Category: Sola Scriptura (Page 7 of 17)

Evangelicalism Falling to Pieces?

October 20, 2016 / Robert Arakaki / 22 Comments

“2016 State of American Theology Study,” a survey sponsored by Ligonier Ministries and carried out by LifeWay Research, gives an intriguing and sometimes disturbing overview of what Americans believe. Care was taken to ensure that the 3,000 people who took part in the survey reflected the U.S.’s diverse population.

The results of the survey have generated considerable discussion among Protestants. In a recent article in First Things, Matthew Block bemoaned the spread of heretical beliefs among American Evangelicals. He notes that among “Evangelicals” – those who hold to core Evangelical beliefs – 71 percent believed Jesus to be a created being and 56 percent believed the Holy Spirit to be an impersonal force.

Mr. Block’s article just scratched the surface of the survey. Other significant findings include: (1) the majority of Americans (60 percent) agree with the statement “Heaven is a place where all people will ultimately be reunited with their loved ones;” (2) 49 percent of Americans agree with the statement “Sex outside of traditional marriage is a sin;” and (3) 77 percent of Americans agree “an individual must contribute his or her own effort for personal salvation.” (See the Research Report pages 3-5) To put it another way, 60 percent of Americans are universalists, almost half do not think fornication to be sin, and more than three quarters believe in salvation by works.

While reading the survey findings it is important to note that two groups were being surveyed: Americans in general and Evangelicals. Thus, it behooves the reader to make sure that the percentages enumerated are applied to the right group. For example, the findings in the previous paragraph pertain to Americans in general, not American Evangelicals in particular. One need not be surprised if a substantial percentage of the American public are said to hold deviant beliefs; however, it should be a matter of concern if a similar percentage of Evangelicals hold deviant beliefs. For example, in the section “Ethics” (Statement No. 39) it was found that only 52 percent of self-identified Evangelicals agreed with the statement that sex outside of traditional marriage is a sin – a startling shift away from historic Christian morality.

Link

On the other hand, in another section (Statement No. 18) it was found that the more often one attends church the more likely one is to disagree with the statement that one can contribute to one’s salvation through good works – affirming salvation by grace alone, through faith alone which are core Protestant beliefs. It should be noted that the graphics are not accompanied by percentages. For scrupulous researchers this is quite frustrating.

Link

Some Caveats

Readers who wish to examine the survey research and analysis are advised to visit the following sites: (1) the 26 page Research Report (White Paper) which summarizes the findings (2) the 103-slide PowerPoint presentation of survey results, (3) Bob Smietana’s easy-to-read overview, and (4) Ligonier Ministries’ analysis.

I found the survey very informative but noticed one important omission, the religious identity of the respondents. In the latter half of the PowerPoint presentation, the responses were broken by region, ethnicity, economic status, and age, but not by religious affiliation. It would be helpful to know how Evangelicals stand in relation to liberal mainline Protestants, Roman Catholics, Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses, and secularists. This kind of demographics profile would help make sense of the data especially as America becomes increasingly pluralistic with the rise of the so-called “Nones” and the growth of the non-Christian population.

Another matter of concern is the confusing manner in which numbers are presented. The Research Report finds that 95 percent of Evangelicals affirm the statement: “The Bible alone is the written word of God.” In contrast, only 42 percent of the general American population believe that. However, I find this puzzling because when I add 33 percent of “strongly agree” with 19 percent for “agree somewhat” I get 52 percent. The inconsistent numbers presented raise questions about the validity of the survey.

p. 15 Link

Evangelicalism Falling Apart?

As a Protestant convert to the Orthodox Church, I found the responses on how Evangelicals understand the church striking. The responses suggest that American Evangelicalism, at least in its corporate expression, is falling to pieces – becoming increasingly fragmented doctrinally and ecclesially.

p. 19 Link

In response to the question: “Worshiping alone or with one’s family is a valid replacement for regularly attending church,” some 59 percent of Americans agreed, while 29 percent disagreed. In the caption underneath the graphic, LifeWay noted that Evangelicals were less likely to agree, giving the percentages of 42 percent versus 63 percent. First, even if 42 percent of Evangelicals agree that’s still quite a high percentage that has abandoned the traditional view of the Church. Second, I have no idea what the number 63 percent refers to. I don’t think it refers to those who agree versus those who disagree because the total should come close to 100 percent, not the 105 that results from adding 42 to 63. This is where the LifeWay survey falls short. Greater precision is needed in the presentation of the findings in order for readers to benefit from the research project.

This devaluing of church membership seems to support the rise of the “Nones” and the “Dones.” See Mark Sandlin’s article “The Rise of ‘The Dones’ as the Church Kills Spiritual Community” in which he attempts to explain how the current dysfunction in Evangelical churches is alienating and driving away committed people. In his explanation of the emergence of the “Dones” – unaffiliated believers, Mr. Sandlin writes:

The Church is killing spiritual community or at least killing it in an ever-growing portion of our population. The Dones’ experience with the Church killed their desire to ever go to that place of spiritual relationship in community again.

He elaborates:

The Dones are right. The communities making up far too many churches are much more soul sapping than they are spiritually nurturing.

This growing disenchantment with church life, while quite different from doctrinal orthodoxy, ought to be of concern to Christians. Christianity’s future in America depends not just on right doctrine but also on life in community.

What really caught my attention were the responses to the question: “My local church has the authority to withhold the Lord’s Supper from me and exclude me from the fellowship of the church.” Some 45 percent of Christians who attended church on holidays or more frequently “disagreed strongly,” while another 17 percent “disagreed somewhat.” Those who agreed, strongly or somewhat, comprised only 29 percent. It seems that Evangelicalism’s emphasis on a personal relationship with Christ has taken on more extreme forms, with many unwilling to accept the authority of the Church.

p. 20 Link

This is contrary to the historic Protestant understanding of the three marks of the Church: the pure preaching of the Word, the pure administration of the sacraments, and church discipline (See Belgic Confession, Article 29). What is concerning about this rejection of church discipline is that it constitutes a rejection of the Church as the Mother of the faithful. It may surprise Evangelicals to learn that John Calvin believed this. Calvin wrote:

“For what God has joined together, it is not lawful to put asunder,” so that, for those to whom he is Father the church may also be Mother. (Institutes 4.1.1)

Calvin’s high view of the Protestant (Reformed) Church, reflects his qualified view of the Ancient Church. (Calvin alternately praised and scorned the the early Church Fathers — depending on whether they were in agreement with him.) Cyprian of Carthage, a third century Church Father wrote:

He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. (On the Unity of the Church §6)

The implication here is that in dispensing with Christian life in the visible Church — whether Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox — Evangelicalism has become doubly estranged from its historic Christian roots: both in the Reformation and the early Church. As Evangelicalism, especially its Anabaptist variants, take on more extreme positions, it becomes a religion that neither the early Reformers nor the early Church Fathers would recognize as Christian.

Scripture and Creeds

One surprising finding is the positive regard Americans have towards creeds. There was a largely negative response, 58 percent, to the statement: “There is little value in studying or reciting historical Christian creeds and confessions.” This suggests an openness to using historic creeds or doctrinal statements to offset the emphasis on private interpretations of Scripture.

The next question then becomes which creed ought to be used? Each Protestant denomination has its own creed or confessions. For example, a Lutheran might tout the Augsburg Confession (1530), a Reformed Christian the Westminster Catechism (1646), and the Anglican the Thirty-Nine Articles (1563; see Note 1). For those interested in the early Church there are the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed.

Sola Scriptura?

The authority of Scripture cannot be understood apart from the interpretation of Scripture. It was found that half of the American population (51 percent) believes that “the Bible was written for each person to interpret as he or she chooses.” The Research Report (p. 14) noted that only 30 percent of Evangelicals agreed with this. That as many as a third of Evangelicals hold this view, (as opposed to half of the American public) while positive, should still be a matter of concern. Augustine of Hippo wrote:

If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.

Augustine here was warning against private interpretation of Scriputre. It is curious then that so many Protestants love this quote as IF Augustine agrees with their own doctrines and view or the gospel! This is simply not true. As a fourth-century Bishop of the Church, Augustine held firmly to an episcopal form of church government – the local church under the rule of the bishop. This is in sharp contrast to the presbyterian and congregational polity favored by modern Protestants. Augustine believed in authoritative Apostolic Tradition, the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, the sacrament penance, Mary’s perpetual virginity, the possibility of falling from grace, prayer to the saints and praying or the departed — all common practices of the ancient historic Church but which have been rejected and vilified by many of today’s Protestants and Evangelicals. See Joe Wilcoxson’s “Was St. Augustine a Protestant?” This narcissistic private reading of Augustine and the consequent distorted understanding of church history is tragic to say the least.

Much of the independent reading of Scripture can be traced to low-church Evangelicalism. As a remedy to this Matthew Block prescribes high-church Protestantism. Where popular Evangelicalism favors solo scriptura — reading the Bible independently of outside sources, historic Protestantism favors sola scriptura — reading Scripture with the creeds and in the larger Church (See Note 2). Mr. Block writes:

If we are going to address the rise of heresy in our churches, then Christians must rededicate themselves to reading the Bible in community—with the local church, yes, but also with the Church throughout history. If the Bible is truly the authority Evangelicals say it is, then we must also recognize that God has exercised that authority over Christians other than ourselves. The history of the Church, in its creeds and confessions, is a witness to other Christians who have been shaped by and wrestled with the Word of God. (Source)

However, Matthew Block fails to explain why Lutheranism, especially his brand of Lutheranism, offers the best remedy for the ills uncovered by the LifeWay survey. For all its affirming the authority of Scripture, Protestantism has historically suffered from fragmentation, in terms of doctrine, worship, and polity. Ultimately, Protestantism’s denominationalism is rooted in the private reading of Scripture implicit in sola scriptura. For example, one who joins a Lutheran church is following Martin Luther’s reading of Scripture. With the proliferation of mega-churches and many smaller community churches private interpretation of Scripture has become pervasive among Protestant churches today. Wheaton College Professor of Theology, Beth Felker Jones, attributes the doctrinal confusion to the rise of pastor-centered churches:

I fear that we’re spending too much time in cults of personality around charismatic superstar pastors, who often focus more on their personal theological idiosyncrasies and pet ideas than on basic Christian orthodoxy. (Source)

Much of Matthew Block’s prescription for the ills of Evangelicalism is sound but does not go far enough. He prescribes the classical Protestantism of the 1500s but an alternative is Ancient Christianity of the first millennium, e.g., the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the Church Fathers.

What the best of Protestant pastors must confess is this: Luther’s appeal to his own views can easily become the appeal of all sincere Protestants — who can appeal like Luther did to his own conscience and take his own stand even if it differs from Luther’s. Protestantism is full of little Luther’s taking their own stand for biblical truth giving rise to denominational differences that trouble Protestants who desire a visible unity for the Church.

Implications for the Future of Protestantism

The LifeWay survey poses significant challenges for Rev. Peter Leithart recent First Things article, “Is There a Future for Protestantism?” In this article Rev. Leithart approaches Protestantism doctrinally and sociologically. He asserts that as a sociological entity Protestantism does indeed have a future. He optimistically sketches a future where non-liturgical churches will adopt liturgies, non-sacramental churches will start having weekly Eucharist, and become more open to the rich heritage of historic ancient and medieval Christianity. The problem is that Rev. Leithart fails to present empirical evidence to support his claims. If anything, the evidence presented in the LifeWay survey and the analysis by Ligonier Ministries point to the spread of deviant doctrines and a growing disregard for church discipline and common worship on Sunday mornings. What we see here is more wishful thinking than facts-based realism.

Safe Harbor

Unlike Protestantism, which has been marked by denominational fragmentation, and even more disturbing, the inability to provide doctrinal and liturgical stability, Orthodoxy is marked by a stability that has endured for two millennia. Protestants tired of constantly changing doctrines might want to seek shelter in the Orthodox Church. The words of John Chrysostom, the fourth-century church father, still resonate today:

Just as a calm and sheltered harbour provides great security to the ships moored there, so does the temple of God: when people enter it, it snatches them away from worldly affairs as from a storm, and gives them the capacity to stand and listen to God’s words in calm and security.

This place [the Church] is the bedrock of virtue and the school of spiritual life…

You need only set foot on the threshold of a church and at once you are liberated from the cares of daily life. (Source)

More Reforms Needed?

It is regrettable that Rev. Leithart insists on rejecting Orthodoxy and its ancient patrimony of ancient liturgies, Church Fathers, Desert Fathers, Ecumenical Councils, and bishops who can trace their lineage back to the original Apostles. He calls for even more reforms for Protestant churches, but who knows where it will take them? Already much of what passes for “Protestant” churches today would be unrecognizable and abhorrent to the original Protestant Reformers. Those troubled by the predicaments and quandaries of Protestantism should heed the words of the prophet Jeremiah:

This is what the Lord says:

“Stand at the crossroads and look;

Ask for the ancient paths,

Ask where the good way is, and walk in it,

And you will find rest for your souls.”

(Jeremiah 6:16 NIV; emphasis added)

Robert Arakaki

Note 1: Some Anglicans might dispute that the Thirty Nine Articles are a creed, pointing out that Anglican rely on the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed. However, the fact that several sources refer to the Thirty Nine Articles as a “doctrinal statement” indicates that it delineates the distinctiveness of Anglican identity in a way that the three aforementioned creeds do not.

Note 2: Keith Mathison coined the phrase solo scriptura to highlight modern Evangelicalism’s divergence from historic Protestantism’s sola scriptura. See my review of Prof. Mathison’s The Shape of Sola Scriptura.

Articles

“Is There a Future for Protestantism?” by Rev. Peter Leithart. First Things 13 October 2016.

“Survey Finds Most Americans Are Actually Heretics” by G. Shane Morris. The Federalist 10 October 2016.

“Evangelicals, Heresy, and Scripture Alone” by Matthew Block. First Things, 4 October 2016.

“Evangelicals’ Favorite Heresies Revisited by Researchers.” by Caleb Lindgren. Christianity Today 28 September 2016.

“Americans Love God and the Bible, Are Fuzzy on the Details” by Bob Smietana. LifeWay-Research, 27 September 2016.

“An Orthodox Remedy for Evangelicalism’s Heresy Epidemic” by Robert Arakaki. OrthodoxBridge, 11 January 2015.

References

2016 State of American Theology Study – Research Report by LifeWay Research.

PowerPoint Presentation by LifeWay Research.

State of Theology: Key Findings by Ligonier Ministries.

Orthodox Resources

A Pocket History for Orthodox Christians by Father Aidan Keller.

An Online Orthodox Catechism by Bishop Alfeyev Hilarion.

Corpus Formation versus Canon Formation

March 18, 2016 / Robert Arakaki / 20 Comments

Corpus Formation – Apostle John on Patmos Writing the Book of Revelation

A Response to Pastor Toby Sumpter

On 3 March 2016, Pastor Toby Sumpter posted on Reformation21 “An Apostolic Case for Sola Scriptura.” In this article he argues that canon formation of the New Testament proves the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. He writes:

In fact, there is a strong case to be made that the apostles and first Christians knew what books would form the New Testament canon very early on. The reason they knew was because the task of writing the New Testament Scriptures was one of the central purposes of the office of apostles. (Emphases added)

And,

The center of the evidence for a largely completed canon by the death of the apostles is grounded in understanding the office of apostle itself. (Emphasis added)

Toby Sumpter’s attempt to prove a very early New Testament canon (before AD 100 or even during the lifetime of the Apostles) makes sense in light of recent Reformed and Orthodox apologetics debate over sola scriptura. One major criticism of sola scriptura is the argument that if it took several centuries for the New Testament canon to emerge then that means the early Church functioned quite well without sola scriptura. This in turn raises the question whether sola scriptura is necessary.

All too often Protestant attempts to defend sola scriptura confuse the writing of the New Testament texts (corpus formation) with that writing being recognized as uniquely inspired (canon formation). While closely related, the two are not the same. Among conservative Christians there is little debate about the New Testament texts having been written in the latter half of the first century. The difference lies more with the Church’s recognizing the texts as divinely inspired, that is, as Scripture.

Where did this list come from? Who made it? Source

There are two competing theories of how canon formation took place. A prolonged canonization process would suggest the Church functioned under oral Apostolic tradition for the first few centuries and without sola scriptura. (Remember, John Mark did not write his synoptic gospel first for at least twenty years.) A compressed canonization process would leave little room for oral Apostolic Tradition. A very early completion to the canonization process would give rise to a listing of authoritative New Testament (canon) to guide the early Church in matters of faith and practice. If one takes the extreme position – as does Toby Sumpter – that the New Testament canon was completed while the Apostles were still living then there was zero room for oral Apostolic tradition to guide the early Church. This is because the early Church had a complete list of Scripture from the get go (as argued by Toby Sumpter).

Chart showing the mainstream understanding of canon formation – Source

The New Testament Project?

Pastor Sumpter puts forward the interesting theory that in light of the Great Commission the Apostles devoted themselves to the production of canonical Scriptures for the Church.

Here, I argue that the apostles were quite conscious of this goal. Jesus had entrusted to them the “testimony” not merely for a small band of Jews in Jerusalem, but they were to be witnesses throughout Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth. How would that testimony reach the ends of the earth intact without devolving into an elaborate telephone game? The apostles and their assistants almost immediately began writing. This is because the apostles knew that their office was responsible for preserving and passing down the authoritative testimony of the gospel of Jesus. This is why every New Testament book was written or sponsored by an apostle. (Emphases added)

From the above excerpt we find Pastor Sumpter making at least three claims: (1) that the Apostles were conscious of their responsibility to write canonical Scripture, (2) that Jesus made writing part of the Great Commission, and (3) that the Apostles in obedience to this mandate began writing canonical Scripture right away. But does Scripture support any of these claims?

First, if the Apostles were “quite conscious of this goal,” then we would expect to find them discussing their responsibility to produce an authoritative collection of writings that testify to Jesus Christ. Where’s the evidence? A careful search of the Gospels, the book of Acts, and the letters by Paul and other Apostles leaves us empty handed. We find is that the Apostles did write but wrote when the occasion called for it (Romans 15:15; 1 Corinthians 4:14, 5:9-11; 2 Corinthians 2:3-4, 13:10; Galatians 1:20; Philippians 3:1; 2 Thessalonians 4:9, 5:1; 1 Timothy 3:14; Philemon 19-21; 1 Peter 5:12; 2 Peter 3:1; 1 John 1:4, 2:1; Jude 3).

Second, there is no evidence that Jesus made writing part of their apostolic calling. When we look at the Great Commission passage in Matthew 28, and other similar passages: Mark 16:15-20, Luke 24:45-49, John 20:21, and Acts 1:1-8, we find not a single shred of evidence indicating that Jesus ever did so. As a matter of fact, in the longer ending to Mark’s Gospel Jesus commands the Apostles: “Go into all the world and preach (κηρυξατε) the good news to all creation.” Likewise, in Luke 24:47 we read: “repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached (κηρυχθηναι) in his name to all nations.” The Greek κηρυσσω has the sense of public proclamation by voice; it would be a stretch to say that it means writing. According to Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament one of key qualifications of a herald (κηρυξ) was a good voice (vol. III p. 686). The sole exception is the book of Revelation where Christ tells John: “Write (γραψον), therefore, what you have seen, what is now, and what will take place later.” (Revelation 1:7, cf. 21:5) However, this command applies only to the book of Revelation. If Toby Sumpter’s argument did hold up, we would have seen other earlier commands for the other New Testament texts but no such evidence for this can be found. 

Third, there is the fact that none of the New Testament texts have been dated back to the 30s or 40s. The earliest New Testament texts are either Paul’s letter to the Galatians or 1 Thessalonians. Scholars estimate that Galatians was likely written after AD 52 and that 1 Thessalonians has likewise been estimated to have been written in the early 50s. Mark’s Gospel is believed to have been written around the time of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Matthew’s Gospel and Luke’s Gospel have been estimated to have been written circa AD 80. Furthermore, much of Paul’s letters were written in response to pastoral emergencies. The evidence here point to a gradual and sporadic production of New Testament texts. This would fit in with a theory that writing was a secondary aspect of apostolic ministry. If Pastor Sumpter’s theory is valid then one has to ask: Why did the Apostles wait twenty to forty years to begin writing canonical texts?

Another problem with Sumpter’s theory is that so few of the Twelve wrote canonical materials. Where are the writings of Apostle Thomas? I would love to read his account of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Where is the writing of Apostle Peter’s younger brother Andrew? And where are the writings of Thaddeus, Nathaniel, Philip, and the others? Why is it that we don’t have their written testimony to the Good News of Christ?

We need to take into consideration the small number of New Testament authors. From the Apostle Peter we have Mark’s Gospel and Peter’s two letters. We have from the Apostle John the Gospel that bears his name, three letters, and Revelation. We have Matthew’s Gospel and nothing else from him. Then we have the Gospel authored by Paul’s companion, Luke, who also authored the book of Acts. From the Apostle Paul we have a collection of a dozen letters. Hebrews has been traditionally attributed to Apostle Paul. This comes to a total of four apostolic composers of the New Testament corpus. Why so few? Where are the others? That is a question that raises doubts about Toby Sumpter’s theory.

For an Orthodox Christian the small number of composers of the New Testament corpus is not a problem. The Apostles were busy proclaiming the Good News of Christ, leading the early liturgies, and ordaining elders (Acts 6:2, 13:1-3, 14:23). From time to time they would write a letter if the occasion called for a written response but writing was not a core function of an Apostle, preaching was.

An Exaggerated Problem

Like a Pillow Fight?

Pastor Sumpter sketches what he purports to be a “popular theory” that he will refute.

A popular caricature of the process of canonization (a somewhat problematic phrase in its own right) is that tons of early Christians wrote tons of stuff and that it was only after the deaths of the first generation of Christians or so) when the subsequent generation of Christians suddenly woke up and began scrambling to collect as many meaningful looking scraps as they could find, like grabbing flecks of confetti blowing around in the wind. And the Holy Spirit led the Church to find all the right pieces and paste them all together just right (Emphasis added).

And,

. . . which I summarize as: The complete canon of Scripture was not determined until centuries after the apostles, and the Church (led by the Holy Spirit) determined what the canon of Scripture was. Therefore, the Scriptures derive their authority from the Church.

While a fascinating theory, it’s one I never heard of. It would help if Pastor Sumpter had referenced his sources for this theory. Perhaps Pastor Sumpter’s “caricature” is really only “popular” in certain select small Protestant splinter groups? Should we not favor the more widely accepted understanding that there was widespread reception of Paul’s letters and the four Gospels early on followed by a more gradual and contested reception of James, 2 Peter, Hebrews, and Revelation, combined with the eventual exclusion of disputed but popular texts like the Shepherd of Hermas and 1 Clement. This understanding of canon formation is similar to F.F. Bruce’s explanation which reflects the overwhelming mainstream of New Testament scholarship. (See link.)

Just as important is the mechanism by which canon formation took place. F.F. Bruce points out that it was not by means of a formal list that canon formation happened. He writes:

One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and general apostolic authority, direct or indirect.

He notes that the canon list created in the North African synods, Hippo Regius (393) and Carthage (397), did not impose something new on the churches but rather codified what had already been a general longstanding practice.

A Very Interesting Theory

Pastor Sumpter draws on E. Randolph Richards’ theory of how the New Testament canon came about. Richards notes that it was a widespread practice for ancient writers to keep on hand copies of their correspondence. Then he speculates that the New Testament canon was completed when Peter and Paul ended up in Rome before their martyrdom. Sumpter summarized Richards’ theory as follows:

Given the fact that Peter ended up in Rome at around the same time as Paul, and Luke is there already with Paul, and Mark is on his way (2 Tim. 4:11), we have all the indications that one of the first apostolic New Testament canon committees was holding session there in Rome in the mid 60s A.D. And if all that weren’t enough, don’t forget the fact that Peter refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture right around the same time (2 Pet. 3:15-16). In other words, the apostles knew what they were doing.

Add in John’s gospel, letters, and apocalypse, and we’re there. (Emphasis added.)

I don’t know what Toby Sumpter means by “we’re there” but I can tell you that it does not mean that he has proven his case! All he has done is sketch out an internally consistent hypothesis that awaits supporting evidence. What evidence is there that Peter and Paul were in Rome at the exact time in the mid 60s? And that Peter and Paul actually collaborated on finalizing the New Testament canon? And if he wants to really make his case, show how Hebrews and James came to be included in the New Testament canon in Rome in the mid 60s. What we have here is an interesting – if not a self-serving speculation? – theory that awaits solid evidence. This is far removed from the accepted mainstream of biblical scholarship.

Is the Muratorian Canon a List?

When we look closely at the Muratorian Canon (dated back to AD 170), what we find is not so much an authoritative listing of apostolic writings (which is what we would expect according to Pastor Sumpter’s theory) but an attempt to describe the books accepted by the early Church. What is striking about the Muratorian Canon is evidence that point to a traditioning process. In line 71 reference is made to the apocalypses of John and Peter being received:

We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in the church. (tantum recipimus quam quidam ex nostris legi in eclesia; lines 71-72) (Emphasis added.)

The rather puzzling phrase that “some of us” were reluctant to have Peter’s apocalypse being read in church point to the autonomy of the local bishop and their liturgical authority. And in line 81 we read that nothing from heretical writers like Arsinous, Valentinus, or Miltiades ought to be received by the churches.

… which cannot be received into the catholic Church – for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. (arsinoi autem seu valentini vel mitiadis nihil in totum recipemus; line 81). (Emphasis added.)

If Pastor Sumpter’s theory of canon formation held up, we would not be reading a lengthy description of books read out loud in the early Church. Rather, we would be reading a short succinct listing of titles and the assertion that this is a copy of an authoritative codex listing the Apostles Peter and Paul’s writings as proposed by Randolph Richards.

Did Irenaeus Use a Canonical List?

One of the earliest witnesses to the New Testament canon is Irenaeus of Lyons (d. circa AD 195). To combat the heretics Irenaeus defends the four-fold Gospel in Against Heresies 3.11.8-9 (ANF Vol. 1 pp. 428-429). He writes:

It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars. . . .

The first thing to note is that Irenaeus takes the four-fold Gospel as an undisputed given. This points to an early development in canon formation with respect to the Gospel. Upon closer examination we find that Irenaeus gives us a lengthy description of the four Gospels. This is significant because he does not appeal to an official list of canonical Scripture which is what we would expect if Toby Sumpter’s theory held up. The formal listing represents a later stage of canon formation. In the early days of the Church the transmission of Scripture was part of a traditioning process. Irenaeus writes:

For if what they [the heretics] have published is the Gospel of truth, and yet is totally unlike those which have been handed down to us from the apostles, any who please may learn, as is shown from the Scriptures themselves, that that which has been handed down from the apostles can no longer be reckoned he Gospel of truth (AH 3.11.9, ANF p. 429; emphases added).

[Note: the Latin original has “ab Apostolis nobis tradita sunt” and “ab Apostolis traditum est veritatis Evangelium.” (Bold added) Source]

One important element in Pastor Sumpter’s argument is the notion that the production of written apostolic texts lay at the core of the Great Commission project. This implies that missionizing without written Scripture would be gravely deficient but this is not what we find in Irenaeus.

To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition . . . .

Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed . . . . (AH 3.4.2; ANF p. 417; emphases added)

It is important for Protestant readers to recognize that Irenaeus was not denigrating the importance of written Scripture but that his emphasis was on Apostolic Tradition in both written and oral forms. Irenaeus did not assume a tension between written and oral Apostolic tradition; nor did he assume a hierarchical ordering in which written tradition was superior to oral traditions. Rather he assumed written and oral Apostolic traditions to be complementary to each other.

Athanasius the Great

Athanasius’ Festal Letter

In AD 367, almost two centuries after the Muratorian Canon and Irenaeus of Lyons, Athanasius the Great issued his annual Paschal (Easter) letter to the Diocese of Alexandria. It is here that we see the formal listing of canonical Scripture (NPNF Vol. IV, pp. 551-552). That Athanasius needed to distinguish between canonical and apocryphal books shows how much the early Church relied on the process of reception. This would not be the case if there had been a precise list from the start as would be the case in Pastor Sumpter’s theory. Evidence for the traditioning process can be seen in the way Athanasius described the reception of Scripture texts:

. . . . as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers o the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine. (Letter 39, NPNF Vol. IV pp. 551-552; emphases added).

When we compare Athanasius’ approach to the biblical canon with early approaches we find a gradual transition from informal reception of Apostolic writings by local bishops to formal definition by the Church Catholic. Contrary to what Pastor Sumpter assumed, the early Church did not confer apostolic authority onto the New Testament texts; rather the early Church through its bishops recognized the New Testament texts as apostolic and rejected all others as spurious.

This raises serious concerns about Pastor Sumpter’s own theory and the purported problem that he seeks to address. Sumpter’s theory assumes a static listing of canonical scripture right from the time the Apostles Peter and Paul were alive. One, there is no evidence of such a hard and fast listing early on. What we do see is an early general consensus over the core of the New Testament with a few writings over which a general consensus would emerge centuries later. Two, there is no evidence for the “rival theory” that there was a blizzard of competing texts that forced church authorities to arbitrarily define as Scripture. Pastor Sumpter is welcome to defend his theory of canon formation by showing us the historical evidence that support his theory. What I have done is give an alternative theory of canon formation which is more in keeping with the general scholarship and is supported by evidence from the Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus of Lyons’ Against Heresies, and Athanasius the Great’s Festal Letter of AD 367.

Alexandrian and Cappadocian Fathers

Where’s the Bishop?

One missing element from Prof. Richards and Pastor Sumpter’s model of canon formation is the role played by early bishops. There’s no mention of the bishops at all in Sumpter’s article. This is a serious flaw given the importance of the bishop in early Christianity. Early bishops were ordained by the Apostles to lead the church and to preserve and pass on the Apostles’ teachings. They were tasked with preserving the Apostolic teaching whether in written or oral form. In the early days, the bishop had the authority to determine what would be read as Scriptures in the Sunday liturgy.

The apostolic basis of the early episcopacy explains the quick acceptance of the Petrine and Pauline corpus of the New Testament. As disciples of the Apostles the bishops were able to distinguish genuine apostolic teachings from heretical counterfeits. The need for synods where bishops gathered to decide on Hebrews, James and 3 John point to the importance of the early Church being guided by the Holy Spirit in the reception of these texts. What we do not find in the early sources is a top-down imposition of a canonical list. What we find are bishops gathered in synods seeking to reach a consensus as to what was apostolic.

Conclusion

This lengthy response is warranted by Toby Sumpter’s theological agenda – to prove that sola scriptura was part of early Christianity and not a late sixteenth century Protestant invention. Pastor Sumpter’s article is regrettably rife with guesswork, inference, and surmise. What we have found in our review of his article is an elaborate theory lacking in evidence. Given the lack of supporting evidence, the best thing for Pastor Sumpter is to admit that sola scriptura is a sixteenth century Protestant innovation. It represents a new approach to doing Christian theology that breaks from historic Christianity.

In contrast to Toby Sumpter’s speculative approach, I have taken an evidence based approach showing that the formation of the New Testament canon cannot be understood apart from the traditioning process. Evidence have been presented from Scripture, the church fathers, and church history for the Orthodox understanding of the New Testament canon formation, that is, through the traditioning process. The Orthodox Church through its bishops can trace its lineage back to the original Apostles. Through the past two millennia the Orthodox Church has faithfully preserved the physical text of Scripture as well as the right interpretation of the Scripture.

The debate over canon formation is far from a trivial matter. Canon formation requires an apostolic Church, a Church where its leaders have been ordained by the Apostles and their successors, and have in their possession Scripture through the traditioning process. Protestants lacking this historical traditioning process end up bootlegging sacred Scriptures.

Robert Arakaki

References

Athanasius the Great. “Festal Letter XXXIX.” NPNF Vol. IV, pp. 551-552.

F.F. Bruce. “The Canon of the New Testament” in Bible-Researcher.com

Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies. ANF Vol. I.

“The Muratorian Fragment.” Bible-Researcher.com

E. Randolph Richards. 1998. “The Codex and the Early Collection of Paul’s Letters.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 8 (1998) 151-166.

A Tale of Two Gospels

November 28, 2015 / Robert Arakaki / 40 Comments

“And was-given to-him [the] book of-Isaiah [the] prophet” Source

By Stefan Pavićević.

Stefan Pavićević

If there’s one thing I really think Protestantism has gotten wrong, it would be the way it treats the Bible. Now, before I continue, I want to assure the reader that my intention is not to bash Protestants, because I have many friends who are good Christians and Protestants, people I deeply respect and love as my brothers and sisters in Christ. My point here is not to be rude to Protestants or to even try to set out the logical outworking and problems with Sola Scriptura per se. This has been done over and over there is no need to repeat it here. I want to offer a fresh perspective and look at things a bit differently.

Protestants would often say that they believe in the true Gospel, making it clear that they are not like those who believe in a false Gospel. But, what is the true Gospel? And what is a false Gospel? Some would say the true Gospel is that Jesus Christ died to save us from our sins. I see nothing objectionable about that definition. But tell me, what major Christian denomination, group or church doesn’t believe that? Why then, do Protestants insist that Roman Catholics or Orthodox do not have the true Gospel? Then the Protestants would add a number of other qualifications for what counts as the true Gospel, and what doesn’t. Then different groups would come up with different descriptions of what the true Gospel really is. And now we have chaos!

What they don’t see is that they have made an abstraction of the Gospel. They have set up a neat logical and abstract system which they call the (true) Gospel. However, this approach is always bound to fail. Why? Because it misses the most central fact of Christianity: the Incarnation. Now, I don’t want to even remotely imply that they have rejected the Incarnation. But I am concerned that they may have turned the Incarnation into an abstraction, an idea.

We are abstracting whenever we go from what is tangible and particular to what is universal and remote to our senses, accessible only to our intellects. Such is our idea of God, abstract and indirect. But we are not abstract concepts. As living breathing human beings we need tangible reality, not abstract reality. That is why we need the Incarnation.

The Word of God Became Flesh - Icon of the Annunciation. Source

The Incarnation — The Word of God Became Flesh for our salvation Source

The Incarnation is the most important event in world history. This event has cosmic consequences. The intangible, inaccessible, unlimited God became tangible, accessible and limited in order to save us. Not only did he share in our suffering, and tasted our bitter grief and death, but He revealed His Divinity in His very own flesh. God became a living breathing human being who walked on earth (1 John 1:1-3)! The Gospel is the Incarnation. Jesus Christ is the Gospel.

Thus, the Gospel is a living, tangible reality of sharing in the life and sufferings of the Word of God, so that we may share in His most blessed divine life. This life consists of the experience of and in the Church, a life of ascesis, prayer and partaking in the Holy Mysteries, the Sacraments. Our life in Christ and the life of countless of others, especially those who have reached the light of deification, this is what the Gospel is. The light of deification means that the Gospel is more than a teaching, it is a reality that will profoundly change who we are. It is the continued life and incarnation of Christ in His Church.

That is why we need to heed the advices and most divine words spoken to us by the prophets, the apostles, the fathers, and all the saints, as they speak to us. These are not formulas and algorithms for salvation, but words that are life eternal, that ought to be practiced and lived. We don’t need an abstract Gospel, we need a tangible, incarnational Gospel! We need Emmanuel, God with us!

The capital “W” Word of God is not the Bible, it is Christ Jesus, our Lord who is the eternal Word (Logos) of the Father. The Bible is not the way, the truth, and the life, it is Christ who is the only way, truth and life (John 14:6). The Holy Scriptures are profitable unto salvation only when through them we encounter our Lord Christ. The Bible doesn’t have the answers to all questions, nor is it a textbook of correct belief and right living. Yet, for some Protestants it is as if reading the Bible is all one needs. As if reading the Bible is enough to be true Christians, with sound and correct belief and right living. As if those who read the Bible can never become heretics. But what about history? What about those who fought against heresies and who have spent their whole lives on defining the landmarks of orthodoxy, can we just ignore them? Can we ignore the history of the Christian Faith, risking the grave danger of repeating the mistakes and the errors of the past?

Whenever someone commits himself to a strict, literal reading of the Scriptures, divorced from the actual life of the Church, they are not only reading the Bible in a superficial and profitless manner, but they actually sever themselves from the communion of saints and from communion with Christ. The Bible is called the Word of God only by analogy, because it is Christ who is the True Word, and the One the Scriptures testify of.

Now, someone would say: “Stefan, you’re painting with a broad brush.” I realize there are people from traditional Protestant churches who don’t read the Bible in the literal way. But my point still stands as I’ve noticed that this trend of reading the Bible literally is very popular among many Protestants. This is especially true for those with an evangelical bent, regardless of the denomination they may formally belong to. Our tale of the two Gospels illustrates my point perfectly. There is the true Gospel, and there are false Gospels, according to many Protestants. They approach the Bible as if it has come down from heaven and has become Emmanuel, God with us. But it is a Person, the Word of God, who came down from heaven. (John 1:14) Just as Jesus Christ took on flesh in the Incarnation so likewise the Incarnation continues in the Church the Body of Christ. (1 Corinthians 12:12-13) It is at Church, the Body of Christ, on Sunday mornings that we meet God. We first hear God’s word in the Scriptures and then at Holy Communion we go up to feed on the body and blood of Christ, the Word of God made flesh for our salvation. Jesus said:

I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:53-54)

Where Protestant worship emphasizes the Gospel as the written word of God especially through the sermon, Orthodox worship emphasizes the Gospel as the Incarnate Word of God who gave us His Life on the Cross for our salvation and incorporates us into His Body, the Church. For the Orthodox Christian the true Gospel is not just a message to be intellectually understood but a life of worship, discipleship, and ascesis in the context of the Church, the Body of Christ.

I propose that we distinguish between the tangible, incarnational Gospel and the abstract intellectualized Gospels. The former is the true one, because it is rooted in the life and experience of the Church even as she lives and experiences the life of Christ, whereas of the latter I need not comment.

And we have such trust through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (2 Cor. 3:4-6)

Stefan is a cantor at the Macedonian Orthodox Church. He is interested in arts, music, philosophy, church history, patristics and theology, as well as computer science (in which he is majoring). In the free time, he likes to read books (he’s an avid Lord of the Rings fan), listen to Orthodox chant as well as secular music, or just hang out with friends. When it comes to Orthodox theology, his main interests are in St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Dionysius the Areopagite.

See also:

Stefan Pavićević — “The Mystery of the Church and My Search for Truth” 24-January-2015

Category: Sola Scriptura (Page 7 of 17)

Evangelicalism Falling to Pieces?

Corpus Formation versus Canon Formation

A Tale of Two Gospels

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives