd to 4th century didn’t belong to the “true Church” (due to not believing the most fundamental, essential truths that should characterize all who do belong to the “true Church”), they would’ve been unable to correctly identify which books are Scripture (and which aren’t), and that what took place near the end of the 4th century (i.e., a complete listing of the books of Scripture) couldn’t have happened if the kind of doctrinal apostasy that I believe happened during the post-apostolic era did happen. Since he hasn’t demonstrated this, I don’t see why anyone should agree with him that what (to him) “seems arbitrary and inconsistent to accept” is, in fact, arbitrary and inconsistent.
Andrew may certainly want it to be the case (and thus assume that it was the case) that the majority of those who accepted the correct books as Scripture from the time of the apostolic era to the late 4th century were also doctrinally sound believers. But there’s no good reason to believe that Athanasius and other Christians in the 4th century could not have (and would not have) accepted/affirmed the right books as Scripture unless these Christians were believers, and had a doctrinally sound understanding of the content of the books whose inspiration they affirmed. There is no reason why there couldn’t be, from the end of the apostolic era to the 4th century, a succession of communities of faith comprised of people who, although becoming increasingly less doctrinally sound (even holding to beliefs that are contrary to the truth of the evangel itself), continued to accept – even reverently and fervently so – the correct books as Scripture (while rejecting those works that, for historical reasons, were not as widely accepted as inspired/authoritative).
In his first response to “Concordant critics,” Andrew criticized my appeal to Polycarp’s acceptance of 1 and 2 Timothy, since – as I’ve argued elsewhere (https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/07/they-will-not-tolerate-sound-teaching_2.html) – I believe that Polycarp is among those who “fell away from the truth” (or that he was never “in the truth” to begin with). However, I see no good reason to think that Polycarp had to have a doctrinally sound understanding of what Paul taught in order for him to have accepted 1 and 2 Timothy as inspired books of Scripture. Instead, I believe that the historical circumstances in which Polycarp accepted (and was able to correctly identify) 1 and 2 Timothy as inspired/authoritative were the result of, and can be explained by, the historical circumstances that immediately preceded his acceptance of these inspired books (and which originated during the apostolic era that, in his day, had just concluded). These historical circumstances are sufficient to account for Polycarp’s acceptance of 1 and 2 Timothy as Scripture.
Polycarp was one early, post-apostolic link in the historical chain that helps explain how we have the New Testament that we have today. But there is no reason to believe that he and other 2nd century Christians like Justin Marty and Irenaeus (and, by extension, the Christians of later eras, such as Athanasius) had to be believing members of the body of Christ in order for them to have been the “links” that they were. Thus, while it’s possible that we wouldn’t have the New Testament we have today had it not been for all of the post-apostolic Christians whose recognition/acceptance of inspired books contributed to the circumstances that resulted in Athanasius’ list (as well as other subsequent important events that led to us having the New Testament we have today), we need not believe that these Christians were doctrinally sound (or even that they were believers at all). Moreover, as Drew Costen correctly pointed out in a private message to me, we can’t actually know how history would have played out had the Christian religion not survived until then. Thus, we really can’t even say for certain that we wouldn’t have the New Testament we have today had it not been for events that took place in the 4th century. To quote Drew, “it’s entirely possible that the 66 books we call the canon today might have still been preserved and known to be the canonical books due to other reasons (perhaps simply thanks to historians, as one possible example of how this could have occurred in a hypothetical alternate timeline).”
Now, in his third article on this subject (Final response to Concordant critics), Andrew’s response to me begins as follows:
The argument that I’m making is epistemological, like I said in my original post. The only reason that we have our present list of the books of Scripture is because the Church officially recognized these texts (and not others) as Scripture in the late 4th century, and passed them down across the centuries, which I think Aaron concedes. Unless we trust the discernment of the Church from the 2nd to 4th century and beyond, we have no reason to trust that those texts are actually Scripture.
Andrew then summarized my position in his own words, as follows:
“…the present list of Scriptural books was a foregone conclusion by the end of the 1st century. The 4th-century ‘apostate’ Church only recognized those texts (and not others) as Scripture because the 1st-century ‘apostolic’ Church recognized them (and not others).”
Yes, I do believe that the circumstances of the 4th century that resulted in Athanasius’ list of the books of Scripture were completely dependent on the prior circumstances of the apostolic era. The historical circumstances in which Athanasius made his list are explained by the historical circumstances that preceded this event (and which originated during the time of the apostles and the believers of that era). The “church” of the 4th century didn’t produce the New Testament, and all “traditioning” of the Scriptures during this time (and, ultimately, the rejection of writings that weren’t scripture) was based on the fact that certain books had long been recognized as inspired/authoritative since the apostolic era. Any later writings that weren’t produced by the apostles and their associates in the first century were essentially doomed to be rejected by the majority of Christians of subsequent eras. The historical circumstances of the apostolic era are what resulted in the 4th century circumstances in which Athanasius’ list was produced, and are what made it inevitable that (1) any works that weren’t produced by the apostles or their associates would later be rejected by most, and (2) any works that were produced by the apostles or their associates (e.g., 2 Peter and Revelation) would be accepted by most, and belong to our “New Testament” today.
Again, I believe we are fully justified in believing that all the books that are now in the New Testament – and no others – were recognized as inspired/authoritative from the beginning. We have no good reason to think otherwise. The reason we have the New Testament we have today is ultimately because the various communities of faith (or “ecclesias”) during the apostolic era – which, during this era, consisted exclusively (or at least primarily) of believers – recognized as inspired and authoritative the books that are inspired and authoritative (and which were either written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle). It is because the books of which our New Testament is comprised were originally produced during the apostolic era and recognized/accepted as inspired and authoritative during the apostolic era that they continued to be regarded as inspired and authoritative by subsequent communities of faith after the apostolic era ended (including within those communities of faith that came into existence after the apostolic era, and which came to be increasingly populated by, and comprised of, pseudo-believers).
Moreover, my view that the Christian leaders of the 4th century were able to correctly recognize all of the books of Scripture because of the historically-determined circumstances of that day (i.e., circumstances that were determined by what occurred during the apostolic era, and which guaranteed that the correct books would later be identified and “officially recognized”) is in accord with what is widely accepted as having been the four criteria for canonicity by the Eastern Orthodox Church (i.e., the criteria by which the institutional Christian church of the 4th century discerned which books were divinely inspired, and which weren’t):
1. Apostolicity (Apostolic Origin): The writings had to be directly attributed to, or based on the preaching and teaching of, the first-generation apostles or their close associates.
2. Catholicity (Universal Acceptance): The document had to be acknowledged and accepted by all major Christian communities across the world, rather than being confined to a small region, heresy, or minority group. It needed to be recognized as Scripture by a broad geographical segment of the Christian world.
3. Liturgical Use (Ecclesiastical Usage): The text had to be used publicly in the Church’s worship when Christians gathered, reflecting its role as a living authority for the entire community.
4. Orthodoxy (Consistent Message): The writings had to be compatible with other accepted Christian writings and established apostolic witness.
These four criteria (or even just the first two or three) are exactly what we would expect the leaders of the 4th century Christian church to have used if the position to which I hold is correct. These criteria presuppose the sort of historically-based “causal chain” argument I’ve been making for how Christians of the 4th century were able to know which books are Scripture and which aren’t.
The fact that these books had to be (1) recognized as having been directly attributed to (or based on the preaching and teaching of) the apostles or their close associates and (2) acknowledged and accepted by all major Christian communities across the world (rather than being confined to a small region, heresy, or minority group) – and thus recognized as Scripture by a broad geographical segment of the Christian world – means that, in the 4th century, the majority of Christians/Christian communities throughout the world recognized and accepted the correct books of Scripture as Scripture, and directly attributed them to (or recognized them as being based on) the preaching and teaching of the first-generation apostles or their close associates. And the most reasonable explanation for why this was true in the 4th century is that it was also true in the 3rd century. And the most reasonable explanation for why this was true in the 3rd century is that it was also true in the 2nd century. And the most reasonable explanation for why this was true in the 2rd century is the historical circumstances that were unique to the 1st century apostolic era (and which were inseparably connected with and based on the ministry of the apostles).
As the books that comprise our Greek Scriptures were being both written (i.e., by the apostles and their close associates) and read, copied, and circulated among the ecclesias of the first century, they were recognized and accepted as Scripture by the believers of this time (and thus were directly attributed to, or recognized as having being based on, the preaching and teaching of the apostles or their close associates). These unique, apostolically-influenced circumstances of the 1st century resulted in subsequent generations being able to use the criteria specified above to identify and preserve the correct books of Scripture (and also resulted in non-inspired books being inevitably “weeded out”). And it was these historical circumstances that made it possible for Christians of subsequent generations – including the Christian leaders of the 4th century – to correctly identify (and list) the books of Scripture.
Now, after summarizing my position, Andrew stated,
“I don’t know how else to respond, other than to say that this is historically false. As I pointed out before (and see below), there were books that some in the pre-4th-century Church recognized as inspired which we now don’t, and there are some books that we recognize as inspired for which we have no evidence that anyone before the 3rd century recognized as inspired. (That’s not to say that no one did, but again, this argument is epistemological: we only rely on what we can know now.)”
In response to Andrew’s statement that there were “some in the pre-4th century Church” who “recognized as inspired” certain books that we don’t recognize as Scripture, there’s no good reason to think that the majority of Christians and/or Christian leaders who lived prior to the 4th century believed that certain uninspired books were Scripture. Consider, again, the second criterion summarized above (Catholicity/Universal Acceptance). To be accepted as Scripture by the leaders of the 4th century Christian church, a book had to be acknowledged and accepted by all major Christian communities across the world (and thus recognized as Scripture by a broad geographical segment of the Christian world).
Since neither the Shepherd of Hermas nor the Apocalypse of Peter were regarded as Scripture by the leaders of the 4th century Christian church, we can conclude that these books weren’t “acknowledged and accepted by all major Christian communities across the world” and weren’t “recognized as Scripture by a broad geographical segment of the Christian world.” And if that was the case in the 4th century, do we have any good reason to believe it wasn’t the case in the 3rd or 2nd century? No. Neither the Shepherd of Hermas nor the Apocalypse of Peter could’ve been known to any believers during the apostolic era of the 1st century, since they’re both 2nd century works.
Thus, unlike the writings of the apostles and their associates that were being read, copied, and circulated both during and after the 1st century, neither the Shepherd of Hermas nor the Apocalypse of Peter could have been regarded as inspired/authoritative by believers during that time. They weren’t written by the apostles or their close associates (and thus lacked “apostolicity”), and therefore weren’t (and couldn’t have been) known/recognized by the earliest believers as inspired/authoritative. And this historical fact ultimately resulted in them not being acknowledged and accepted by all major Christian communities across the world in the 4th century.
Moreover, when Andrew referred to “some books that we recognize as inspired for which we have no evidence that anyone before the 3rd century recognized as inspired,” there’s simply no good reason to believe that these books would’ve been recognized as inspired by the leaders of the 4th century Christian church if the majority of Christians/Christian communities during or before the 3rd century hadn’t recognized them as inspired. So with regard to which books were recognized as inspired before the 3rd century, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What we know to be true regarding the circumstances in the 4th century has certain implications regarding the circumstances of prior centuries, such that we can reasonably infer that certain things were true during these prior centuries – e.g., that certain books for which we have no explicit evidence of their having been recognized as inspired before the 3rd century were, in fact, recognized as inspired during this time (and not just by “a few Christians here and there,” but by the majority of Christians/Christian communities).
Later in his response, Andrew objected to my understanding of the 1st century circumstances that I believe resulted in 4th century Christians being able to correctly identify the books of Scripture, as follows:
“In fact, we have no evidence that anyone in the 1st century recognized any of the New Testament texts as inspired, rather than the authoritative (but not inspired) writings of the apostles. How do we know that the Corinthian community, or even Paul himself, believed that Paul’s letters to them were inspired by God in the same way that they believed the Hebrew Bible was inspired? Simply put, we don’t, so Aaron’s rebuttal fails on historical grounds.”
According to Andrew’s view, the Christians who lived 300 years after the apostolic era were able to recognize the writings of the apostles as inspired, but both the apostles and those to whom the apostles wrote (many of whom were personally taught by them and even witnessed supernatural signs/miracles that validated their apostolic authority) were somehow unaware that what they wrote was inspired. But why would the apostles and the believers to whom they wrote have been unaware of that which Andrew believes later Christians were very much aware?
Surely Andrew believes that the same holy spirit by which (according to his view) the Christians of the 4th century were able to ascertain/recognize the inspiration of the apostolic writings was also residing in and guiding the believers of the 1st century (and was just as capable of making known to them the inspired status of what the apostles wrote as Andrew believes it was able to make this known to the 4th century Christians). Andrew has no evidence that the inspired status of what the apostles wrote wasn’t known to believers during the apostolic era, or that it was first made known to later generations in subsequent eras. He seems to just be assuming this.
Andrew tries to drive a wedge between the authoritative status of the apostles’ writings and the inspiration of their writings. However, the nature of the authority that the writings of the apostles have (and would’ve been recognized by 1st century believers as having) implies that their writings are inspired. The apostolic authority with which a certain book of Scripture was written can’t be separated from its inspired status; the former status presupposes the latter.
We know that the oral preaching/teaching of the apostles was understood to be not only authoritative but inspired (indeed, its inspiration was inseparable from the apostolic authority of those who spoke). For example, in 1 Thess. 2:13 we read the following:
“And therefore we also are thanking God unintermittingly that, in accepting the word heard from us, from God you receive, not the word of men, but, according as it truly is, the word of God, which is operating also in you who are believing.”
Just as the oral preaching/teaching of the apostles was not only authoritative but inspired, so their authoritative writings necessarily have the same inspired status, and would’ve been understood as having such a status by those who recognized their apostolic authority. In accord with this fact, in 1 Thess. 4:2-8 Paul was reminding the saints of what he’d previously taught them in person, and this prior instruction was understood to be given “through the Lord Jesus” (v. 2). Thus, the written form of such instruction would’ve been understood as being just as inspired as the oral form (such that those who repudiated what Paul either spoke or wrote would not have been “repudiating man, but God” [v. 8]). In accord with what we read above, it’s evident from what Paul wrote in 2 Thess. 3:6-14 that Paul’s authority to charge/command believers to act a certain way came from Christ himself (and that, when Paul gave commands, it was as if Christ himself was doing so).
Andrew mentioned the Corinthian community specifically. Significantly, it’s in Paul’s first letter to the saints of Corinth that we find one of the most explicit affirmations of the apostolic authority with which Paul wrote (and thus the inspiration of what he wrote). In 1 Cor. 14:36-38 we read the following:
“Or from you came out the word of God? Or to you only did it attain? If anyone is presuming to be a prophet or spiritual, let him be recognizing that what I am writing to you is a precept of the Lord. Now if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant!”
The kind of authority with which Paul wrote that’s being affirmed here implies the inspiration of what he wrote. One can’t accept what Paul wrote as authoritative (which means having an understanding of the apostolic nature of its authority) without also accepting it as inspired (and thus as “the word of God”).
A correct understanding of the nature of Paul’s apostolic authority gives us reason to believe that those to whom Paul wrote had just as much reason to think that his writings are inspired – and thus Scripture – as they would’ve had to think that the books of Moses (or any of the other books of the Hebrew Scriptures) are inspired. They would’ve known that Paul’s apostolic authority meant that he’d been commissioned by Christ to speak for him, and empowered by the holy spirit to do so (and that his writings thus bore the authority of Christ himself). Paul even made it clear that, with regard to apostolic authority (and thus inspiration), the mode of communication didn’t matter (2 Thess. 2:15). Thus, we have good reason to believe that both Paul and those to whom he wrote understood that what he was writing was Scripture.
This is confirmed by what Peter wrote in 2 Pet. 3:15-16. In these verses, it’s clear that Peter understood that Paul’s epistles were just as truly Scripture as “the rest of the scriptures.” Moreover, the fact that Peter (and those to whom he wrote) understood Paul’s letters to be Scripture means that he (and those to whom he wrote) understood his own letters to be Scripture. In accord with this fact, Paul referred to his own writings as “prophetic scriptures” through which “the revelation of a secret hushed in times eonian” was being “manifested” (Rom. 16:25-26). This, of course, implies that what Paul wrote was understood to be inspired (cf. 2 Pet. 1:20-21).
In accord with these considerations is Paul’s declaration in Colossians 1:25 that “the administration of God” had been granted to him “to complete the word of God.” Paul undoubtedly understood that what he wrote/was writing was (and is) “the word of God,” and was therefore just as scriptural in nature as all of the writings that Paul had in mind when he declared that “all scripture is inspired by God, and is beneficial for teaching, for exposure, for correction, for discipline in righteousness, that the man of God may be equipped, fitted out for every good act” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
Consider also the following words with which John’s prophetic work begins and concludes:
“The Unveiling of Jesus Christ, which God gives to Him, to show to His slaves what must occur swiftly; and He signifies it, dispatching through His messenger to His slave John, who testifies to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, whatever he perceived. Happy is he who is reading and those who are hearing the word of the prophecy, and who are keeping that which is written in it, for the era is near.”
“I am testifying to everyone who is hearing the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If ever anyone may be appending to them, God shall be appending to him the calamities written in this scroll. And if ever anyone should be eliminating from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God shall be eliminating his part from the log of life, and out of the holy city, that is written in this scroll.
One can’t read and truly understand what’s being said in these verses without concluding that, if what’s being said is true, then the book in which these words are found is just as inspired – and thus, just as validly Scripture – as the books of which the Hebrew Scriptures are comprised. It would be absurd to think that any 1st century believers reading or hearing these words spoken wouldn’t have concluded that what they were reading/hearing is just as inspired as any other truly prophetic work of Scripture of which they were aware (such as Daniel or Ezekiel).
In light of these considerations, I think we have good reason to reject Andrew’s claims that we have “no evidence that anyone in the 1st century recognized any of the New Testament texts as inspired, rather than the authoritative (but not inspired) writings of the apostles,” and that we can’t know that “the Corinthian community, or even Paul himself, believed that Paul’s letters to them were inspired by God in the same way that they believed the Hebrew Bible was inspired.” Not only do these claims lack scriptural justification, but they’re contrary to what’s actually said in scripture. Paul (and the saints to whom he wrote) had just as much reason to believe that his authoritative, apostolic writings – as well as the authoritative writings of other apostles – were inspired by God as he (and those to whom he wrote) had reason to think that the Hebrew Scriptures were inspired by God.
There is, therefore, no good reason to accept Andrew’s claim that my position is “historically false” as valid. My view is in no way falsified by recorded history. There is nothing absent from the historical record that my position needs to be present (and nothing present that my position needs to be absent) in order for it to be true.
Later in his response, Andrew wrote the following:
I still want to clarify that I don’t believe the late-4th-century Church pulled its list of Scriptural texts out of nowhere. This was definitely the result of a historical process which began in the 1st century and culminated (for the most part) in the late 4th century. The end of this process, however, definitely wasn’t a foregone conclusion in the late 1st century, and our acceptance of the Scriptures rests on the discernment of the 2nd to 4th century Church.
Andrew’s claim that “the end of this process, however, definitely wasn’t a foregone conclusion in the late 1st century” begs the question in favor of his position. Andrew’s view requires that it would’ve been impossible for the Christian leaders of the 4th century to have recognized which books are Scripture (and which aren’t) based on the historically-determined circumstances of that day. His view requires that the leaders of the 4th century Christian church had to be supernaturally guided by God (such that the holy spirit uniquely indwelled and was operating within/among them) in order for them to have correctly identified which books are Scripture, and which books aren’t. That is, Andrew needs it to be the case that, apart from such supernatural guidance, the leaders of the 4th century Christian church would not have been able to correctly identify and list all of the books of Scripture (and that, therefore, the process wouldn’t have “culminated” in the way that it did unless the 4th century Christian church had the status that Andrew thinks that it had, and its leaders were being supernaturally guided by God’s spirit in the way that he thinks they were).
However, if we’re not assuming that this was the case, then the most reasonable conclusion is that the ability of the 4th century Christian church to correctly recognize all of the books of Scripture was, in fact, based on the historically-determined circumstances of that day – i.e., circumstances that were determined by what occurred during the apostolic era (and which guaranteed that the correct books would later be identified and “officially recognized”). The historical process that resulted in the 4th century list of Scriptural books (and which Andrew says involved “the discernment of the 2nd to 4th century Church”) was set in motion by the events of the apostolic era in the 1st century, and happened the way that it did because of these events. The circumstances in which the 2nd to 4th century Christian church was, generally speaking, able to correctly identify which books are Scripture and which aren’t were historically determined by prior circumstances. And this means that the historical evidence for the position that all the books of Scripture were recognized as inspired before the 3rd century is simply the historical fact that they were recognized as Scripture in the 4th century.
Thus, apart from the assumption that Andrew has to make concerning the status of the 4th century Christian church and its role in “canonization,” there’s no reason to think that any of books that were “officially recognized” as Scripture in the 4th century would’ve been recognized as such had they not been recognized as Scripture in the preceding centuries. The books that were “officially recognized” by the 4th century church as Scripture were recognized because the majority of Christians who comprised the “communities of faith” at that time recognized them as such. And the reason the majority of Christians/Christian communities in the 4th century recognized them as such is because the majority of those in the 3rd century recognized them as such. And this is because the majority of those in the 2nd century recognized them as such. And this is because the believers in the 1st century recognized them as such.
And this means that the historical evidence for the position that all the books of Scripture were recognized as inspired before the 3rd century is simply the historical fact that they were recognized as Scripture in the 4th century.
In defense of his understanding of how we can know that 2 Peter (and not the Apocalypse of Peter) is inspired/Scripture – and was thus written in the 1st century – Andrew wrote the following:
Once again, my response will be epistemological: how do you know that, for example, the Apocalypse of Peter was unknown to 1st-century believers? After all, non-believing scholars today would make the same claim about 2 Peter on historical grounds! The only reason you believe that 2 Peter and not the Apocalypse of Peter is apostolic is because the Church ultimately accepted it as apostolic. (You can point to scholars who argue for 2 Peter’s apostolicity, but the only scholars who make this claim are those who are already committed to its apostolicity because they are Christian.) If the Church had accepted the Apocalypse of Peter instead (or in addition), then you would believe on the same grounds that it is apostolic. Hence, your beliefs about apostolicity still rest on the discernment of the Church, and the late 4th-century Church is still the standard by which you retroactively judge claims about Scripture from preceding centuries.
We have no good reason to reject the scholarly consensus that the Apocalypse of Peter was written in the 2nd century. In contrast, we do have good reason to reject the view that 2 Peter was written after the apostolic era. For we have good reason to think that 2 Peter wouldn’t have been recognized and accepted as Scripture in later centuries if it hadn’t been written by Peter himself (and thus during the apostolic era of the 1st century). It was this fact that contributed to its “staying power,” and enabled it to meet the criteria later used by Christian leaders in the 4th century for canonization. The historically-based circumstances that resulted in all of the other books of Scripture being recognized and accepted as Scripture (and in other books not being recognized and accepted as Scripture) are what resulted in 2 Peter being recognized and accepted as Scripture. We simply have no good reason to think that any books that weren’t known or recognized as Scripture by believers during the apostolic era would’ve later been recognized by the majority of Christians/Christian communities as Scripture in the 4th century.
Moreover, I think it has always been possible for believers – i.e., those in whom the holy spirit is dwelling (or “making its home”) – to know that the content of any book of Scripture is true (and therefore inspired, for the truth of Scripture is inseparably connected with its inspiration), and thus to distinguish that which is Scripture from that which isn’t. Paul is clear that the holy spirit can and does reveal inspired truth to believers. In 1 Cor. 2:6-15, for example, we read the following:
Yet wisdom are we speaking among the mature, yet a wisdom not of this eon, neither of the chief men of this eon, who are being discarded, but we are speaking God's wisdom in a secret, wisdom which has been concealed, which God designates before -- before the eons, for our glory, which not one of the chief men of this eon knows, for if they know, they would not crucify the Lord of glory. But, according as it is written, That which the eye did not perceive, and the ear did not hear, and to which the heart of man did not ascend -- whatever God makes ready for those who are loving Him. Yet to us God reveals them through His spirit, for the spirit is searching all, even the depths of God.
For is any of humanity acquainted with that which is human except the spirit of humanity which is in it? Thus also, that which is of God no one knows, except the spirit of God. Now we obtained, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God, that we may be perceiving that which is being graciously given to us by God, which we are speaking also, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit, matching spiritual blessings with spiritual words.
Now the soulish man is not receiving those things which are of the spirit of God, for they are stupidity to him, and he is not able to know them, seeing that they are spiritually examined. Now he who is spiritual is, indeed, examining all, yet he is being examined by no one.
We thus have good reason to believe that, when believers are reading Scripture, the holy spirit can, and does, reveal to them that what they’re reading is, in fact, true (and thus inspired). According to this understanding, just as the spirit “is testifying together with our spirit that we are children of God” (Rom. 8:15-16), so it also bears witnesses to our spirit to the truth (and thus the inspiration) of Scripture. Thus, I think believers have reason to believe that 2 Peter is true (and thus inspired), and that it was, therefore, written by the apostle Peter in the 1st century.
Thus, even apart from the historical reasons I think we have for believing in the inspiration (and thus 1st century dating) of 2 Peter, I think believers can know that 2 Peter is Scripture by virtue of the fact that the same spirit that inspired Peter to write what he did is making its home in us, and gives us (or can give us, if necessary) scripture-recognizing discernment. Of course, Andrew believes (mistakenly, I think) that it was this that enabled the Christians of the 4th century to know which books are Scripture and which aren’t (or that, apart from such supernaturally-produced recognition and spiritual guidance, we wouldn’t have gotten the canon-affirming outcome in the 4th century that we got). But this being the case, I don’t think Andrew should have any problem with the view that believers today can know, by means of the holy spirit dwelling within them, that which he thinks the Christian leaders of the 4th century were able to know when they correctly recognized 2 Peter (for example) as Scripture, but not the Apocalypse of Peter.
No comments:
Post a Comment