Part of the exchange over ecclesiastical infallibility has centered on I Timothy 3:15, which describes the church as a "pillar and buttress [or ground] of truth." Clifton notes in his latest reply, "Where Kevin and I differ, then, is what it means for the Church to be a pillar and ground of the truth. I claim it means infallibility, for if the truth itself is upheld and founded upon the Church (in complete harmony with the Scripture and the Holy Spirit), then the Church cannot err, or fail in terms of the truth." After looking it over, I am willing to concede the point. There remains the question of what follows from this. Let me explain. If we look back on the church from the point of view of the consummation, then it will have been the case that the truth could not have failed from the church. In this sense, the church will be shown to have been infallible; that is, it cannot ultimately fail in terms of the truth. But then, there is the matter of explaining those parts of the church that have aposatatized, or even of explaining the existence of denominations, many of which disagree with each other. Barring any evidence to the contrary, the Orthodox account is valid: the infallible Church exists as a particular, visible, and historical institution. Anything outside of this, such as Catholicism or the various Protestant denominations, are no part of the true Church. But, from the perspecitve of all of us non-Orthodox souls (except for those that might insert their own church in place of the Orthodox), this solution is somewhat drastic.
We can eliminate apostasy from the running with the words of I John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." In context, this is not talking about mere denominational differences, but about the existence of antichrists who have arisen from within the church only to leave it. That they leave the church is a way of identifying who they are. Now we need to determine whether or not denominational splits constitute leaving the church or whether they represent differences over secondary issues within the church. I opt for the latter. It comes down to a matter of common confession. Does the truth, from which the church will not ultimately fall, consist of more than is commonly confessed? That is, does it consist of more than what is essential to the gospel? I Timothy 3:15 is immediately followed by, "Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He [God] was manifest in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory." Clifton himself has stated that eccesiastical infallibility only concerns those matters essential to salvation. If this is the case, and I agree that it is, then why limit the true and infallible church to Orthodoxy? Why not say that the true church exists wherever the truth of the gospel has been maintained in a particular church? The advantage of this view is that the church is defined according to its adherence to the truth, whereas, in the single visible church hypothesis, the truth is defined, or at least recognized, in terms of its proclamation by that particular church. If it be objected that no other church holds to the truth, not even the truth of the gospel, then all the consequences of departing from the true church must apply: the truth of salvation and, therefore, salvation itself is not to be found in them.
Not only has this debate been about ecclesiastical infallibility when it comes to salvific truth, but it has also been about the validity of extra-biblical tradition. That the church may inerrantly interpret that revelation which is specific to salvation, and thus be proven to have been ultimately infallible, does not prove that the church may maintain and interpret as necessary to salvation (or even as otherwise true) things outside of Scripture. The Orthodox view of tradition has yet to be proven. [Appealing to the use of the word "traditions" in II Thessalonians does nothing so long as it has been demonstrated that all of the traditions mentioned have, in fact, been inscripturated.] On the other hand, many Protestants take Revelation 22:18, 19 as an effective counterclaim to this view and I have yet to see an adequate response.
Since I have conceded a certain understanding of ecclesiatical infallibility, any response to Clifton's comments on hermeneutics vs. epistemology would be moot. I acknowledge that it is a hermeneutical issue, but deny that it is not also epistemological. Epistemology is not only about the whether of knowledge, but about how we know. When discussing my own interpretations, setting them in the context of individual autonomy vs. ecclesistical authority, Clifton kept asking, "How do you know?" I have been responding to this, not to some misconception that Clifton predicates the infallibility of the church on the need to settle interpretive disputes. But, like I said, the point is now largely moot (all of which makes for a considerably shortened post).
The point of whether I am actually commiting the fallacy of assuming lack of proof for the opposition as proof for my own position is currently being addressed in the comments here. Clifton ends with a short point about Orthodox soteriology. He brings up three texts that I do not see as being about how to get saved. However, as he has said, this does "take us away from the argument proper" so I will not address the issue here. [I do reserve the right to do so in another post.] In conclusion, Scripture does teach the infallibity of the church when it comes to the truth. However, there is no need to expand the parameters of truth beyond the gospel; there is no need to define the true church as a single visible entity when many denominations still hold to the truth of the gospel; and there is no warrant for predicating the existence of extra-biblical tradition on the doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility in matters pertaining to salvation.
Clifton's latest response is largely filled with the claim that he had indeed substantively captured my argument and refuted it, even though I didn't, and still don't recognize this argument as put in his own words. I could understand saying this is failure to communicate and attributing it either to his own lack of understanding or to my lack of clarity. But to argue with me as to what I did or did not mean? As it stands, most of these are tangential to the main point and I have no interest in waisting more time in nothing more than defending my own interpretation of myself. Besides which, the full context of both sides are there for anyone who wants to look.
To the main point, though. Clifton concludes, "For the record we stand where we first did: Kevin arguing that (true) Tradition is nothing more than the propositional and inferential content of Scripture, and me arguing that Scripture is part of Tradition, the same in essence but different in material." For may part, this doesn't quite capture it. The fault could well be my own. I have said that the whole of tradition has been inscripturated; however, I did not mean to imply that it has been stripped of its life and is now nothing more than propositional and inferential content. It is rather that the content of any tradition can be expressed in linguistic terms. The sum of these linguistic expressions then form the foundation of belief and practice within a particular tradition. This is not a debate of propositions vs. life. It is that those churches who affirm sola scriptura limit the propositional foundation of their tradition to that which is expressed in Scripture. Churches that do not affirm this broaden the propositional foundation of their tradition to include other sources besides Scripture.
There are, of course, those who believe in basing their tradition on a smaller propositional foundation than Scripture, usually by postulating errors in the text or not believing it to be the Word of God at all. I'm not interested in them right now. This discussion is limited to those who at least agree on the divine authority of Scripture (or, at a minimum, the "Protestant 66"). Within these parameters, those who add to this propositional base and those who do not are advocating contradictory claims. Furthermore, the burden of proof is on the one who wants to make the additions. Here is the place to bring up Clifton's refrain that one of my favorite fallacies is assuming that lack of proof for the other side consitutes proof for my own. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it constitutes proof of my own, since, any minute now, he could pull out all that proof that he's been saving back. But, until this happens, it does constitute excellent grounds to think that my position is the more reasonable option. Our positions (within the parameters described) are not merely contrary, such that only one of us might be right but both could be wrong. They are contradictory positions, such that one of us must be right and the other must be wrong. Add to this that the burden of proof is on his side and his own lack of proof is a bigger problem for his position than he seems willing to admit.
We both agree that the foundation of tradition, whatever that might be, should be infallible, or, at least, inerrant. Whereas I limit this infallibility to Scripture itself, Clifton wishes to expand it to the church's proclamation as to what constitutes this broadened foundation and to its interpretation of that foundation. Once again, the burden of proof is on him (he claims to have met this, but, see below). If he were to meet the burden of proving ecclesiastical infallibiliy, then he would also have proven the expanded traditional foundation: the infallible church says so. If he does not, then it is most reasonable to say that the church is not infallible. I could not, however, take this to mean that his claims for expanded tradition were invalid. This would be an example of committing the fallacy of which he accuses me. Not to worry, though, I can still assume the invalidity of expanded tradition based on the fact that he has not met that burden of proof.
Clifton attempts to prove ecclesiastical infallibility by an appeal to vaious biblical texts. These texts are consistent with such infallibility and they would all serve to strengthen the case for infallibility. However, none of them proves infallibility. One's view of infallibility, either way, must be imported into the text. Clifton flat out rejects the distinctions I drew between descriptions and qualifiers in Matthew 18, but he has no basis for doing so other than a raw assertion. The relevant phrase is "in my name." Here, for context, are vs. 18,19, "Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them." These words are spoken in the context of church discipline, so they are talking about the church acting as the church. This is not a guarantee of success for any two people who agree about praying for the same thing. The phrase "in my name" is in reference to acting according to the will of Christ and does stand as a qualifier. The question is whether there is a "one true church" that always meets this qualification, meaning that it also describes this church. Or is it the case that, whenever churches do meet this qualification, whatever is asked will be done for them? The text itself does not answer the question (other than being terribly redundant if the first option is in view). The passage is about church discipline, not ecclesiastical infallibility. While such a doctrine, already established, can be supported from it, it can be deduced from it.
In I Timothy 3:15, Clifton accuses me of commiting the fallacy of the false dilemma, saying of my view, "Either you have the Holy Spirit and the infallible Scripture or you have an infallible Church." I do not do this. His next sentence captures my argument, "If you have the first two (Spirit and Scripture) you don't need the second." [an infallible Church] And then he turns right back around and gets it wrong again, "But he never actually argues how it is that the Holy Spirit and an infallible Scripture are incompatible with an infallible Church." Well, I don't argue it because I don't believe. These elements are perfectly compatible with one another. This is another passage that supports the notion of an infallible Church if you already have the notion. I am not saying that the elements are incompatible; rather, I am saying that ecclesiatical infallibility is not necessary for the church to be a pillar and ground of the truth when there are two other pillars also fulfilling this role. If Clifton wants to use this passage as proof of an infallible church, it is not enough to argue compatibility, he must also argue necessity.
Clifton takes Ephesians 4 out of the running, saying that it "was not meant so much to establish infallibility so much as to establish the Church's sufficiency, given Her in Christ, for her own maturity apart from, or least not dependent exclusively upon, the Scriptures." Nice qualification there. For a minute, it looked like he was going to dismiss Scripture altogether. Hey, if it isn't sufficient, why bother to make it necessary? But, even as stated, his intent fails since the context of the passage is the benefits that the church derives as a result of being given ministers of the Word.
John 16:13 has been somewhat confusing. Part of the fault, at least, is my own. I originally picked up on the phrase "lead into all truth" and explained this in terms of the illumination of the Holy Spirit- that ministry whereby he helps believers to understand the Scripture I knew in the back of my mind that this is not what John 16:13 was about and had no intention of using it as a supporting text. Understandably, Clifton assumed that I was arguing from John 16:13. To restate my own position on this passage. It is a promise made to the apostles and not to the church in general. It is not made just to the eleven who happened to be there, but, by extension, to anyone who would hold that or a similar office. I include prophets since these, along with the apostles, are called the foundation of the church. The promise is intended to guarantee the infallibility of doctrinal truth. It does not cover subsequent infallible interpretations. Depending on whether one already believes that such interpretive infallibilty is necessary or whether individual illumination is sufficient, either option could be inferred from this passage (an infallible Word isn't worth anything if it has no chance of being understood). But we don't need to depend on inferences. There are other passages that teach illumination.
Clifton has also gone on the offensive for eccesiastical interpretive infallibility. His basic line of reasoning is that, otherwise, Scripture means just what the individual or group says it means. Any objection that this involves the leading of the Holy Spirit is dismissed as so much question begging. The "Holy Spirit," for all anyone knows, is just individual opinion. And so Clifton's assertion that there is just no way to really know what Scripture means, or, equally to the point, to be bound to what Scripture means, unless it it is infallibly interpreted. Clifton has set up the problem in terms of epistemology. How can one know what the Scripture means? If the question is put in terms of authority, whose interpretation should be obeyed, it still goes back to epistemology. How does one know whose interpretation is authoritative? The question of who to trust, whether it is one's own interpretation of Scripture or the interpretation of the group, including any and all churches, is still a matter of individual decision.
When I pointed out that epistemological uncertainty would also be a problem even if there were an infallible interpreter, Clifton gave several reasons why this is a red herring.
1) "It is a red herring because it is precisely the problem with his own account, so to point the finger and call 'Thou art the man!' is simply to direct attention away from one's own self." Actually, if this were a fallacy, it would be closer to a tu quoque, which is a form of ad hominem. Person A makes an accusation and person B says, "You do, too!" All of which may be the case, but it doesn't disprove the original accusation. Clifton argues that my position leads to epistemological uncertainty. I counter that, if it does, then so does his. But this is not a tu quoque. The main reason is that Clifton has presented ecclesiastical interpretive infallibility as the answer to epistemological uncertainty. I am responding to his argument, not to Clifton himself, by denying this.
2) "It is also a red herring because the infallibility of the Church is not predicated upon the need for settling interpretive disputes, but is predicated upon the nature of what the Chuch is and the promises made by our Lord to the Church." Given the premise that the Church is infallible, I understand that this would be predicated on its nature. However, given that Clifton is the one who brought up the necessity of an infallible church for settling interpretive disputes, I find this point disingenuous.
3) "It is finally a red herring because the operative function of infalliblity is not clarity of interpretation but of authority. Only an infallible authority can say, "This is the mind of Christ." Accepting the truth of this statement for the sake of argument, it is still up to the individual to indentify the infallible authority among competing claims.
So far then, Clifton and I are holding to contradictory claims for which he has the burden of proof. He has not met this burden. His main offensive argument, that my own veiw results in epistemological uncertainty, can just as easily be turned back on his view. Finally, he goes on to clarify that the church has not settled every intepretive dispute. "Her infallibility, rather, is directed to the salvation of our souls." This does clear some things up for me, but it also begs some more questions. If this infallibility is needed for our salvation, then, does not it not follow that those other churches, which have not been blessed with this infallibility, do not have what it takes for its members to be saved? On the other hand, if it is the case that people are saved in other churches, then the infallibility of one church is not necessary. It is enough that all of the churches in which one can be saved be inerrant concerning the substance of what is fundamentally necessary to salvation. And if God is just saving them anyway, without having these essentials right, this begs the question, "Why even have these essentials?"
My next concern would be whether the limiting of ecclesiatical interpretive infallibility to matters of salvation would also apply to its alleged infallibity in matters of extra-biblical tradition. I sincerely hope not, for then tradition becomes "things to do that must be added to faith in order to be saved." It completely misses the point of grace. I cannot speak directly to the Orthodox Church, since my knowledge in the matter is limited (although, I have always been disturbed by the description on Cliftons blog- "An occasional record of one man's struggle for the salvation of his soul"). In the case of the Reformation, which involved objections to corruption within the Western Church, sola scriptura was intimately joined with sola fide. Salvation was understood to be solely according to the grace of Christ based on his own work. Our works have nothing to do with obtaining our salvation. It is possible to know that we are saved based upon believing the promise of God. Our works are given to us as a means of demonstrating our gratitude, not as a means whereby some church tells us how to get it to pronounce us saved.
Clifton laments that I have "not quite taken the care necessary to address the actual substance of [his] previous replies." If this was done, then credit it to miscommunication on either side. There was no attempt to avoid anything and I thank him for noting the possibility. We agree about iconography being a tangential matter. I would, however, appreciate it if he would refrain from arguing my position for me. There may actually be a Kevin out there who rejects icons because "there is no Scripture that commands all Christians everywhere to venerate icons." This Kevin rejects icons based on his understanding, along with that of the Reformed Church and much of Protestantism, of the Second Commandment.
Clifton puts more words in my mouth concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. I said, "Scripture clearly teaches it." I did not say that the inference from the Scriptures is "clear and unequivocal." This adds a connotation and spin to my position that I never intended. It makes it sound as though I believe that any individual with a Bible could just come to the correct and well formulated conclusion. It is clear enough from Scripture to be simply believed without knowing how it all fits together; otherwise, what of all the believers before the Church's official judgment? Where the Church made an invaluable contribution was in stating it in such a way as to defend against heretical interpretations. I make no claim that I could have understood the Trinity (as if I completely do now) apart from the teaching of the Church. There were, indeed, wranglings over this doctrine at Nicea and afterwards. But if these suggest that Scripture was unclear, then they also suggest that whatever Tradition there was was unclear. If the Church has a history of infallible interpretation going back to the time of the Apostles, why not just state it? Why wrangle?
Clifton bring up three passages that I address "through tortured and tortuous exegesis." Considering what he thinks was said, I would agree. However, I do not recognize my own position in his restatements thereof. Perhaps he's responding to that other Kevin again.
Matthew 18: I did not say that this passage teaches that the Church exerecises discipline in terms of what is presently known by its revelation in Scripture. This miscontrual makes it sound as if "presently" refers to the time that Jesus spoke these words. It then allows Clifton to stress that the NT was not witten yet and that any connotation of Scripture has to be of the OT. The way I phrased it, "the will of Christ, presently known by its revelation in Scripture," does not require that Jesus was limiting disciplinary matters only to the extant Scripture of the time. I also had no intention of implying that this text itself requires that the will of Christ concerning matters of discipline ever be inscripturated. The immediate text does not settle the question one way or the other. We both agree that Church disipline must be in concert with the revelation of God. Since the focus, at least for now, seems to have shifted from the validity of extra-Biblical tradition to ecclesiastical infallibillity, whether or not this revelation is ever inscripturated is beside the current point. Still, the passage is not teaching that whatever the Church decides, without qualification, will automatically be in concert with the revelation of God. It is saying that when these decisions are in concert with the revelation of God, then they will reflect what is true in heaven. Something needs to be done with the phrase "in my name." The immediate context is of no help in defining the nature of the church. If it is true that the church is infallible, then the phrase functions as a description: the true church always acts in the name of Christ. If it is not true that the church is infallible, then the phrase functions as a qualifier: the church will be correct in its decisions only insofar as it has acted in the name of Christ. In short, the text itself does not address the issue of infallibility. Notions for or against must be imported into it.
Ephesians 4: Clifton's rendition of my argument that "speaking the truth in love is, in the end, only by the preaching and teaching of the Word," is ambiguous. If he means that the preaching and teaching of the Word, and only the Word, is necessary for the church to speak the truth in love, then that is what I said. If he means that the preaching and teaching of the Word defines the limits of speaking the truth in love, then he should blame the other Kevin. Speaking the truth in love is not possible apart from those ministries whereby the Word is preached and taught. But it goes beyond this. It defines a life and a practice of love. It is informed by the content of Scripture, but not limited thereto (which would constitute a caricature of sola scriptura). In building one another up, the members of the church must also think in terms of those unique lives and circumstances that surround them. We interpret the comtemporary in accordance with the preaching of the Word. Now to his mantra that any mention or implication of Scripture must be limited to the OT. In II Peter 3:15, 16, Peter mentions Paul's letters and compares them to the "other Scriptures." That is, there were some NT letters that had already been recognized as Scripture. I believe that more can be inferred from this, but I'll leave it at a minimum. "Scripture" is used in Scipture to refer to more than OT Scripture. Furthermore, there is a difference between direct reference and implication. When Paul says in II Timothy 3:16 that "All Scripture is breathed out by God," the direct reference can only be to whatever had been written at the time. However, by implication it must include all Scripture that was to be written thereafter. Either that or anything from a later date is less important. There is no textual reason for me to limit "Scripture" or "Word" to the OT when Scripture itself does not do this. My cessationist views concerning the offices of apostles and prophets were only brought up by way of negation in order to focus on the one (or two) office[s] concerning which there is no dispute. The more important point is found in what these offices have in common: they are all ministers of the Word.
I Timothy 3:15: So, Kevin actually thought that "pillar" and "ground" do not refer to the Church? What an idiot. But I said no such thing. Read the first sentence. "I could say...but I won't." I even put in a smiley face. How much more explicit should I have been to indicate that this was said in jest? I was alluding to Clifton's attempt to argue that to teleion in I Corinthians 13 could not refer to he graphe because it was in a different gender (which is all the more ridiculous since it appears that he would prefer to substitute the equally feminine he parousia). He agrees to take out the definite article but then puts it right back in when he writes, "he would have seen that contra his assertion the Church is indeed called the pillar and ground of the truth." But this misses the force of its absence in the original text. The passage is not teaching that the Church stands alone in this regard. The truth is also anchored in the guidance of the Holy Spirit and in the infallible Word. There is no need for the Church to be infallible when it is in such company.
John 16:13: I never actually dealt with this text. I did use the phrase, "The Holy Spirit will lead the Church into all truth," but I didn't have this text in mind. The fault is my own for the misunderstanding. This text, I believe, does imply a certain infallibility, but only for a specific purpose (my position is close, but significantly different than that of the gleeful other Kevin). I take this text as referring to the receiving of tradition (which I believe is eventually inscripturated, thus the necessity of an infallible element). The process of which I spoke was in reference to the Church's interpretation of Scripture. One may attempt to argue that the distinction is not valid, but there is no contradiction.
Hodegesei is not the aorist subjunctive of "to lead." It is the future indicative. I suspect that Clifton is confusing it with elthe, which is the aorist sunjunctive of "to come." "When the Spirit of truth comes [aorist subjunctive], he will lead [future indicative] you into all the truth." The coming of the Holy Spirit is a snapshot event fulfilled in Acts 2; the leading of the Holy Spirit can take place for an indefinite period of time after that event.
This Kevin also believes that the promise was made to the Apostles. But he does not believe that it was made towards the end of the inscripturating of apostolic tradition. That process hadn't even started yet. Jumping down to the part where Kevin would say that various places in which the Holy Spirit leads the church are only instances of Apostles, this one would not agree. James was not an apostle and I think it more likely that the Philip spoken of in Acts is the deacon (6:5) who also had the office of an evangelist (21:8). Now, I would say that the promise made in John 16:13 was not made to the Eleven as such, but as they represented the foundational offices of the church, which include both apostles and prophets. It extends to more than the Eleven, but it does not need to extend to the whole church. This promise concerns their role as the church's foundation. It is about the receiving and future inscripturation of tradition. While the Spirit does lead in other capacities, this verse does not address these and cannot be set in opposition to those passages that do.
The promise in John 16:13 applies to the formation of tradition, not to its subsequent interpretation. It need not be applied to anything beyond the foundational offices. I will agree that, in context, the truth refers to Jesus. But, just as we can go back to 14:6, we can also jump forward to 17:17 where the word is truth. John himself ties the two concepts together at the opening of his gospel, "In the beginning was the Word." There is a double referent. The Spirit will lead into the truth, which is Christ, who is fully revealed in the canons of Scripture. This verse was fulfilled in the completion of the Scriptures. But it does not follow that the Holy Spirit no longer leads into truth in other capacities. This would only be the case if this were the only passage from which such an activity could be inferred. Yet, even Clifton notes other passages that imply the leading of the Spirit as it relates to truth. But these were in reference to the members of the church. A verse about leading the foundation of the church into truth as it relates to the formation of tradition should not be confused with verses in which the members are led into truth as it relates to the interpretation of tradition.
Hermeneutics
Clifton notes, "if an interpretation can be as authoritative, or authoritative in the same way, as Scripture, then it begs the question as to why one must decide between such an authoritative interpretation and an uninterpreted Scripture." I'm wondering the same thing. What possible good is uninterpreted Scripture to the faith and practice of the church? This is not what sola scriptura means. It includes not only the written Word, but also the preached Word, which, by definition, is the Word interpreted. Both aspects are authoritative, but in different ways. The written Word is infallible. It establishes what the church may believe and what it may practice. But it is powerless on its own, or to put it another way, it is insufficient. The Word must also be preached. The preached Word is not infallible, yet, insofar as it accurately conveys the intent of the written Word, it is inerrant. And the reverse is also the case, to the extent that it does not convey the intent of the written Word, it is not inerrant. If the infallible written Word is the ultimate authority to which all preaching, confessions, and creeds must bow, then the fallible preached Word is the authority to which the members of the church must submit. This in no way suggests a blind submission. Rather, the people must study Scripture to see whether what was preached is so; the pastors must be under constant review of their peers; local churches must submit to larger bodies; confessions and creeds should be maintained. Authority does not imply that the one in authority is always right. Many disagreements between those in authority and those being led need to be resolved by submission. Nevertheless, it is also the case the Holy Spirit illumines the minds of individuals. We all stand under a dual authority: that of God and that of men and, forced into a decision, we ought always to obey God.
Clifton states that the only way that I can know that some people are teaching heresy is because they do not agree with my interpretation. As stated, this is both true and painfully obvious. Knowledge is not possible unless it is filtered through individual interpretation. This is how we were created. But Clifton means to deny this. He seeks to set up a false dilemma between individual interpretation and submission to an external infallible interpretation. This will not work, for, ultimately, interpretation must be internalized. Clifton asserts that only an infallible interpretor can settle disputes between intepretive options. There is a problem with this. The infallible interpretor is outside of the individual. Once it states its infallible interpretation, the relationship between this interpretation and the individual is the same as that which existed between the individual and the thing interpreted. The interpretation now needs to be interpreted. Add as large a regress of interpretation as you will, at some point, the individual will have to interpret what he has heard. And unless this final individual interpretation is also infallible, it begs the question of why a particular link in the interpretive chain had to be infallible. Whether my beliefs run contrary to what any other part of the church has ever said or whether, to the best of my ability, I follow the creeds and councils, it is, in the end, my interpretation that has decided the matter. Clifton is no different. He has chosen to follow Orthodoxy because, by his interpretation, it is the true religion. By his interpretation, infallibility is necessary. For each article of faith and practice in the Orthodox church, he chooses to agree with it because, by his interpretation, it is correct. Or if, failing to understand an article, he submits anyway, then, by his interpretation, this was the correct thing to do. In short, Clifton has not escaped the viscious interpretive circle either. He believes and practices all that he does because it agrees with his interpretation. The interpretive device that asks, "What does it mean to me?" such that objective truth is irrelevant, is, at all times, to be avoided. On the other hand, meaning is meaningless unless it means something to me. No one who has been created in the imago deican escape this.
Clifton writes, "For let us suppose that on any matter of interpretation, both Kevin and I put forward stellar biblical exegesis, each of us has a truckload of historical data, and more to the point, our arguments are logical, valid and for all intents and purpose unassailable. But we both make contradictory interpretations. How does Buridan's ass choose between the two?" The kindess thing would be to let the ass know that he has been presented with a false dilemma. For if conclusions drawn from the same premises are contradictory, then at least one of the arguments employed was not "logical, valid and for all intents and purpose unassailable." We do not need an infallible interpretor when it is possible to set our arguments up for scrutiny, both in the general public and, more importantly, in the body of Christ. Or if the same objective conclusion were drawn but then interpreted in contradictory fashion, then no external arbiter could settle the matter, for we would be just as likely to reach contradictory interpretations of the decision, ad infinitum.
Concerning my disparagment of the allegorical method, Clifton mentions Paul, who, in Galatians 4, uses the allegorical method. He writes, "Kevin will doubtless reply that when one is an inspired author of Scripture, one may do as one wishes..." Once again, he has the wrong Kevin in mind. This one thinks that when an inspired author of Scripture employs an interpretive method, then it is in his best interest to understand this method and adopt it for like biblical genres. Essentially, that method of interpretation commonly called allegorical and the method that Paul was practicing have nothing in common but the name. Common allegory is nothing more than overlaying one term on top of another, often with no regard for history or grammar. Paul's interpretation is not an overlay but arises from within the narrative. The idea is that Scripture is a grand narrative of redemption in Christ. It is filled with smaller narratives that each recapitulate this story. Matthew tells of Jesus being taken to Egypt as a child in order to escape Herod's slaughter. He says that it fulfills Hosea 11:1, "Out of Egypt I called my son." But, on an intial reading, Hosea is not talking about Christ but about the Exodus of Israel. We may either conclude that Matthew, an inspired author, can do as he pleases, which fundamentalists must do; or, we can push back along with Matthew and see that the Exodus of Israel, that Israel itself, was always a living prophecy to be fulfilled in the person of Christ. Note in Genesis 12 the remarkable parallels between the Exodus and Abram leaving Egypt after Pharaoh's house is afflicted with great plagues. The parallels between the Abrahamic narrative and that of Israel continue right on through Sinai as represented in Hagar and the New Jerusalem as represented in Sarah. Both narratives are, ultimately, the story of Christ.
Yes, I have made recourse to the Westminster Standards, often with ironic intent. But there is a great difference between this Reformed tradition and that of the Orthodox. The Westminster Standards are self-consciously intended as an interpretation of Scripture and secondary thereunto. They are not that which, being woven of the same fabric, stands alongside Scripture. They are fully in line with sola scriptura and, as such, are not extra-biblical in the consistent sense with which I have used the term.
This post continues the discussion concerning Scripture and Tradition. It answers first this post and then this one.
(Justification from Properly Exegeted Scriptures)
The content of Scripture is not limited to mere propositions but includes whatever it was intended to teach. This is what I mean by saying that any particular tradition that the Church has, especially if this tradition may authoritatively bind the conscience, must be capable of being justified from Scripture properly exegeted. The WCF I.6a puts it like this, "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men."
It is possible for something to be in no contradiction whatsoever with Scripture yet still fail to be justified by Scripture properly exegeted. The idea is not that Scripture must deny a particular tradition in order for it to be invalid; rather, a tradition is deemed invalid if Scripture does not support it. The burden of justification is on those who would add to Scripture.
Let me clarify something. My stress on "proper exegesis" is to determine those things that are acceptable for the Church to believe. If something is improperly exegeted, this does not, at least in the sense that I am using the term, make it "extra-Biblical tradition." There is, at least, an attempt to follow Scripture. Improper exegesis is a problem and a discussion in which I am interested. However, it does not fall under the parameters of this discussion. Here, I am objecting to tradition that does not claim to have its authority in Scripture. If the entire matter is a difference of interpretation (which I would be glad to take up in its place), then my objection to extra-Biblical tradition, while I still stand by it, is moot regarding the Orthodox Church. Since you believe it it possible "to go through the Tradition and show its complete consonance in its entirety with properly exegeted Scripture," I can't really see that you believe what I have denied. Would you happen to know, then, what is the position of the Orthodox Church? Is it just that certain of the traditions do not contradict Scripture, perhaps, because Scripture does not address them? or is it that all of the traditions can be positively justified by means of Scriptural exegesis?
If it is the latter, then I have no quarrel with the Orthodox conception of Tradition per se. However, before we can move on to matters of specific exegesis, there is still the matter that the Orthodox Church assigns to itself an infallible ability to interpret Scripture. While I freely acknowledge that the Orthodox Church has many things right and that it may even be right on certain points over which I disagree, I can't help but to question the ultimate fruitfulness of many of the specific exegetical points. For one who believes that his church's interpretation is infallible, there must be an a priori assumption that all cases to the contrary are without merit. I may be able to defend my positions against possible misunderstandings, but the game is set up in such a way that I can never make an effective offensive move.
It occurs to me as I read your paragraphs on various scriptural interpretations, with the refrain of "How do you know?" that your own attraction to Orthodoxy may have less to do with the its ability to justify its claims and more to do with your concept of epistemology. You seem to want to define knowledge in terms of Cartesian certainty. One way of doing this when it comes to matters of Scriptural interpretation and general faith is to postulate the existence of infallible interpreters who can tell you precisely what to think. I do not share this view. This kind of epistemological certainty is a myth. I firmly believe in objective truth, but I do not believe that God ever intends to spoonfeed it to us. Those matters that are essential to our salvation are clear from Scripture. These are those matters upon which the Church as a whole is agreed in its common confessions. But there are other matters that require serious study. While a maximum of one interpretation can be correct, these are matters over which individuals and even churches may disagree. This does not mean that knowledge of the truth, which is essential to the life of the Church, is ultimately lost. Rather, it implies that a deepening of faith, which is just as essential to this life, is ultimately gained. There must be some sense in which faith concerns that which is unseen; otherwise, it is not faith, but sight. In a very real sense, and not discounting the necessary function of the Word and the Sacraments, faith grows when it wrestles with the unknown. Furthermore, it is through this process that the Church is guided into the truth.
As to choosing a particular interpretive method, you paint too bleak a picture. It is possible to narrow down the options without resorting to infallible interpretation. If the doctrine of Scripture's infallibility implies anything, it is that there are intended parameters on the range of interpretation. Allegorical and "what does it mean to me" are both far too open to eisegesis to be of any use. On the other hand, the woodenly literal interpretation of many fundamentalists completely misses the intent of the various biblical genres. The Bible is, at the very least, a book of literature. As to the suggestion that Scripture itself cannot suggest an interpretive method, this is not entirely true. My own approach to hermeneutics was greatly helped when I noticed that the authors of the NT have a way of interpreting the OT that is not at all in keeping with what I had been doing. In any event, even if correct exegetical methods were nearly impossible to come by, this would not necessitate an infallible interpreter. The promise that the Church will be led into all truth is not based on her own skills but upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Many times I have read various authors throughout church history and have been able to affirm their conclusions even amidst their oftentimes bizarre methodology.
No, there is no reason at all that I need narrow my argument to limiting Tradition to the explicit propositional content of Scripture. The Holy Spirit will lead the Church into all truth. But he will not do this immediately nor will he do it by gifting the Church that remains on this earth with infallibility. The Church is led into truth by dealing with her error; into strength by struggling with her weakness. Ecclesiatical infallibility may be a logical solution to the problem of epistemological uncertainty, but, aside from answering an erroneous concept of epistemology, faith does not require such certainty. I do rest certain in the promise that God will not allow the Church to finally perish nor will he allow the same in me. If I attend to the means of grace, if I add to my faith those things by which I make my calling and election sure (II Peter 1), then I may be assured that, although I may not have everything just right, my grasp of the truth is sufficient unto life.
(Cessationism and Not Adding/Deleting)
No offence taken at your opinion of my interpretation of I Corinthians 13. Your answer to it is rather weak, though. Consider first your appeal to the Greek. The neuter gender of "teleion" is determined by the fact that it is a stand alone adjective. When paired with the definite article "to," it functions as a noun. Literally translated "the complete," the missing noun is understood, "the complete thing," or, as often translated, "that which is complete." The gender of an adjective need only match that of the noun it modifies, whether explicitly stated or implied. That the referent of such a noun may also be denominated by another noun of a different gender is irrelevant. Stipulating to your argument that, when Paul speaks of the Scriptures he means the OT, perhaps this is why he didn't use the term. Also, since the OT was complete, arguing for the completion of Scripture, when it could very well be understood in this sense, would be confusing at best. "To teleion" is much clearer and its precise meaning can be determined by the nature of those things that would come to an end at its arrival. While this nature cannot be determined from the immediate context of chapter 13, that of tongues can be determined from the surrounding chapters. Assuming that Paul is presenting a coherent argument, prophecy and knowledge should have a similar function. The foundational role of the prophet, mentioned in Ephesians, supports such an interpretation. My uncertainty had to do with the specific function of knowledge, not to whether this function is related to that of tongues or prophecy, nor to whether "to teleion" refers to the then incomplete NT canon. The cessationist argument can be made on the basis of Paul's explanation of toungues. It would be falsified by giving a more likely opposing account of prophecy and knoweldge. A Christian who is not a cessationist would probably not want accept this interpretation. However, for those who do deny the present validity of the charismatic gifts, I am hard pressed to think of a better account for "to teleion." Incidentally, I have no idea what the Orthodox position on the charismatic gifts is. I can only assume by your own standards that your suggestion of the Parousia or the coming age is not serious. Neither one matches the gender of "to teleion." As to v. 12, the coming age does make sense, but this does not contradict the cessationist argument. The coming age and revelation are related concepts.
I'm glad we agree that the Revelation passage can refer to the whole of Scripture. We do not agree, however, that it is a stretch to say, "Don't add traditions." The stretch is found in excluding tradition from the prohibition. Doing so fails to acknowledge the primary purpose of Scripture as a (the) rule of faith and practice. Inasmuch as tradition is intended to function in the same way, adding it to Scripture would have the same effect as adding to a book or canonical list. Also note that what is added to Scripture is not specified, whereas what is taken away is specified as "the words of the book of this prophecy." If the same phrase can be taken of all Scripture, then the prophibition is against taking away any Scripture, not just that contained in Revelation. More to the point, though. The prohibition is only against taking away Scripture: no mention is made of taking away from extra-Biblical tradition. The prohibition against adding is not limited to Scripture; rather, it is extensive enough to mean, "Don't add anything." A fully consistent account for this is that there is no valid extra-Biblical tradition from which to subtract or that can be added to Scripture. This, I believe, is John's original intent. As to those traditions that are justified from a proper exegesis of Scripture, these had always been latent within Scripture and cannot constitute an addition once such teaching of Scripture has been recognized.
I do not commit the logical fallacy of which you accuse me- assuming the absence of a proof for the opposing position as proof of my own. My position concerning extra-Biblical tradition is simply this: There is no proof of its validity. I infer from this that it is invalid. I will continue to assume that it is invalid until the burden of proof is met. Something simple like Acts 29:1, "And he gave them many infallible traditions, which are not recorded in the words of this book." I'm relatively easy to please.
(The Foundation of Tradition and Scripture in the Holy Spirit)
I don't get the distinction you're making in the first paragraph, although, I am happy to see that you're being more generous to the Holy Spirit than my first impression had led me to believe.
A single verse in Acts is sufficient to take Sunday worship out of the realm of extra-Biblical tradition. But, say that you're right, that it only applies to a particular congregation. In this case, the practice of corporate worship is still directed in Scripture. The specific day in this case would be a necessary matter of extra-Biblical tradition. However, such tradition would not be binding but could be changed by any church at any time. Having said this, there is more of a Scriptural basis for Sunday worship than a single passage in Acts. I Corinthians 16:2 specifies the first day of the week as the time to set aside for the collection for the saints. Taken alone, this would suffer the same problem as the Acts passage- it could be specific to the church at Corinth. Instead, both of these passages should be seen as standing in agreement with a broader theology of the Sabbath. The last day of the week was the established day for worship in the OT. It was the day of rest and its place in the week revealed its eschatological function. It was a continual reminder of the final rest that would be inaugurated in the last days by the advent of Christ. We are living in the last days in which the New Age has broken into this age by means of the resurrection of Christ. That to which the Sabbath pointed has now arrived. We acknowledge this by worshipping on the first day of the week, the day of Christ's resurrection.
(The Stable Content of Tradition)
You write, "But there is no distinction between that which you agree 'may be categorized as holy Tradition' and something else you call the 'fuller' tradition.' Your construing it this way implies that Tradition is little more than centuries of accretion upon accretion." Um,... Exactly.
Concerning icons- they're probably a lot older than the eighth century. As to your evidence of iconography in first century practice, please produce it. I would like something more substantial than the fact that the catacombs had pictures. Nevertheless, I must acknowledge that the practice came from somewhere. A likely source may be found in various Gentile converts who imported their cultural idol worship into the church. Moreover, I have a particularly hard time accepting iconography. Even if I did agree to the validity of extra-Biblical tradition, I could not see my way to making icons a part of it. Considering the predominance of Jews in the early church coupled with the post-exilic Jewish aversion to anything that even smelled like an idol, I would have expected historical evidence (preferably Scriptural) that this issue had been addressed to the satisfaction of the Jews. I have read some early material on the subject, it may have even been John of Damascus. As I recall, the argument was two-fold. One part appeared to the Platonic chain of being; the other argued that the incarnation had changed the terms whereby the Second Commandement, the one prohibiting graven images, was to be understood. While I believe this to be enough, technically, to take iconography out of the category of extra-Biblical tradition, it strikes me more as rationalization of a prior belief using Scripture rather than an example of sound exegesis. In light of such a specific prohibition, I want more than an argument that the incarnation may allow for iconography; I want the incarnation to require iconography.
As to the Eucharist, this is, as you indicate from the claims in the NT, a matter of interpretation. Consequently, it does not fall under the rubric of extra-Biblical tradition. Yes, the NT is explicit in its wording and the early church fathers did not shy away from such language. I acknowledge the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; however, there is nothing either in NT language or that of the early church that requires such interpretive extremes as that which results from the Roman Catholic infusion of Aristotelian philosophy. As to the Orthodox view, I do not know what it is and so cannot say whether or not I would agree with its substance after any potentially confusing wording had been removed. I am not convinced that you have the historical evidence to say that "the Tradition has been pretty much stable from the time of the Apostles." Things such as Catacombian pictures might confirm such a hypothesis once it had been established, but are hardly sufficient to prove it otherwise.
-----------------------------------------
The remainder deals with the second post, "A-Voiding the Word."
Calling the Orthodox Church a "denomination" was not a slip but deliberate. It represents the view of every other denomination. The Orthodox Church would do well not to stick so close to its distinctives and listen to the judgment of everyone else who has been baptized into the name of the triune God. I am well aware of the Orthodox Church's opinion of herself. She is quite mistaken.
The strength with which you state the claims of the Orthodox Church does, indeed, lead to the conclusion that other denominations have no life. But then, may it never be said that I have forced anyone into being logical. Actually, I believe your explanation and understand it in an odd sort of way. I grew up in a number of Baptist Churches, some of which held to a belief called the "Baptist Bride." The idea was that since baptism was the only door into the church, since only believers were to be baptized, since it had to be by immersion, and since baptism was only valid if administered by someone in the church (i.e., a baptized believer), then there had to be an unbroken line of believers' baptism all the way back to John the Baptist. Conversely, any group that practiced any baptism besides the immersion of believers, or that could be traced back to such a group, could not be considered a true church. They could be saved, but would remain second class citizens in heaven. The same view of the Church that turned me away from any further possibility of accepting the Baptist Bride will not allow me to accept the Orthodox doctrine of the Church. The Church comprises all of the elect of all time. It consists of all those who are in union with Jesus Christ. Such union is, since the advent of Christ, sacramentally symbolized in baptism. The visible Church, then, consists of all those to whom this baptism rightly applies: those who profess Christ and their children. Most important, though, is the concept of union with Christ. Where this is the case, there is the Church and there is life. Where there is no union with Christ, there is neither. Your own account of other denominations is an odd chimera in which the head, though severed from the other parts, is still able to impart life. It is true that the Holy Trinity makes alive, but this is not done apart from justice. We are not just dead, but dead in sin. Life may only be granted to those who are united with Christ in his death and resurrection. But then, such union defines the church.
Matthew 18:18-20 is not an unconditional promise of the Church's infallibility in binding and loosing such that we can be sure that a thing is bound because the Orthodox say it is. The passage concerns local church discipline- two or three. The condition is found in v. 20, the two or three are gathered in my name, that is, in the name of Christ. The idea is that they are acting according to the will of Christ, presenty known by its revelation in Scripture. The idea is not a license for the Church to do as it pleases knowing that she can't be wrong. It is that, provided she is acting according to the revealed will of God, then her verdicts will reflect those that are true in heaven.
I Timothy 3:15. I could say that neither the masculine stulos nor the neuter hedraioma could possibly have anything to do with the feminine ecclesia, but I won't. :) As it is, I don't think it can support the weight of ecclesiastical infallibility. First, there is no article. It is not "the pillar..." but "a pillar..." Ho stulos simply means a pillar. The language is figurative and complements the next term to hedraioma, which means, "that which provides the basis or foundation for belief or practice." Assuming the presence of both the Holy Spirit and of Scripture (or, at the time, that tradtion which had yet to be inscripturated), there is no need to postulate infallibility for the Church in order for it to function in this regard.
To your question, "Where in all of Scripture does Scripture say this about itself?" the only positive statement I made to this effect in the relevant quote was that "Scripture sets the parameters both of the Gospel and of the Church." So far, the scriptural examples that you have have produced illustrate this quite nicely. As to the rest of the quote, I said, "Scripture gives no warrant..," and "Christ has given no such authorization." I don't have to show any place in Scripture where warrant is not given. I'm simply stating a fact; the evidence is not there. You have to show me that it is.
Ephesians 4:16. You ask, "But where does it say in Scripture that Scripture has this capacity to bring the whole Church into maturity in Christ?" Let's consider the immediate context. Christ gives the Church gifts, which include apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers (v.11). I've already mentioned the foundational role of the apostles and prophets (2:20). Now take the office whose present validity is undisputed; pastor and teacher (or, as some would have, two offices of pastor, and teacher). Paul's admonition to Timothy, the pastor at Ephesus, was, "Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching" (II Timothy 2:2). Just prior to this, Paul had identified the Scripture as being sufficient unto these things, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitiable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteosness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (3:16,17). Back in Ephesians 4, these officers are given as gifts to the Church in order that they might "equip the saints for the work of the ministry" (v.12). They are to "attain to the unity of the faith" (v.13) and not be "carried about by every wind of doctrine" (v.14). The pastor accomplishes this through the faithful preaching of the Word. The result is that the Church, "speaking the truth in love" (v.15) will grow into maturity in Christ. And so the prayer of Christ is answered, "Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth" (John 17:17). Scripture, considered in the abstract as a collection of propositions, has no power. But this has nothing to do with sola scriptura. Scripture preached and lived is another matter altogether. "For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12).
I don't reject the Trinity because Scripture clearly teaches it. I suppose, though, that you want me to affirm what the Church has said about it. I do. I take the Church's declarations very seriously and, often, they have pointed me in the right direction for interpretation. But I would be a fool if I didn't double check. As to inferring Arianism, I know that this can be done, but I've never seen how. Isn't it nice how the Church, in agreeing on an essential doctrine, has reshaped the likely ways to think about it? I admit it, my views of the Trinity have been greatly influenced by the teaching of the Church.
"Name one heresy that the Orthodox Church as a whole as espoused." Do you mean that there are parts of the one infallible Church that have espoused heresy? In any case, this is a loaded request considerig the technical definition of a heresy, which is whatever is contrary to the ecumenical creeds and councils. As if these councils could have addressed the sum total of heresy before both sides of the Church, Orthodox and Catholic, decided to flaunt their immaturity and split from one another. Basically, anything that I might suggest will only be dismissed on the grounds that the Orthodox Church as a whole doesn't agree.
Churches can fall into heresy becase of their interpretation of the Scripture. More often, this is not the sole cause. They are are either ignoring other parts of Scripture or they are adding what is not contained in Scripture. Furthermore, they are paying no attention to the general consensus of thought within the historical Church. I would also say that, depending on the seriousness of the heresy, they are not being led by the Holy Spirit. In short, churches that have fallen into and persist in serious heresy may soon cease to be a part of the Church. Interpretation is no problem for my thesis. I am perfectly confident that the Holy Spirit can overcome any and all epistemological objections.
You present a false dichotomy. The options are not either accept the infallibility of the Orthodox Church or enshrine my own mind and thinking over it. Rather, the Church works in cooperation with her people in order to grow into a knowledge of the truth. There may be some deviation, which will be corrected, and some may ultimately fall away, but the general trend is always toward maturity in the knowledge of the truth. It is not up to the Orthodox to say to the rest of the Church, "No, you got it wrong. You must not be a part of us." No. The Orthodox Church is a denomination. As much as it would like to claim infallibility, that it alone of all those who profess Christ has remained united, it just ain't so. To the extent that we are all the recipients of baptism, to the extent that Christ claims all of the Church as his own, you're stuck with us.
Please understand that my final conclusion was not meant to be gratuitously offensive. I truly mean nothing personal. Nevertheless, I make no further apology and I cannot take it back. The nature of such a discourse, which is deeply held matters of faith, must necessarily offend in some points. In order to avoid such a thing, I will not resort to saying that religion is a personal thing that has no bearing on reality. One of us has to be wrong. My conclusion is only illogical if the Orthodox Church is, in fact, the one, true, and infallible Church. However, if it is not, as I firmly believe, if it is just a denomination that is mistaken about its infallibility; if it has added to the Scripture contrary to Scripture and then played the part of the schismatic by claiming that those who do not follow it in this heresy are no part of the Church, then it does stand in some serious need of repentance. My statement was not intended for that body of Christians who came before me. I honor both their sacrifices and what they have done for the Church. My statement is aimed at that particular and present day denomination that makes claims for itself the likes of which the early church never could have dreamed (well, the Novatians might have come close). As to Orthodoxy not judging "those outside her bounds as having outgrown the need for humility and repentance," wouldn't this beg the question? Most of them don't claim infallibility. As for those that do, think of black kitchenware.
This is written in response to My Account of Scripture and Tradition, which I see a heartfelt account of the meaning of the Orthodox faith. I wish everyone believed that the church's life was something given to it by Christ; that this life is no mere doctrinal concept. To this extent, we agree. Yet, the substance of the account consists in beautifully worded descriptions of the Life of the Church interwoven with unsubstantiated claims concerning the origin of extra-Biblical tradition. I believe that the Church has been blessed with Life; however, I am far from being persuaded that this Life is not fully attained (as much as it can be before the return of Christ) when the church believes and puts into practice that which is recorded in Scripture.
Consider this quote, "Because this Tradition is filled with the Life of Christ himself, it carries His authority, and is thus infallible. But this Tradition is not, nor ever could be, separable from the Church, for the Church Herself is the Body of Christ, and is filled with Christ in whom is the fullness of the Godhead." This statement would be fine if "Tradition" meant those beliefs and practices which exhibit the truths of the Gospel and are common to all those who profess the name of Christ. But it does not. It refers to the beliefs and practices of a specific denomination. The Orthodox Church is the true church of Christ. It has a specific way of doing things, which it defines as its "Tradition." This, it claims, is given in infallible and unbroken form all the way from Christ. The proof of such a pedigree is found in the fact that it is this church that does these things.
But, if Tradition is defined as the Life of the Church, what does this say for all other Christian denominations? Precisely this, that they have no life. If the Tradition cannot be separated from the Church, then those denominations that do not practice this Tradition are no part of the Church. If this Church, the one that has all of this Tradition, is defined as the Body of Christ, then denominations without the Tradition are no part of the Body of Christ. If it is this body of Christ that is filled with Christ, then no other denomination can claim such a fulness. In fact, it would seem that, besides the Orthodox Church, that no other church that professes Christ can claim Christ at all. If Christ's Church is thus defined by its Tradition, then no other church belongs to Christ. These are conclusions necessarily drawn from so strong an account of Tradition.
Am I saying that this is not possible? Not at all. I do not shy away from an exclusive faith. There is life in Christ and in Christ alone. Any creed that does not acknowledge this has already been condemned to death. I am saying that Scripture sets the parameters both of the Gospel and of the Church. I am saying that Scripture gives no warrant whatsoever for a particular church to say, "plus all the things that we've been doing," and then call this, "Life." Even more, I am saying that Christ has given no such authorization. It is unthinkable that the One whom Scripure so fully reveals in the simplicity of the Gospel should have entrusted extra conditions for Life to a particular church with no indication that he had done so, no indication of what these conditions are, and no way of determining which church has this extra-Biblical but oh so essential truth. For every other doctrine and practice, we can know how close a church is to the will of Christ by comparing it to his inscriputurated will. Not so with Orthodox Tradition.
I have seen particular churches throughout history fall into heresy or some other sin far too often to think that it can't happen to any other church. The only defense against this, and only sure way by which the Church will triumph agaisnt the gates of Hell, is to know the will of God as it has been given in Scripture. What possible motivation could there then be for following a church whose distinctive beliefs are not a misinterpretation of Scripture simply by virtue of the fact that they are not based on Scripture at all? The claim that these distinctives, otherwise called Tradition, are infallible is of little comfort. This amounts to little more than the claim that the church that holds to these Traditions is infallible, for an infallible Tradition must be infallibly preserved in the actions of the people, else the Tradition changes.
So then, even though Scripture has presented the Gospel, which is life, in its simplicity, the Orthodox Church says that this is not enough, our Tradition is life; trust us, we're infallible. I cannot doubt the sincerity. Years, even centuries of doing things the same way can make any group think they're right. What bothers me most, though, is the corresponding idea that the Orthodox cannot be wrong. It is a church that has outgrown the need both for humility and for repentance. I can think of nothing more devastating to the soul.
This is, as the title suggests, a response to another post. It may be easier to read that one first or at least side by side with this. I have used the same headings and tried to respond in the order of that argument.
The topic of debate here concerns the validity of extra-Biblical Church Tradition. To that end, I'd like to skip over two points in your response. If you want me to address any of them, don't hesitate to ask and I will. These include: intercessions of the 'dead' and fallibilty and infallibility. For both of these, you are making your case from Scripture, which makes them a matter of scriptural exegesis and not of extra-Biblical tradition.
(Sufficiency of Oral Transmission)
You write that I "seem to assume that since the NT Scriptures were written down within the first two generations of the Church (from, presumably, A.D. 50s-90s), that all had ready access to those Scriptures." I do not. Near the end my comment, I wrote, "The incomplete status of Scripture during the first century necessitated oral Tradition; the sufficiency of the completed Scripture today makes such oral Tradition obsolete. Two options exist for those local congregations that did not have all of the NT: 1) They made do with what they had (unlikely, since the whole of Tradition is not only sufficient, but necessary); 2) they relied on oral Tradition." As I indicated, I believe option 2 to be more likely and I am willing to extend this necessity for oral transmission of the Tradition for as long as the entire canon had not been made available. I concluded, "There is, however, no argument here that the legitimate content of that Tradition was any more than what is contained in the NT." [Or, for that matter, all of Scripture- OT included.]
(Sufficiency of Scripture for faith and practice)
Am I to understand that Judaism recognized a larger group of books than is in their present Scripture but allowed a council at Jamnia to throw some of them out just to spite the Christians? I don't think so. Anyway, see here. The author writes:
So far, we have seen that the canonicity of from six to eight books was discussed by the rabbis, all but one of which are in the third of the present divisions of the Hebrew Bible. Unless one considers the books of Hamiram to have been real candidates for canonicity, only books in the present canon were even mentioned.
The defensive nature of the discussion suggests that the rabbis were trying to justify the status quo rather than campaigning for or against candidates for admission. There is no hint that any of the books discussed was of recent vintage or of any other than traditional authorship. The questions which are raised, in fact, are just the sort that are still being raised today among people with similar theology and interests. These involve internal considerations only, and it appears that no other lines of questioning were pursued.
The LXX itself gives support to the fact that the LXX contained more than the Jewish canon. Neither the LXX nor the Apostles' use thereof supports the extra material in the LXX as canon. The Reformers used the Apocrypha. The original KJV, a Protestant translation, included the Apocrypha between the Testaments. The Belgic Confession, Art. 6 states, "The church may certainly read these [Apocryphal] books and learn from them as far as they agree with the canonical books." None of which is evidence that they considered the Apocrypha to be Scripture. I need more than just usage and appreciation as evidence that the early Church considered these books canonical.
In regard to your charge that the sufficiency of Scripture cannot be justified from Scripture, I refer you back to Revelation 22:18,19, mentioned in my previous response. The prohibition against substraction or addition implies, in turn, both the neccessity and sufficiency of Scripture. I Corinthians13:8-10, "Love never ends. As for prophecies, they shall pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away." Cessationists interpret "the perfect" to mean the completed Scripture. This is understood in relation to the intended function of prophecies, tongues, and knowledge. Prophecies would relate to the office of a prophet, which, together with that of apostle formed the foundation of the church. The foundational purpose of both was to establish church tradition. In the following chapter, Paul sets up some rules for speaking in tongues in the church. No one could speak in tongues unless there was someone to interpret. Earlier, Paul had asked what good it was to speak in tongues unless he brought "some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching" (14:6). It appears from putting this together that tongues were not given for Charismatic chaos, but in order to act as a supplement for the as yet incomplete Scripture. Knowledge is a bit more illusive. It can't be taken in its broadest sense. Paul is not promising a day when everyone will suddenly be stupid. Noting that it is mentioned in the list of 14:6, it might be the immediate ability to exegete the interpreted tongues without benefit of study. Whatever it is, the general idea that Scripture is that which is perfect is not destroyed. Paul is looking forward to the time when there will be something sufficient enough to eliminate the need for all of these other things. When that which is perfect is come, the partial passes away. Scripture is perfect, all that had been uninscripturated tradition was partial. Scripture teaches its own sufficiency.
The dichotomy between Scripture and Tradition would only be false if Scripture justified the content of the Tradition or, if not that, if it could at least justifify the existence of extra-Biblical tradition. There is no false dichotomy in questioning the existence of a tradition that Scripture does not sanction.
My arguments as they regard the long term insufficiency of oral transmission were more in answer to the question of why Scripture is necessary. They speak only indirectly against the continued existence of an oral tradition. I believe, however, that it is sidetracking the discussion so, for the sake of argument I will concede this point: oral transmission is capable of the indefinite and perfect preservation of tradition. Now, where does that get us? We're still left with the fact the Scripture exists. Why does it exist and what does that imply? I denied the current validity of tradition that is not contained in Scripture. You responded- what about before Scripture was complete or completely distributed? And you are quite right: the circumstance of an incomplete scripture does necessitate the validity of an oral tradition, even a tradition that, by definition, is not in Scripture. Such a circumstance, however, does not necessitate the validity of an oral tradition that would not one day be inscripturated. In the absence of an argument that would necessitate the validity of such a an oral tradtion beyond what was needed to supplement incomplete scripture, my claim that extra-Biblical traditions are invalid is not circular. Rather, your own attempt to justify a post-canonical practice by a narrower pre-canonical necessity is a red herring.
(Limiting the Tradition to the Body of Scripture)
"And when they received these written Scriptures, how were they to verify their authority and divine origin? By way of the Tradition; i. e., Tradition substantiated itself in Scripture." No. Let me throw in a little bit of my own church tradition: WCF I.5b, "Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof [of Scripture], is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." Tradition is not the foundation of Scripture nor is the reverse true. The Holy Spirit is the foundation. He gives the tradition, oversees its inscripturation process, and guides the church in recognizing what is scripture.
The scriptural warrant for Sunday worship is found in Apostolic practice as recorded in Acts. As to the Protestant sacramental views, let's assume that your own are correct. In this case, the depleted practice of many Protestants would not demonstrate that Tradition and Scripture are not coextensive, but that Protestants have a blind spot in their exegesis. Whatever the range of Protestant views, they are all formulated with the intent to follow Scripture. [OK, big exception for Liberal Protestants.]
See above for scriptural warrant that scripture is coextensive with tradition. To the extent that such warrant exists demonstrating that Scripture is sufficient for faith and practice, it also demonstrates this.
(Obsolescence of Tradition Based on Completed Canon)
You outline an invalid argument, but it's not the one I presented (possible lack of clarity on my part notwithstanding). The antecedent is not "If Scripture is incomplete, " but "If and only if Scripture is incomplete." The rules about denying antecedents or affirming consequents do not apply in such a case.
There is no false dilemma. If Scripture is sufficient to faith and practice, then whatever it doesn't address does not fall under the category of authoritative extra-Biblical Church Tradition.
Paul's apostleship was attested to in the performance of miracles, his faithfulness to the Gospel and the OT, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Arguably, these may be categorized as holy Tradition, but their function at the time does nothing to demonstrate the fuller tradition that you wish to advocate for today.
One of the tragic, if unintended, consequences of the Reformation is the proliferation within Protestantism of go-it-alone, voluntary Christianity. Whether manifested in sufficiency-of-personal-quiet-time individualism, or in denominations that think of themselves as the sole recepticals of truth and light, or in the wilfull ignorance of a living Church before 1517, the results are just as deadly. True spirituality is less frequently defined in terms of participation in the Church's ministry of Word and Sacrament; more often, it is in terms of the mental accumulation of Bible-like aphorisms along with the occassional charitable social deed. Nor is the church entirely free of blame. In a tradition that rightly emphasized the return to robust, soundly exegeted preaching, we are often given therapeutic drool.
It becomes increasingly difficult to maintain faith in the sacramental aspect of the preached Word when it is possible to get so much more out of it on our own (not that everyone does). This should not be possible. Not that the individual should cease and desist from all serious Bible-study. Scripture commends the Bereans, who were "examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." What things? The things that they were being taught by the Apostle Paul. The Bereans were never able to find that Word preached to them hadn't been so. Too often, the same does not hold true today. And it's not the fault of the person who did the double checking. If things do not improve, this person can do one of three things: 1) maintain the status quo; 2) go it alone, which involves separation from life of the Church along with the corresponding view of Scripture as a set of universal and rational propositions upon which to agree; 3) retreat to the safety of Mother Church as she existed before the Reformation.
The temptation in this third step is to absolutize the authority of the Church above that of Scripture. All these squabbling children can't agree on proper hermeneutics and exegesis? Well, we'll just stop that right now. Scripture and the Tradition of which it is a part are a product of the Church; consequently, it means whatever we say it means. End of discussion. But churches disagree among themselves. So, which church is the true Church? At which point we go back to the Great Schism of 1054 ("I'm in charge-you're excommunicated!" "How dare you put that clause in there- you're excommunicated!") and find that these psuedo-Mothers have nothing over the Protestants.
The idea is that the Church, in order to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, must have existed and continue to exist in a particular, unbroken, and visible instantiation. [I ran across a similar thing growing up in the doctrine of the "Baptist Bride".] This alone is the true Church and she derives her authority from this identity. I can see how such an idea would be comforting, how it would avoid the baser excesses of Protestantism. But for those tempted to go this route, it represents, on at least one level, a colossal shirking of personal responsibility. If a church's rendition of Tradition, including Scripture, is deemed correct based on nothing more than its claimed exclusive identity as "Christ's Church," then there is no place for a Berean. Either such study will result in some heavy-duty reevaluation of this church's claims (since no particular church is without error), or constant demurring to the will of this church will result in eventual surrender. The anti-intellectual tendencies are just as thick here as they are in Protestant evangelicalism.
Neither extreme is necessary. I started out by assigning blame to the Reformation. Please don't get the wrong idea, for this is not entirely so. While it is true that the Reformers were a product of their time and somewhat blinded to it (as happens to all people concerning their particular era), it is not the case that, but for the Reformation, the Enlightenment and secular degeneration of the West would never have occurred. The backlash against an increasingly apostate church/state had been building for years. The Reformation was necessary to the well-being, even to the life, of the Church. For those whom it touched, it brought an unprecedented depth and balance to the faith and practice of the Church. Not least of the reasons for this was the Reformer's insistence on sola scriptura accompanied by the study and adoption of the consensus of Church teaching, from the Fathers on, about that Scripture. In my estimation, the faith of the Reformation stands as the best articulated synthesis between Church Tradition and authority, and individual piety and responsibility. But, for those who would prefer to trust their own individual judgment or for those who would prefer to surrender their judgment to an ultimate authority figure, this is a scary proposition. Where's the certainty? To which I must respond-where's the faith?
Just recently, I responded to a post that claimed that we do not have the right to depart from Tradition. I stated in seed form much of what I've already said here. I don't know how succesfully I communicated the idea that I do not deny Tradition. For one thing, the response made me feel as though I were standing in the middle of a room, the Orthodox Traditional types on one side, the Protestant Lone Ranger types on the other side, and the respondant talking past me to the other guy. Meanwhile, I was very tempted to cheer and say, "Yeah, you tell him!" A lot of what was said to me is what I would have said to someone else. Which is good. This is possible common ground. We should want as much common ground as possible with those who confess Christ.
There is much good to be said about Orthodoxy. I do appreciate the emphasis on the Church. I appreciate Orthodoxy for being a repository for the teaching of many of the Fathers, for the connection that this gives the Church entire to its own history. I am particularly attracted to certain doctrines within Orthodoxy. The emphasis on the importance of the incarnation for redemption and even some form of theosis (if not taken as the crass idea that we turn into God) both play into my developing understanding of eschatology. On the other hand, I cannot agree to some of the practical results of its traditions. I find it horrifying, for instance, that Orthodoxy adovates praying to dead people and venerating their body parts. Despite objections to the contrary, such traditions do exist in opposition to Scripture and thereofore, as I will argue below, to Apostolic Tradition itself.
The following is the response that I was going to post over there (the preceding originally intended as a couple sentences of introduction when I decided to post it here).
"Scripture itself is part of Tradition." Agreed. Scripture is not written in an historical and theological vacuum. The revelation of God first comes by means of providential events and the spoken word of his prophets. This revelation is handed down to the Church as its Tradition. The Tradition is received by the Church, it is not created by the Church. This Tradition is sufficient for the life of the Church from the first time that it is handed down. The Tradition must be preserved. Oral transmission, from one generation to the next, has limited efficacy. It is likely that, intentionally or not, things will be added or taken away. The Tradition is best preserved through a process of inscripturation. This is true of all Tradition received from God by the Church. Scripture is a part of Tradition because Scripture is the written record of the whole of Tradtition. Scripture includes all that the Church, as the Church, may believe and practice. Any belief or practice to which the Church holds must either be explicitly taught in Scripture, or be capable of being justified from Scripture properly exegeted. Any belief or practice that does not meet these criteria is no part of Tradition but has been introduced without proper authority at some point in the Church's history.
"The problem is when Christians try to excise Scripture from Tradition and interpret it outside of the Tradition. It is inevitable that the meaning of Scripture will then be distorted beyond, if you will, authorial (and Authorial) intent." Again, agreed. The inscripturation of Tradition does not imply that the individual does not need the Church. The Tradition is passed down to the Church defined corporately. It is designed to be understood by the Church, taught by the Church, and used by the Church. The Church is not confined to any particular denomination, time, or place. The Church is composed of individuals. As these individuals are fallible, so are churches. The individual is to submit to the teaching of the Church. A particular church may fall into false teaching. The individual is to know both Scripture and the consensus of the historical Church's teaching on Scripture in order that he may detect false teaching. A particular church is to know both Scripture and the consensus of the historical Church's teaching on Scripture in order that it may avoid false teaching.
I do appreciate the use of Scripture to defend Tradition; however, the exegesis lacks. There is nothing in either text [II Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6,7] that requires a reference to the whole body of the Tradition. In each case, Paul is referring to what he himself had taught them. Paul was an apostle and as such had the authority to initiate traditions in the Church, having received these himself from God by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He had done just this in the church of Thessalonica both by his spoken word while visiting them and by writing I Thessalonians. Both of these constituted tradition that they were to hold and pass down. Soon after this, the tradition was jeopardized by a letter pretending to be from Paul claiming that the Day of the Lord ( a subject of the first epistle) had already come. II Thessalonians is written to correct this. In it, he exhorts his readers to hold fast the traditions that they were taught "whether by word or by epistle of us." The traditions are, specifically, those things that Paul had already spoken and written to the church at Thessalonica.
In the second passage, Paul is instructing them to stay away from anyone who, claiming to be a Christian, refuses to work or "walks in idleness." [The translation "who walketh disorderly" cannot be justified within the context. The adverb in question comes from a verb meaning, "to refuse to be engaged in the efforts of work."] The refusal to work is contrary to the tradition that they had received from Paul on his first visit. As before, though, the text does not require that this be the whole of the Tradition. Paul immediatley describes how he had delivered this specific tradition: 1) by his own example in order that they might imitate him; 2) by a specific command- "For even when when we were with you, we would give this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat" (v. 10). The passage stands, not as an example of a Tradition that continues to exist beyond Scripture (although, the very nature of Scripture requires that, at one point, it had to), but as an example of the inscripturation of traditions.
I would argue that the "New Testament Scripture is fundamentally necessary for determining the parameters and content of Christian life and doctrine." But I would not intend the NT as an abstract collection of propositions, as, unfortunately, is the underlying assumption in much of Protestantism. Instead, the fundamental necessity of the NT is derived from the fact that it is the embodiment of the Tradition. Before this Tradition was inscripturated, the Church had the Apostles to deliver this Tradition. This does not imply a problem with numbers: 1) the Tradition delivered by the Apostles could be handed down orally by others people; 2) the inscripturation of this Tradition was relatively fast; 3) the Apostles were not the only ones authorized to establish Tradition. Ephesians 2:20 describes the Church as "built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets." Both of these are NT offices specifically designed to act as the foundation, i.e., source of Tradition, for the Church. Once the foundation is laid, the offices die out. It is necessary that this foundation be laid before its inscripturation is complete. It is not necessary, and, given the absence of the foundational offices, is even dangereous, that non-inscripturated Tradition continue to exist.
My objection is not to NT Christianity being truly Apostolic and truly Traditional. But I expect that a church that claims this of itself (as all churches should) will be able to justify the Apostolic foundations of its traditions and, therefore, its Tradition by grounding each instantiation of this Tradition in its Apostolic inscripturation. Whereever this cannot be done there is no unity between Scripture and that tradition. Such a tradition, no matter how ancient, no matter how much it may be attested to in the creeds and councils, must be thrown out. It is not of Apostolic origin.
In the previous post I had considered two passages from Genesis that had been offered as evidence for the Documentary Hypothesis (DH). This was limited to pointing out what was wrong with the original analysis. Now, I want to consider the structure of each of these passages in the context of Genesis. The most that I can hope to demonstrate is that the origins of the book of Genesis are best explained under a single author. Within the parameters of this post, I cannot demonstrate that this author was Moses or that he wrote the rest of the Pentateuch. I cannot demostrate that this is an historical record rather than a work of fiction. For the sake of argument, I will write as though there was only one author. I will propose a literary structure for the book and the specific passages and then leave it to the reader to decide whether or not this structure is plausible and, if so, whether or not it is best explained by a single author. I will call the author "Moses." [Feel free to use a Bible because I don't want to type out all the verses.]
The book of Genesis comprises a prologue and a series of ten "toledots." These can be identified by the phrase, "these are the generations of____." They are as follows:
1) the heavens and the earth (2:4)
2) Adam (5:1)
3) Noah (6:9)
4) the sons of Noah (10:1)
5) Shem (11:10)
6) Terah (11:27)
7) Ishmael (25:12)
8) Isaac (25:19)
9) Esau (36:1)
10) Jacob (37:2).
They range anywhere from narrative biography to genealogy. As a rule, the subject matter of the toledot is not that identified in the title but whatever is immediatley following. For instance, that of Terah is largely about the life of his son Abraham. The main exception is that of Noah, which actually is about Noah (there is, immediately following the title, a short genealogical note mentioning his three sons). Most, if not all of the toledots are linked by a hook device. Some are more easy than others to indentify. For those that aren't so obvious, other suggestions are welcome. The hook device is found at the end of the previous toledot (or the at the end of the prologue in the case of the first toledot). It is a brief reference either to the subject matter, opening key words, or the title of the next toledot. These hooks, in the order of the toledots, are:
1) "work"- God's rest from work (2:2) and the statement that there was as yet "no man to work the ground" (2:5). It might also be the title itself as referenced in 2:1.
2) Seth and Enosh (4:26; 5:6). This hook is a short preview of the full genealogy with which the toledot opens.
3) Parallel statements of God's intent to destroy all life on the earth; along with a mention of Noah (6:5-8; 9-17).
4) This toledot opens with the genealogies of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, who are featured in the previous pericope (9:18-29).
5) This toledot consists exclusivley of a genealogy of Shem. The hook wraps around the preceding narrative of the Tower of Babel to another genealogy of Shem through a different descendant.
6) "Abram, Nahor, and Haran" (11:26; 27).
7) This could be Ishmael himself (25:9). I think it more likely to be the mention of the sons Keturah bore Abraham (25:1,2) compared with the note that Ishmael was the son that Hagar bore to Abraham (25:12).
8) This hooks links to the previous hook (the toledot of Ishmael is very short). This time, there is no mention of who bore Isaac to Abraham; instead, "Abraham fathered Isaac."
9) Esau himself (35:29).
10) Jacob himself (37:1).
The hook device for the toledot of Shem was found in the double genealogy. This is another common feature found throughout Genesis: parallel genealogies in which the chosen line is always found in the second. The toledot of the heavens and the earth ends by tracing Adam's descendants through Cain. The toldeot of Adam begins by tracing his descendents through Seth. The two Shem genealogies split between Eber's two sons. The first follows Joktan and the second follows Peleg leading to Abraham. There is a note in the first that, in Peleg's days, the earth was divided. This genealogy, along with the genealogies of Shem's brothers Ham and Japheth, is also known as the "Table of Nations." The division that scatters these descendants across the earth is recorded in the Tower narrative found between the two Shem genealogies. The toledot of Ishmael consists of a genelaogy of his descendants. It is placed immediatley prior to the toledot of Isaac, which, although not a genealogy, is a record of Isaac's sons Jacob and Esau. The same thing happens with the toledot of Esau. It is a genealogy set just prior to final narrative of Jacob's descendants.
This is as far as I will go with the structure of the book as a whole. Within each toledot are various structuring devices. Some are more common than others, some even overlap others. I will only focus on the narratives in question. The first is the flood narrative found in the toledot of Noah. This toledot consist of two parts, the second being the account of Noah's vineyard. My only interest is in the first. The evidence alleged in favor of the DH was that this narrative consisted of doublets that consistently alternated between Yahweh and Elohim. Each of any pair of doublets was explained as being from a different source, either J or P, idenified by the use of the divine name. I have agreed that the doublets exist but have already shown that, in this case, the name theory does not fit. Now, I would like to take this same evidence, doublets and altenations of the divine name, and interpret it in line with a single author hypothesis.
The flood narrative consists of a series of five doublets or parallel passages. The existence of the first has already been explained by the hook device. They are not all merely repetitions of the same event. The first three consist of repitition and expansion: the same chronological time is repeated and developed in the second section. In 6:5-8, Yahweh plans to wipe out every living thing on the earth. It is noted that "Noah found favor in the eyes of Yahweh." In 6:9-17, this is repeated (with a name change to Elohim) along with instructions for Noah to build an ark. The second doublet is found in 6:18-22 and 7:1-5. In the first half, Elohim tells Noah to bring one pair of every kind of animal onto the ark In the second half, Yahweh tells Noah to bring seven pairs of clean animals onto the ark. This is additional information, not a contradiction. He also explains why: because of the upcoming flood. The third doublet is found in 7:6-10 and 11-24. In the first half, Noah actually takes his family and the animals onto the ark and waits for the rain. In the second half, this information is repeated along with a narrative of the flood proper. This is the doublet in which both halves refer to Noah obeying the command of Elohim. The second does contain the note that "Yahweh shut him in."
The fourth doublet, found in 8:1-12 and 13-19, does not repeat the same time period. The second half is chronologically subsequent to the first. This time, however, the events of the first half foreshadow the events of the second. The receding waters of the first half parallel the dried land of the second. The dove, first bringing an olive leaf and then failing to return to the ark, predicts the exit from the ark in the second. The fifth doublet, found in 8:20-22 and 9:1-17, may either be in chronological sequence, recording God on two separate occassions promising never agian to wipe out all life; or, it could be another case of repitition and expansion. If it is the latter, then the events of 8:20-22 actually come after those of 9:1-7 (they would parallel 9:8-17). Once again, each half of the doublet uses a different name for God. The first half uses Yahweh; the second, Elohim.
If there is a chronological switch in the fifth doublet, it may be explained by another structuring device that also overlays the flood narrative: the chiasm. The name is taken from the Greek letter "Chi," which looks something like an "X." The chiasm was a common structuring device in ancient literature. It could range from a single sentence to the outline of an entire book, or anything in between. An example of the smaller kind can be found in the flood narrative, 9:6, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." The second phrase reverses the order of the first. The pattern is ABCC'B'A'. This pattern can be extended indefinitely and often includes a mid-point: ABCDC'B'A'. While the smaller chiasms tend to be a matter of style, larger chiasms serve an interpretive function. In modern writing, the main idea is commonly found close to the beginning, such as in a topic sentence. In ancient writing, the main idea is found at the midpoint of the chiasm. While reverse repitition of single words serves for smaller chiasms, larger ones have more options. The halves may be identified by the use of key words or phrases, synthetical or even antithetical themes, or parallel narratives of the same or substantially similar subject matter.
The flood chiasm is outlined as follows:
A) Genealogy-Shem, Ham, and Japheth (6:9,10).
B) Key words: God promises to destroy all flesh on the earth (6:11-17).
C) Noah told to take the animals onto the ark and to provide them with food (6:18-22).
D) Divine name is Yahweh. Instructions regarding clean animals (7:1-5).
E) Entering the ark (7:6-10).
F) Flood begins (7:11-16).
G) Waters rise- mountains covered (7:17-20).
H) Main point: Death of every living thing (7:21-24).
G') Waters recede mountains uncovered (8:1-12).
F') Flood ends (8:13,14).
E') Exiting the ark (8:15-19).
D') Divine name is Yahweh. Noah is offering the clean animals (8:20-22).
C') Animals delivered into Noah's hand. He may use them for food (9:1-7).
B') Key words: God promises not to destroy all flesh on the earth (9:8-17).
A') Genealogy-Shem, Ham, and Japheth (9:18,19).
Notes- The possible chronological switch between 8:20-22 and 9:1-7 is best explained by the positions expected for D' and C'. Other than the single statement that "Yahweh shut him in," this name is only found in D and D' (it also occurs in the hook, but this stands outside of the chiasm). The switch from "Elohim" is nothing more than a means to provide a key word for identifying these sections of the chiasm. Sometimes a particular divine name is required, but this needs to be determined from the context, not from a structural analysis. The use of key words is important in single narrative chiasms. The most common means of communicating the Bible, or for that matter, any kind of narrative in the original tongue was verbally. The sounds of the words were intended to be heard in a specific order in order to clue the listener in on the possible repitition of a theme. Identifying enough of the outer themes was essential to identifying the main point.
Chiasms can also be larger than a single narrative and be used to tie together several related stories. The first major section of the toledot of Terah consists of a chiasm:
A) Abram obeys God in faith [leaving home] (12:1-9).
B) Abram and Sarai in the court of a Pharaoh (12:10-20).
C) Stories of Lot and Sodom (13,14).
D) Ishmael (16).
E) God's covenant with Abraham and his offspring. (17:1-14).
D') Ishmael (17:15-27).
C') Stories of Lot and Sodom (19).
B') Abraham and Sarah in the court of Abimelech (20).
A') Abraham obeys God in faith [sacrifice of Isaac] (22).
Notes- The word or themes that define a particular chiasm are not necessarily the main point of their respective pericopes. "Ishmael, " for example, is simply a key word that only occurs at DD' in this chiasm. He is mentioned again within the chiasm (21), but not by name. Gaps are acceptable. Not every narrative has to match up as long as some do and in the right order (a little bit of variation is allowed, but the overall structure cannot be lost). It is entirely possible that Moses filled this in in greater detail. I have seen chiastic schemes suggesting that he did. In my opinion, it's better to be safe and throw out everything that doesn't seem obvious or that I am not equipped to notice. For instance, many chiastic indicators are available only in the original language. Even worse, the language of translation might indicate markers that aren't really there. Since the idea is to determine author intent, it's best to underestimate. The main function in chiasms of this size and type is to emphasize the central narrative (E).
I have not tried to demonstrate the historicity of Genesis or whether it is connected in any way to the rest of the Pentateuch. For all anyone can tell from this, the DH might be true for the other four books. The sole purpose of this post is to show that a single author hypothesis for the book of Genesis is not unreasonable. True, it is possible that a later redactor could have the skill required to get this level of organization by piecing separate works together. But it is not as likely. Besides, this begs the question of the central conceit for the DH. Supposedly, the lack of order is so obvious that liberal scholars have no choice but to postutlate multiple sources. Evidentally, doublets and divine name variations can have no other explanation. However, if I have succesfully shown that they can have another explanation, that such things may even be the rule in Hebrew writing, then the idea of a later redactor seems to be an unecessary complication.
This follow up to the Documentary Hypothesis post was entered last Sunday. It was divided between an argument against Mosaic authorship and an argument for the Documentary Hypothesis (DH). I responded to the first part over there, saying that I would save a response of the second until now. My first response to the DH was intended to show the negative redemptive-historical implications of the DH. In response to the aforementioned follow up, I defended against the idea that Moses did not write the Pentateuch (although, in that thread, there was no attempt made to show that he had). The discussion also landed over here where it ended up looking into the epistemological assumptions behind the various positions, especially those of Smijer, the author of the original post. This post will focus on critiquing the merits of the DH. The following post will attempt to show a viable literary alternative.
There is a limit to what can be accomplished here. I cannot demonstrate that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, nor can I show when it was written. As a further limitation, I will restrict the focus to Genesis, particularly the passages that Smijer used. If I can tip the accepted evidence in favor of a single author for Genesis, it would still be very easy to sit back and claim multiple authorships and redaction for the other four books.
There should be no doctrinal reasons for rejecting the DH. A theory of unified literary structure is not the provenance of conservatism. It is also embraced by liberal scholarship. All it can prove to the mutual satisfaction of both parties is that someone knew how to write a good story. The further this literary structure is studied, the larger the wedge between original preconceptions. This is especially true of the historical narrative. Greater appreciation for the story telling techniques will lead to greater skepticism that the events could have occurred this way, if at all. In other words, the better the structure, the more likely that it is fictional. For the Christian, however, structured narrative should pose no barrier to belief. The record of redemptive history and the events of redemptive history have the same Divine Author.
The focus here is literary structure, not inspiration. Those who do believe scripture to be inspired will already have the authorship question settled. The NT divides the OT into “Moses (the Pentateuch), the Prophets (including the historical books- called the “former prophets” in Jewish scripture), and the Psalms (including the Wisdom literature). But enough of that. Not all parties in the current debate agree on scriptural inspiration, so, in deference, direct biblical testimony will not be entered into evidence.
The DH is an attempt to trace the origins of the Pentateuch by means of literary analysis. It has some presuppositions: Religion is the product of man and, as such, evolves with him. This evolution occurs both as a whole and within the various religions. It can stagnate in a particular religion or even take a step backward. The general progression includes animism, polytheism, monotheism, deism, and finally, enlightened atheism. Concurrent with this position is the rejection of any form of revelation or scriptural inspiration.
It is agreed that the OT is a [human] product of the ancient Jewish peoples. How do the evolutionary presuppositions of religion apply? The stage at the place and time of their early history was between polytheism and monotheism. There were still several gods, but one was only obligated to worship the god of his particular nation. Conquest of a nation implied conquest of their god. [It should be noted that this snapshot is in line with the biblical record. The current dispute is whether God was simply a member of the Canaanite pantheon.] Included among these nation-gods were Yahweh and Elohim. Israel, in its earliest form, would have been no more than an expedient confederation of various people groups. They would be joined politically and defensively, but each group would retain its own god, worship style, and literature. Eventually a unified religion is seen as a necessary national asset. In order to bring about this unified religious expression, a priestly cult is invented along with a narrative explaining its “ancient” origins. The narrative is not a complete fabrication but includes the splicing together of various sources. J and E material is blended with the newly added P material. The D material provides the link to subsequent history.
The positive evidence for this scenario is found in nothing more than a literary analysis of the Pentateuch in its current form. Note, however, no manuscript evidence has been found to suggest that it ever existed in any other form or forms. The DH starts with the theory of religious evolution and analyzes the Pentateuch accordingly. Does any of this prove that it is wrong? No. There could be some manuscripts hiding somewhere or they could have been destroyed. Admittedly, their current absence does not prove that they never existed. Even if the complete story of religious evolution is not accepted, there really was a Canaanite pantheon. It is not unreasonable to hypothesize confederations of convenience. The question is whether, in light of the viability of the traditional account of ancient Jewish history, such a hypothesis is necessary in this case. It is possible to believe in such an evolutionary account of the Jewish religion; to believe that it was synthesized by priests with an invented narrative, but to reject the cut and paste notion of the JEDP proponents. All by way of saying that any success in demonstrating the unlikelihood of the DH is not going to translate into positive evidence for Mosaic authorship, redemptive history, or divine revelation. Just so we know where we are here.
Smijer offers two examples from Genesis for our consideration: the flood narrative and the parallel narratives of Abraham’s lie concerning his wife Sarah. Let’s consider the first. The DH alleges that this is a combination of J and P sources; that, at one time, there existed at least two separate flood narratives that were later combined by a redactor.
The narrative is not straightforward, at least, not by modern standards. It keeps doubling back and repeating itself. It is not, however, quite as bad as suggested when Smijer, pretending to agree with a single author theory, claims that this author repeats himself “practically every other verse in this story.” That’s not fair to the DH.
According to the DH, one of the original narratives refers to Yahweh, the other to Elohim. [Incidentally, it is easy enough to see this variation in English- the translations are ‘LORD’ and ‘God’ respectively.] Allegedly, these sources can contradict each other. An example is given under "Duration of the Flood." In one account, "the rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights;" in the other, "the waters swelled on the earth for one hundred fifty days." Do I really have to spell out how these are reconciled? Smijer makes the further claim that the name of God is alternated with each repetition. That would make for an easy illustration of the DH, but it’s just not the case. The name changes do not always coincide with the repetitions. For instance, Genesis 7:11-24 repeats and expands upon vs. 6-10. In vs. 6, Noah is 600 years old when the flood waters come upon the earth. Vs. 11 is more precise. Noah is 600 years, 2 months, and 17 days (this might also mean something like February 17 when Moses was 600). This time the reference to the flood of waters coming upon the earth is also more descriptive. Here, the fountains of the great deep burst forth and the windows of the heavens are opened. The rain falls for forty days and nights. Both of these verses set the stage for their respective repetition. In both accounts, Noah, his family, and the animals enter the ark. There are variations. The first account distinguishes between clean and unclean animals; the second records the names of Noah’s sons. In the first account, Noah waits for seven days on the ark before the flood actually starts. There is a simple statement that the flood began. The second account skips any mention of the waiting period, but it leads into an expanded account of the flood proper in vs. 17-24.
The biggest problem to the theory that each source had its own name for God is, in both accounts, Noah is acting under the command of Elohim. Immediately after the record of Elohim’s command in the second narrative, Yahweh shuts Noah in. But, if we are to follow the DH, Yahweh has been misplaced. The statement would fit perfectly into the second repetition if the name had only been Elohim. The account of the flood proper, immediately following the statement about Yahweh, doesn’t mention God at all. When he is mentioned again at the beginning of chapter 8, where the waters begin to subside, it is Elohim. The source theory is not matching up with the observation about the doublets.
If both parts of this doublet use Elohim, it is possible that the flood narrative is still composed of J and P sources but that the latter likes to use repetition. This seriously begs the question. The simplest explanation is to admit that a single source is responsible for the whole thing. But that‘s not what the DH does. It sticks to the theory and does a hatchet job to make it fit. Get into the more advanced forms and divisions are made even within sentences. The part about Yahweh shutting them in is from the J source, even if it has been stripped of its original context. The repetition of Elohim can be explained in one of two ways: redactor error or a third source. The E source just happened to use the same name as the P source. It gets less and less likely.
The second example is that of the parallel prevaricating patriarch narratives, which constitute an example of doublets on a larger scale. The evidence for multiple authorships is sleek: the first uses Yahweh, the second Elohim. Smijer makes his own observations to question the veracity of these accounts, but these depart from an analysis of the literary structure and are therefore irrelevant to the point.
The next post will consider both of these narratives again in the broader context of Genesis with an attempt to offer a viable alternate interpretation to the literary structure.
There's a link over on Josiah's blog with an admonition to be polite should anyone care to join the discussion. I'll do my my best. It has to do with the Documentary Hypothesis (JEPD) and the lack of positive evidence for Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. The crux of the argument is that belief in Mosaic authorship is a faith claim that, consequently, cannot count as evidence. Various places in scripture claim that Moses was responsible for part, if not all, of the Pentateuch. Supposedy, though, since belief in the truth of scripture as a whole is a matter of faith, so are its individual claims. To an extent, I can agree. I accept on faith that the Bible is the infallible, inspired Word of God. Nevertheless, it does not follow from this that the proposition, "God, who cannot lie, exists and he has written a book," does not obtain apart from my own belief about the subject. Some faith claims do concern things that simply are not true in reality; however, it is also possible to have faith in something that just happens to be the case.
If it is true, apart from anyone's belief or disbelief, that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God; if within the Bible there are claims that Moses wrote its first five books, then it follows as a matter of unimpeachable logic that Moses did write these books. The minor premise is not, in itself, in dispute. There is a question about whether or not the claim articulated in this premise counts as evidence for Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. That depends entirely on whether or not one accepts the major premise. It is implied that, because acceptance of the major premise is a matter of faith, the minor cannot be counted as evidence. On the contrary, belief in the veracity of the major is precisely why the minor can be regarded as evidence. In fact, because the argument is formally sound, the only way to reject the evidentiary nature of the minor is to reject the truth of the major. There are two ways to do this. Either subject the claim to falsification; or make an a priori assumption that God, if he exists at all, is either unwilling or unable to inspire an inerrant book. If the first method is employed, then I am curious to know just what expectations were not met. In other words, how is scripture any different from a volume that God might actually have inspired? Whether imagining what "real" scripture might have looked like, or just rejecting outright the possibility of an inerrant Bible, a faith claim is still involved. There can be no intelligible evidence for anything apart from faith in a larger premise. It is no less a matter of faith to reject the inspiration of scripture than it is to accept it. It eventually boils down to faith in my own ability to see it all. What my senses are unable to detect, I am unwilling to believe. The debate over Mosaic authorship or JEPD is not between faith and carefully reasoned scholarship; it is between the consequences of two faith claims. If the Bible is the Word of God, then Moses must be the author of the Pentateuch. If the Bible is not the Word of God, then the candidates for authorship are greatly expanded. It is possible to believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch without believing in the inspiration of scripture. The reverse is not true.
What about the claim itself that scripture is inspired? I have already conceded that this is a matter of faith. This does not mean, however, that this claim is immune from the tests of reason. It is wide open to falsification. Take for example, the first point of "positive evidence" offered in support of Mosaic authorship: Contrary to the views of Wellhausen and others, archaeological research has established that writing was indeed well known in Moses’ day. I will agree that this does not count as positive evidence, but that is not the point I wish to make here. Even if they no longer believe it to be the case, Wellhausen and the proponents of JEPD did, at one time, make the claim that anyone around during the time that Moses allegedly lived would have have been illiterate. Had they been able to substantiate this claim, then the belief in the inspiration of scripture would have been falsified. The claim of Mosaic authorship would have been untrue and, therefore, incompatible with the idea of verbal, plenary inspiration. As to the point itself, while not an example of positive evidence, neither does it count as a fallacy. It is a defense of the possibility of Mosaic authorship made necessary because not everyone involved in the discussion of JEPD is aware of or honest about the state of historic literacy.
In some cases, the question of human authorship of a biblical book is somewhat academic. Take Hebrews as an example. The book is anonymous. I am personally of the opinion that Paul did not write it. Many orthodox believers disagree with me. It's not that big a deal. It isn't always a matter of when a book was written. The Chronicles are a post-Exilic product. Yet, this does not mean that the history recorded in them is not accurate. It is not a question of a previously written work being edited and arranged. Hezekiah did this with much of the Proverbs. Nor is a multiplicity of authors necessarily a problem. Consider the Psalms. What, then, is the problem? It is that the Pentateuch purports to establish the historical foundation for Covenantal faith and practice. The real question behind the debate over the origin of the books of the Law is whether or not the ancient Jewish and subsequent Christian faith is a man-made construction or a divinely ordained revelation.
The Documentary Hypothesis operates under the assumption that the Jewish faith evolved over time. The Pentateuch was a redaction of several sources, each one of which had a different view about God. The letters stand for Jehovah, Elohim, Priestly, and Deuteronomist. According to the theory, religious practice and theology developed and a history was invented to support this. The idea is perfectly in line with mainline or liberal Christianity. In this tradition, the core of religious belief is morality or ethical integrity. If God were to write a book, it would be a list of morals, a how-to of good living practices. But then, who needs God? Given time, we can be pretty decent on our own. Smijer points out that only the very liberal churches that accept JEPD reject the bodily resurrection of Christ. If there is any truth to this, then all I can say is praise God for inconsistent minds. The resurrection, even if it did happen, is utterly meaningless if the Christian faith is not grounded, from its very inception, on God's self-revelation in history. The death and resurrection of Christ is the answer to my breach of God's Law. However, if Moses did not write the Pentateuch, then God did not reveal the Law; it is a human invention. And, if this is the case, then faith in Christ, aside from being unnecessary, is probably not even the best way to achieve my moral potential. Step aside, Wellhausen, it's my turn to be God.