- 5 Objections
- Response to 5 Objections
- The Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
- 3 Points of Departure
- On Christian Origins
- On the Holy Spirit
- On Belief
- The Trouble with (Traditional) Worldviews
- Imagination, Authority, and Knowledge
- On Marxism
- Christianity and Marxism
- In Defense of Skepticism
- Skepticism and Ethics
- Where I’m Coming From
- Tradition, Knowledge, and Metaphysics
I have to admit that you raise a lot of good points in your last post on the Holy Spirit. I can really understand where you’re coming from, but I think you go too far in saying that the past 2,000 years of church history back up the hypothesis that Jesus did nothing to ensure his message and movement would accurately continue, given that virtually all Christians are agreed on the canon of the New Testament as authoritative Scripture, as well as on Trinitarian theology as expressed in the Nicene Creed.
What qualifies Paul to speak authoritatively is his status as an apostle, to whom the risen Christ had directly appeared and commanded him to preach the good news about Him (Acts 9:1-22, I Cor 9:1); the same was true of the other apostles (Acts 1:1-8). Paul validated the truth of his apostleship through miraculous signs (II Cor 12:12), as did the other apostles (2:43). We can know that the church is in step with the Holy Spirit insofar as it is faithful to the authoritative teachings of the apostles, which are recorded in the New Testament (and/or Church Tradition). I suspect you would then raise the question: to what extent can we be confident that the New Testament writings (and/or Church Tradition) accurately communicate the teachings of the apostles? This is an important question, which we hopefully can discuss in the future.
It is certainly true that the question, “Is the Christian worldview true?” is far too simplistic of a question. However, it is perfectly reasonable to ask, “Is the basic Christian message, the gospel, true?” and then go on to ask, “If it is true, what is the most reasonable thing to believe about Scripture, the church, etc.?” But with your questions regarding the history of early Christianity, you seem to be calling into question whether there ever was a unified and coherent gospel message preached by the apostles. It seems to me we would have to deal with that more basic historical issue before addressing the issue of Scripture, canon, and so forth. On that, I will await your remarks about your approach to history as applied to the origins of Christianity and then try to give my response.
From my perspective, I don’t agree that we can dispense with the matter of buying into a particular worldview. In order to live in the world, we must answer the ethical question: how should I live? what should I do? In order to answer this question, we must answer the question: what is good? what is valuable? And in order to answer this question, we must answer the metaphysical question: what is true? what is the nature of reality? Each of us must (at least implicitly) answer these questions. Thus each of us must (at least implicitly) have a worldview. Now, I suppose it is possible for someone to just muddle through life trying to do what makes them feel happy without ever answering these questions. But I don’t think you are that kind of person. When you say we don’t need to buy into any particular worldview when there is uncertainty about which one is true because “that’s not the way we go about believing in almost anything else in life,” I’m not sure what you mean. It seems to me that is exactly how we go about believing in all sorts of things in life. We can never be 100% certain about anything, but nevertheless we have beliefs and act on them. We believe and live in light of all sorts of theories which we accept because they seem to be the most reasonable perspective, not because they can ever by proven with certainty. This is true regarding our beliefs about history, the social sciences, psychology, medicine, philosophy, and the natural sciences. It is also important to recognize that most of our beliefs on most topics are based on faith in authority. “This is the consensus of scientific experts.” “I was taught this by a teacher with an advanced degree at an accredited school.” “I read this in a book by someone who is a “leading authority” in their field.” “A respected news organization said this happened.” These are the reasons for many, if not most, of our beliefs. It is not (necessarily) unreasonable to base our beliefs in faith in what an authority tells us. It can be perfectly reasonable, if we have good reason to trust the authority.
“I think you go too far in saying that the past 2,000 years of church history back up the hypothesis that Jesus did nothing to ensure his message and movement would accurately continue, given that virtually all Christians are agreed on the canon of the New Testament as authoritative Scripture, as well as on Trinitarian theology as expressed in the Nicene Creed.”
Perhaps I am bold to make such a judgement, considering just how much history we’re covering in those 2,000 years, and perhaps I should have been more clear and careful with that claim. What I meant to say actually had more to do specifically with the Holy Spirit. I was responding to your suggestion in “On Christian Origins” that the Holy Spirit is a key part of the orthodox Christian equation, that without it, we don’t have much reason to believe the doctrinal claims of early Christians, and I was arguing against the idea that the influence and guidance of the Holy Spirit has been the thing that has ensured the accurate continuance of Jesus’s message and movement throughout the centuries. I don’t mean to suggest there aren’t some things that have continued relatively unchanged from almost the beginning — some quite probably even from the very beginning. The Trinitarian Theology of the Nicene Creed and the New Testament canon of scripture would be 2 of those things. However, I am quite skeptical we should attribute the survival and popularity of those things to the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church throughout its history. I’ve got reasons for this that we can get into, but looking back over the past couple posts, I realize now maybe I’ve been misunderstanding your position on the Holy Spirit somewhat to begin with.
So, to clarify, how exactly do you conceive of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church? Is this something that occurred primarily early on with the development of the canon and the creed? Or, would you say this continued throughout history and continues today? Have there been changes in the way the Spirit guides the Church throughout time? For example, would it be fair to say it’s different now than it was for the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd century Christians? I was trying to get at some of these questions in “On the Holy Spirit,” but that also might not have been that clear.
I realize now I was probably unclear when I argued in a previous post that Jesus must have done something to ensure his movement and message would accurately continue. By this, I did not intend to claim that the Holy Spirit continuously ensures that all historical entities calling themselves churches have accurate theological beliefs. Rather, I intended to argue that the most reasonable position, if Jesus really did rise from the dead, is to accept the theological teachings of Jesus’ apostles as recorded in the New Testament, which can provide a fixed standard by which to judge the teachings and actions of the church throughout history. In other words, I hold to the Protestant theological principle that “the Spirit does not act independently of the Word.” The alternative Catholic and Orthodox position is that, although large parts of the church may error, God has established an institution in the Church hierarchy which the Holy Spirit ensures will always teach infallible theological truth, a position which I find difficult to defend historically (although it is quite possible I have just not studied a careful and nuanced enough articulation of this view).
So, yes, I do believe the Holy Spirit’s work in the very early church through the apostles and the creation of the New Testament was unique compared to the Holy Spirit’s subsequent work in the church. I have no doubt that the Holy Spirit does, even today, sometimes directly guide people or speak prophetically through people, but the fact that people have so often claimed the Holy Spirit’s guidance when doing and saying things clearly contrary to the gospel tends to make me skeptical when such claims are made. This, combined with the fact that large parts of the church for long periods of time have taught things that are in certain respects contrary to the gospel, is what leads me to believe that “the Spirit does not act independently of the Word” is the most reasonable Christian view to hold.
Replying to Jed:
It seems to me that either the Catholic/Orthodox position that the Holy Spirit guides the church is true, or the Protestant position of “Spirit in conjunction with the word” is true, but it is impossible to tell which “church” is actually guided by the Spirit, or when.
The Protestant position of “guidance” ultimately reduces to meaninglessness. If it is impossible to determine when, where, how, or by whom the Spirit is guiding the Church, then it what way can it actually be considered guidance?
From the Protestant perspective, it is possible to tell where and when the church is being guided by the Spirit by examining whether the church’s teachings and actions are faithful to Scripture. The church always stands under God’s Word, which always provides a fixed standard for measuring the church’s faithfulness, that is, the degree to which it is acting under the guidance of the Spirit. This may require a more complex way of thinking about the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the church than that of the Catholic and Orthodox perspectives, but it does not seem to be to be “meaningless.”
While the idea of God establishing an institution or office within the church that will always infallibly speak His Word sounds great in theory, I am not convinced, based on what I know of church history, that He has actually done so. Rather, what I see is different parts of the church being faithful or unfaithful to varying degrees in various times and places throughout church history.
The early doctrine about the Holy Spirit guiding the Church also assumed that there would be some who rejected the guidance of the Holy Spirit and went their own way. The Church would remain faithful and teach true doctrine, but there would be heretics who taught their own doctrine. Generally, these people would either voluntarily break from the Church to start their own thing, or they would be put out of the Church. At that point, there would no longer be an expectation that the Spirit would guide them to right doctrine (except, hopefully, to lead them back to the Church.)
If that doctrine is true, as I believe it is, then we could assume that the Spirit still guides the Church through the same mechanism as the first few centuries. We could also assume that those outside that mechanism do not have access to that mechanism, and that the Holy Spirit is doing everything he can to guide people back to the Church, whose doctrine he still guards.
Observation is not pure logic, but it is the basis of a lot of things that eventually become proven. (Ah, empericism…) In this case, I have two observations. One is that heretics seem to speak about the Church whose doctrine is historically understood to be protected with a pretty great degree of vitriol, often amounting to a curse; this is telling. The other is that as biblical and theological scholarship continues and scholars try to reconstruct the faith from primary sources, what they’re reconstructing is getting closer and closer to the faith of the protected Church; this seems to indicate that the Holy Spirit is working to guide people back to Truth. (Of course, others tend toward more extreme heresy, but this becomes obvious once they start more brazenly rejecting the Creed.)
Dan, thanks for joining this discussion! I appreciate having your perspective.
My head’s spinning a bit. Here’s a couple questions that might help me get the positions clear:
1) Jed, If I’m understanding your position, you’re saying there is an important distinction between the apostolic period — in which those with direct or indirect access to the historical Jesus established the tradition — and subsequent history — which would all be 3rd or 4th-hand based on that tradition — in the sense that we have far greater reason to view the apostolic tradition as reliable. And, since the New Testament documents are our best sources for understanding that period, scripture should be the primary source of authority for the church (which is why the Spirit is said to do nothing contrary to or independently of scripture). Is it fair to say then, that this position is taken as a safeguard or a practical attempt at caution rather than as an absolute statement about the limits of the Spirit’s power? I mean, you wouldn’t say the Holy Spirit CAN’T do anything independent of the Word, right? It’s just that if the Word is to be trusted (and we should trust it because it is the best authority we have) then we have no choice but to assume the Spirit WON’T do anything independent of the Word. Is that right?
2) Also for Jed, if the Word is the final measure for Christians on whether the Spirit is guiding them or not, then what would that guidance actually look like, and why would it be necessary? In other words, doesn’t the fact that we’ve got the Bible to guide us make the guidance of the Spirit sort of redundant? (Maybe this is another way to say what Dan was getting at by the Protestant concept of guidance being meaningless.) To put it another way, can you think of an example where we can say with confidence the Holy Spirit probably was guiding someone beyond what they got from scripture?
3) This one’s for either or both of you. Between both of you, I’m assuming there’s agreement that, whatever happened after the apostolic period, the Holy Spirit was instrumental in the formation of the Church during the apostolic period and in the formation of the canon. What evidence do we have that this is the case? Would this evidence come mostly from the Bible, or is there something you would point to outside of that to back up the claim?
This is going to sound bonkers, and I’m not positive that Jed would agree, but one of the evidences generally offered by Catholics for the guidance of the Holy Spirit (that is, dogmatic infallibility) is simply that Catholic teaching has never contradicted itself, even when you’d think it would because a lot of influential leaders weren’t following it. That’s a tall order for 2,000 years.
Beyond that, it might just be a matter of faith. I know that sounds cheap, but what can you do?
1) Yes.
2) This is a good question. I tend to think of the role of the Spirit as empowering and leading Christians to practical faithfulness, as they learn what it means to think and live faithfully from Scripture. Where the Spirit does grant knowledge in addition to Scripture through prophecy or vision, I think it tends to be information relevant to a specific context (for an example of this, see Acts 11:27-8), while it is still necessary for Christians to look to the Word to form their theological understanding. I have heard many anecdotes from Christians I know, at least some of which I find convincing, about the Spirit leading/telling them to do specific things; I would say, though, this happens as Christians are seeking to think and live according to the teachings of Scripture, rather than occurring independently of it. Consider the story of the Cornelius in Acts 10. God sends an angel to deliver a message to Cornelius, but rather than telling him the gospel message directly, the angel instead simply directs him to send for the apostle Peter. As Peter preaches the Word to Cornelius’ household, the Holy Spirit falls upon those who hear and receive the gospel. God’s Spirit can lead people to the apostolic Word, and it transforms people’s lives as they receive and believe that Word, rather than independently converting and leading people.
3) In addition to the Bible itself, I would point to the early church fathers and what they have to say about the apostles, the Scriptures, the church, and the Holy Spirit as to some extent corroborating this claim.
Thanks, guys. Following up on question 3:
Dan, It doesn’t sound too bonkers to me to say catholic teaching has never contradicted itself, but I guess it depends what we’re counting in that. Am I right that there are a few different levels of Catholic doctrine, some of which is considered infallible and some fallible?
Jed, is there any particular church father(s) you would point me to that would speak to the work of the Holy Spirit in the early church or the creation of New Testament scripture? (Dan, I’d welcome your input here too.)
Levels of Catholic doctrine: Generally speaking, there is Dogma and there is speculation. Dogma is held to be infallible and is internally consistent. Speculation is, well, speculation. The vast majority of writing by Catholics falls in this category. There are also matters understood to be locally or temporally bound, like laws about order that apply to a specific place (a lot of liturgical rules are of this sort.) The different levels could be helpfully understood as different types of teaching, or even different fields.
An example of this in practice would be creation ex nihilo. The consistent teaching (and the dogma) is that God (the god of Abraham, et al) created everything from nothing by his own volition. How precisely he did this is open for speculation. When he did it, how he did it, how long it took, etc. is not a matter of dogma; the fact that he did it is.
The claim about the Holy Spirit in this is that the Church will never change its position on the dogma. That is, you won’t have a time in which we claim dogmatically that God did not create everything. Which is also not to say that there won’t be individual Catholics who claim it; simply that the Church will not change its position.
As for church fathers to consult, I’m not sure why he’s coming to mind, but St. John of Damascus (Damascene). While he may not describe the doctrine in detail, he does at least demonstrate it in practice. Particularly, there are points where in describing the faith, he touches on various views and then puts them in the context of what is held catholically.
OK, thanks! I will check out St. John of Damascus when I can.
To follow up on what you were saying about dogma: What would be the best or most straightforward way you would recommend for someone to find out what teachings are Catholic dogma?
The most straightforward is probably the Catechism.