Why don't we question the decisions of the early church?

[jeffreyclong]

I don't really know how to search the boards to find discussions on this topic. So, I'd appreciate any guidance by people who've been on the board awhile as to where to find those discussions. Or if you feel like discussing it here, that is fine also.

Some scholars believe that New Testament does not stand up to the scrutiny of modern historical research. I find the tools that they use to be fairly reasonable. It is a discipline in and of itself, not designed for the sole purpose of attacking the Bible. They are simply applying the same tools to the New Testament claims regarding the life of Jesus and the early church as they would the destruction of the Library of Alexandria. It seems that their conclusions regarding the New Testament as a source of first century Christianity are fairly reasonable. The evidence for the events of Jesus life and teaching are all internal and thus not verifiable, consisting almost solely of the gospels, Paul's writings, the early Christian fathers and Eusibius. The external sources such as Josephus are not nearly enough evidence to defend the entirety of the New Testament as historical.

However, I don't think that the authors of the New Testament intended their writings to meet the criteria of historical research. The authors of the New Testament did not claim that their writings were inspired nor infallible. Those claims were made by the church after the fact. So they don't need to be defended at this level. To debate on those grounds is not only futile, but it misses the point. I've heard apologists debate with historical critics, and they are generally rehearsing St. Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis and not engaging the issues that the textual and historical critics are raising.

I do however believe that there is substantial external evidence for the truth of the gospel. But it is not historical. And a different discussion altogether.

While the statements I made will provoke discussions in and of themselves, I have a specific question.

Why have we accepted the decisions of the early church, fathers, bishops and councils of the first 3 centuries as infallible? There is no justification for this. And without their decisions, we don't have any justification for accepting the canon nor its inspiration and infallibility. Our beliefs are theological not historical. They are only internally substantiated. And we are removed from the events by 2000 years. So, why have we accepted their decisions as infallible?

Thanks for your direction to other discussions on the forum board, and your input here.

[Homer]

Hi Jeffrey,

I am unsure of what your concern is:

There are books in the New Testament that should not be.

There are books left out that should be in.

The Arian controversy was wrongly settled.

etc.

Perhaps it would help if you could be more specific. I am a bit uncomfortable in thinking we, over 1500 years later, can make better decisions about the canon than were made by those much nearer to the actual writing of the documents. However, I am also of the mind that the ideas of the "early church fathers" are interesting but not worth a lot after about 200AD.

[RickC]

Hello Jeffrey -

Like Homer, I think you have a lot on the table there.
So I'm not sure where to start in reply.

I can link you to some stuff, though -
Early Church and Scripture
- a discussion about that and Richard Bauckham's book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
- I have 3 links to audios-vids there

Christology & God/Theology Links
- a new thread with vids by John P. Meier and Craig Blomberg on Historical Jesus Studies

=================================================

I don't know if you 'need' these links.
I'm a 'listening learner' and play a theology vid or audio every time I go to bed!

Otherwise, different things you brought up have been talked about on this forum.
Try the search engine (upper right hand corner).

I could say a lot on stuff you brought up but will leave it there for now.
Perhaps you could specify one thing or narrow it down a little (like Homer suggested).

I do have one question (just curious): Have you read or been 'influenced' by Bart Ehrman?

Thanks & Welcome to the forum!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited in later -
WARNING! - I deleted the EWTN "Bring To You" link - it might be infected with malware!
(I don't know why, it was good earlier, so please don't click it)!!!

Jeffrey -
If possible, could you delete it out of your reply to me?
I'll check on it later - they may fix it.

Sorry about that, folks!

[DanielGracely]

I do however believe that there is substantial external evidence for the truth of the gospel. But it is not historical.

I'm not sure anyone here on this forum would agree with my view on the Shroud of Christ, but ever since (or shortly after) my brother and I in 1978 read an informative, non-antagonistic article in Science News (not a Christian magazine) on the Shroud of Turin, we have regarded the Shroud as external historical proof of the resurrection of Christ.

Likewise, a few years ago on the PBS series, "Secrets of the Dead," there was a non-antagonistic presentation about the Shroud, even showing problems with the carbon-14 dating, etc. Among the critics of the Shroud was an art historian who, to explain the photographic negative imagery and detail of a shroud he believed was a medieval hoax, actually postulated that photography must have been used, and was therefore an invention of the 14th, not 19th, century.

Imagine the catcalls from the ‘scholars’ if the shoe were on the other foot, and a Christian were forced to such an outlandish explanation to counter some astonishing proof of evolution. He would either be completely ignored or labeled as totally irrational.

[SamIam]

The authors of the New Testament did not claim that their writings were inspired nor infallible.

They did however, consider their own teaching to be inspired and authoritative. (We learn this from their writings.)

Why have we accepted the decisions of the early church, fathers, bishops and councils of the first 3 centuries as infallible?

I do not accept them as infallible. They are useful in that they show the early understanding of the scriptures.

[jeffreyclong]

Please note: I'm not a troll. These are honest questions that I need to debate to determine what I am going to base my faith on. I'm 42. I've been a Christian since 5, and a minister for around 7 years (I'm not currently pastoring a church) and an evangelist since I was in high school. I've been around the block. I'm not some skeptic trying to kick up the dirt. I've just been reading a lot and it's punctuated some legitimate questions I've had for quite some time.

The authors of the New Testament did not claim that their writings were inspired nor infallible.

They did however, consider their own teaching to be inspired and authoritative. (We learn this from their writings.)

Which authors believed their teachings were inspired and authoritative? Where did they say it?

Why have we accepted the decisions of the early church, fathers, bishops and councils of the first 3 centuries as infallible?

I do not accept them as infallible. They are useful in that they show the early understanding of the scriptures.

The church and its leaders in the first 300 years have been implicitly accepted as infallible by the church for the last 1700 years in that we have accepted their decisions regarding these three matters:
1). which books were accepted into the canon
2). them proclaiming that those books were inerrant and inspired.
3). their testimony about who wrote those books. All four gospels, for example, are written anonymously.

Those issues: Canonicity, authorship, and inerrancy (of the books) can only be claimed by accepting the authority of the leaders of the church in the first 300 years. Which means we have accepted their decisions in these matters as infallible. Otherwise, each generation since could wrestle with these issues on their own, weighing the evidence and testimony of previous generations, and possibly come to different conclusions without being branded as heretics.

[jeffreyclong]

While I am increasingly questioning the claims that the early church made about the New Testament, I do believe there is external evidence to support the claims of Christianity.

There seems to me to be only three explanations for why the gospel has been repeatedly accepted based solely on oral testimony. This carried the church from the time of Christ's death 'til the time when Gospels and Epistles became available in local communities. And it has happened time and again when missionaries went to people who had never been exposed to stories of Jesus and had no access to "holy" texts.

The first explanation is that the presentation has been supernaturally imbued. A spiritual transaction is occurring when the gospel is proclaimed regardless of the use of "holy" texts.

The second explanation is that the gospel is _true_. It is woven into the fabric of the universe. Our sinfulness, hollowness without God's presence, inadequacy to compensate for our sinfulness, and grace are woven into the fabric of the universe and into our psyche. As a result, it resonates with seekers everywhere.

The third explanation is that people who have been supernaturally changed embody a type of grace, forgiveness, love, and hope that is supernatural and differentiates them from the rest of the world. They are 'the body of Christ.'

I think the bottom-line forces in each of these explanations is the work of the Holy Spirit. Our faith is Supernatural. It is true. And it embodies the supernatural transaction Jesus brought into relationships with sinners. The text is secondary and only a testimony to these things. Not the force behind them.

[jeffreyclong]

I can link you to some stuff, though -
Early Church and Scripture
- a discussion about that and Richard Bauckham's book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
- I have 3 links to audios-vids there

Christology & God/Theology Links
- a new thread with vids by John P. Meier and Craig Blomberg on Historical Jesus Studies

"Bring To You" EWTN Apologetics Links
- not exclusively Roman Catholic
- scroll to Historical Jesus and Bible Reliability (about half down page)
- has 2 of the Richard Bauckham links (from above)
- the John Ankerberg programs are good (from a conservative perspective)
- also has Bart Ehrman, Jesus Seminar (and other 'liberal/revisionist') talks and debates
=================================================
I'm a 'listening learner' and play a theology vid or audio every time I go to bed!

Thank you very much. I look forward to reading/viewing/listening to this material.

I'd be interested in any of the other stuff that you listen to as well. I listened to the Greer-Heard lectures on textual criticism and it was just fabulous (sponsored by a conservative seminary.) At this point, I really need to hear scholars from both sides of the aisle. Pop-apologists and pastors simply haven't been exposed to the research enough to address the issues that are raised. Dan Wallace was just fabulous in the dialogue between him and Bart Ehrman.

Thanks & Welcome to the forum!

Thank you. I've been listening to Steve for about 15 years. He is probably the single most influential teacher on my beliefs, partly due to his willingness to really exegete the Bible, rather then accept as authoritative the traditional theology that has been handed down to us.

Have you read or been 'influenced' by Bart Ehrman?

I was trying to not bring him up here because it shifts the focus from the specific questions I am asking to him as a person.

But, yes.

[steve7150]

While I am increasingly questioning the claims that the early church made about the New Testament, I do believe there is external evidence to support the claims of Christianity







For whatever it's worth to you i am jewish and until 2002 had no idea who Christ really was. He did'nt mean more to me then Moses or Abraham or George Washington so when a friend preached the gospel i started from zero. I started from the OT and studied the prophecies that were fulfilled in the NT and read the critics opinions also. I had no knowledge of what the early church thought until after i was convinced by the internal evidence of the whole bible itself. It's really a beautiful tapestry unto itself and learning how it harmonizes internally was the most convincing aspect of it to me. In other words i think that man could not manufacture the bible on his own with 40 different authors contributing over 1,500 years.

[steve7150]

I'm not sure anyone here on this forum would agree with my view on the Shroud of Christ, but ever since my brother and I in 1978 read an informative, non-antagonistic article in Science News (not a Christian magazine) on the Shroud of Turin, we have regarded the Shroud as external historical proof of the resurrection of Christ.







I agree, i think it's amazing.