Bible Interpretation and History

This is not directed at Percy, but it was inspired by his post in the Paul of Tarsus thread. I agree with this, but I think there's a resolution to it.I like to think that my Bible interpretations are particularly insightful and honest, but probably they're not. Even if they were, others wouldn't agree, and none of us would have any way of knowing who's right.But some things are beyond Bible interpretion; they are common sense.In the Paul of Tarsus thread I was discussing with Percy whether Paul taught a particular doctrine. I argued my position vehemently, because I know from history that the churches Paul started and was read in did not teach the doctrine that thread ascribes to him.If Paul, or anyone else in the Bible, is charged with teaching something, shouldn't there be people in history, around his time, who believed that teaching? Do we really believe that the churches he started and taught in, that spoke the colloquial Greek of that time, and that knew their own culture--do we really believe that they misunderstood Paul, but we, 2000 years later, have figured out what Paul meant when they couldn't? What incredible arrogance! Especially considering the awful example of those who are Bible believers today!My favorite example of this is the Trinity, because it's so often discussed. If the apostles taught that God is three persons, all co-equal and co-eternal, then shouldn't we be able to find that in the churches the apostles started? At least somewhere? Instead, from Paul's letter to the Corinthians in AD 54 to the Nicene Creed in AD 325 we find the consistent statement that there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ his Son. Every reference for those 271 years says that God is one person, the Father. Though the Son is called God in places, every reference for 271 years says "One God, the Father."How, then, could the co-equal three persons theory possibly be the theory of the Bible? Did the apostles teach it, and it was immediately lost to every church they started, so that no one remembered it, not even to argue against it? There are arguments recorded against modalism--the view that the Father and Jesus are the same person--but there's not a word breathed about any doctrine that the Father and Son are co-equal.We can debate which Scripture interpretation is correct, but isn't any interpretation that is not represented in history automatically excluded as a correct interpretation?

Oh, and this is for the Bible study forum.

bumpJust one time; maybe no one's interested.

Actually, jar, my one subject is whether you can attribute a doctrine to the Bible that has no historical record.The two subjects you mentioned are not two subjects, but two examples to illustrate.To me, if a Bible believer studies the Bible and comes up with a doctrine, but it turns out that doctrine was taught by no one, believed by no one, and argued for or against by no one for centuries after the Bible was written, then you can be confident you have misinterpreted the Bible.That's why I was so willing to argue strongly that Martin Luther misinterpreted Paul. It's not just that I can show Biblically that my interpretation of Paul is better. It's that no one in any of Paul's churches, or anyone else's churches, taught the things Luther taught about "no works" until Luther came along, 1400 years after all the NT writings were written.To me, the history argues much more conclusively than competing Bible interpretations, because interpretations are just opinions.Anyway, my point is to ask how a doctrine could possibly be Biblical if none of the apostolic churches knew about it? I just threw out Luther's no works and the modern three co-equal persons view of the Trinity as examples.(What's really funny about the Trinity one is that so many people use the Nicene Creed to defend it, and the Nicene Creed doesn't agree with it!)

Well, that is an interesting premise. It is explored very thoroughly in a book called Common Sense by David Bercot, a well-written book I was privileged to help edit, so I read it several times.However, that's not my premise. I am not suggesting that the early church was error free. I'm sure the early church suffered such influences.My premise has nothing to do with the accuracy of the early church. My premise is that a teaching that was completely unheard of in history--unknown to any apostolic churches; unknown to any group that we know about; neither argued for or against by any early writers--could not have been in the mind of NT writers. If it had, then there would have been some disciples somewhere that would have kept to it.We know that there were many churches reading the writings of the apostles. We know that they were in contact with each other. We know that when they had doctrinal issues, they would refer themselves to churches that had long term apostolic teaching (like Ephesus and Rome). We know that they maintained a relatively strong unity for 200 years after the apostles. We know that they wrote long works against heretics.With all that being true, do you really think that a doctrine unheard of in that environment could really have been taught by the apostles and thus be Biblical?

Fair enough, but at least the early Christians said they were creating something new (thus "New" Testament). Modern Christians claim to be saying the same thing the apostles were saying when they wrote the writings that became the New Testament, but somehow none of their churches or hearers knew about it!

I know. You always have something different to talk about when I bring up a subject, and you always insist that it's what I'm talking about.Thanks. Go start your own thread if you want to talk about something different than what I said this thread was about.

An argument from incredulity is not automatically bad. Sometimes it is a very effective and accurate argument.It gets demeaned on this forum a lot, because Creationists argue from incredulity on things that have a lot of evidence that they happened.If a person said that every day when they go jogging they suddenly feel a surge of power and they do a 15 meter long jump, most of us would dismiss that person as lying on the basis of incredulity. I for one would recommend that unless the person provided some sort of proof for their boast. You have??? You argued that it's possible for the early churches to have error in them. I agreed with that. But to have error in them is not to completely lose, without a trace, two relatively central doctrines that are commented on often by the New Testament and the early churches. Despite the centrality of these doctrines, and despite the numerous references to them in the NT and in the ECW, no one taught--or even argued against--the doctrines as they are taught in Protestant circles today.In fact, history can provide very reliable sources for those doctrines later in history. The co-equal Trinity can be seen to develop in Athanasius' writings, and others', during the bloody (literally) battles over that doctrine in the 4th century. The "no works" doctrine--the Protestant version--has its foundation in Anselm's 11th century musings on the atonement, and then in Luther's writings, who couldn't even find backing from Calvin on that issue. Common sense is not that uncommon. It's uncommon in churches, because there is such a high emotional stake in church doctrine, but where emotions don't run high, people respond perfectly well to arguments from incredulity. Which is why I put it up for discussion.

And I have been answering it.Because they had the apostles--the same ones that wrote the NT letters--preaching in their churches.For a doctrine to be unknown to anyone anywhere, and then pop up in history under circumstances that explain why the doctrine was invented, is the next best thing to proof positive that the doctrine was never in anyone's mind until its invention centuries later.The point of my argument is that there are so many people confused by the various Bible interpretations. Some Bible interpretations, however, can be thrown out, because history clearly shows they were invented long after the Bible was written.

Right, it's not surprising at all. Because, unlike most Christians, who will cling to what they believe no matter what evidence there is against it; when I saw that the writings of the early church disagreed with me and made sense of the seemingly conflicting verses in the Bible, I switched to their view.So, no, I did not find my interpretation of the NT position in their writings. I switched to their interpretation after reading their writings, because it is so obviously more accurate.Now, back on topic:The early church writings have become more popular over the last twenty years, thanks in a large part to David Bercot's book Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up. Therefore, the quote mining has started.Quote mining does not constitute an alternative interpretation of the early church writings. It's too soon for the quote miners to have written history books, and if they did, they would be rejected by any scholarly institution.The "no works" doctrine of Luther cannot be found in the writings of the early church, and that's not one of the things scholars disagree on. No works people have been calling the early church fathers heretics for a hundred years, because they know that. Just because a web site pulled some quotes out of those writings means nothing at all.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 04-18-2006 09:34 AM

I know. I don't know how to get around all the things that appear to you and no one else. There is a sense in which everything falls on people's interpretation. There are those who argue that the earth is really flat. No one takes them seriously. Right, and sometimes what they say is questionable, and you can tell because there's disagreement among them. Other times, what they say is obvious, and their interpretation is the only reasonable one, and they all agree, as in this case. Not in this case. Find one reputable scholar who believes that the early church taught Luther and his Protestant descendants "no works" doctrine, and we'll discuss interpretations. Until then, you're just making noise.Having said all that, let me say this:My premise has nothing to do with anything iano is saying, and I don't want the premise to get lost. The premise is that if a Bible teaching/interpretation cannot be found anywhere in church history for centuries (and church history goes all the way back to apostolic times), and then pops up under explainable circumstances, then shouldn't we be able to dismiss that interpretation as inaccurate?

I didn't suggest this. I asked how the co-equal Trinity teaching of most modern churches could accurately represent the view of Bible writers when no one had ever heard of it until 300 years after the Bible was written.

As far as your list of churches who hold to the "co-equal" view of the Trinity, you should note that since all Protestant denominations are just offshoots of Catholicism, they are not multiple witnesses.Really you only have two witnesses listed. One is the Greek Orthodox church and the other is the RCC. Even then, those two witnesses are both under doctrinal obligation to agree with later councils that established the "three co-equal persons" doctrine in response to the bloody battles of the 4th century.Again, we're back to history, not interpretation.In AD 325, before those bloody battles over the doctrine of the Trinity, the Council of Nicea said what everyone before them said: "There is one God, the Father...and one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God."Notice the wording: "One God, the Father." That wording is consistend and unchanged from the New Testament to Nicea, a span of about three centuries. Then Arius had it out with numerous other bishops for fifty years, and the wording became "One God consisting of three co-equal persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."That's a pretty dramatic change, and it can be specifically placed as occurring during Athanasius' lifetime in the 4th century. Before the 4th century, no one--no one at all--ever made any suggestion that the one God consisted of three co-equal persons.Then, for reasons that we can see and understand, we can watch in history the development of the co-equal doctrine. Then that doctrine was made an official requirement of all catholic churches in the 5th century. 500 years later, the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches split, both of them maintaining that doctrine (no surprise). 500 years after that, the Protestant churches split off from the Roman Catholics, also maintaining that doctrine.The story is very easy to follow and very well-known. In my opinion, it eliminates all the interpretational issues.Admittedly, on this subject--the Trinity--you can find scholars disagreeing on what the Pre-Nicene church taught. (Maybe you should have used this doctrine to make your previous point on.) However, all of them would have to admit one thing that's simple fact. Before Nicea and at Nicea, the one God is always said to be the Father every single time a specific statement is made. After Nicea, the one God is said to consist of three co-equal persons. That is very consistent.

Hmm, your post was written a couple weeks ago, and I never noticed it. True enough, but not pertinent.Jesus gets called God several times in the NT. Unlike those you are currently arguing with, I believe that Zech 2:8-11 is referring to Jesus (before he was born and called Jesus, however). I believe Isaiah saw Jesus in Isaiah 6, not the Father.None of that, however, has anything to do with the fact that when the one God is mentioned in the NT, it always says the one God is the Father. For example, Jn 17:3 has Jesus himself calling the Father the "only true God." 1 Cor 8:6 has Paul saying there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, the Son of God, Jesus Christ. In 1 Tim it says there is one God and one Mediator. Since the Mediator is the Son, then the one God he is referring to is the Father.This is very consistent in the NT, there are no exceptions. It is very consistent in the writings of the early fathers, there are no exceptions. The Council of Nicea in its creed says there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, consistently following in the footsteps of the NT and earlier Christians.Yes, if Jesus is referred to by himself, he is regularly called God, because he is the divine Son of God. When he and God are referred to together, however, the name God is only applied to the Father, each and every time, with no exceptions.Tertullian explains it in his writing Against Praxeas.

quote:

---

I shall follow the apostle; so that if the Father and the Son, are alike to be invoked, I shall call the Father "God," and invoke Jesus Christ as "Lord." But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him "God," as the same apostle says: "Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever." For I should give the name of" sun" even to a sunbeam, considered in itself; but if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam.

---

That's from ch. 13, and it was written about AD 200. Speaks for itself, I think, when you consider that everyone before and after him until and including Nicea, acts in accordance with this description.

Can I correct your post a bit. I'm pretty familiar with the Arian controversy, as it's the background to the very interesting fact that pretty much all the modern churches that quote the Apostle's creed (the modern version of the Nicene Creed) don't believe it, at least not as it was originally agreed upon. (Reference is Eusebius' letter explaining the thought of Constantine and the council upon the creed, which was an adjustment to Caesarea's, Eusebius' church, rule of faith, as quoted in Socrates' Ecclesiastical History.)Christ is called God very, very early, even in NT writings (we can debate why and what was meant, but we can't debate that he's called God). Ignatius, in letters that are not at question, refers to Christ as God. The letter of Pliny the elder (I don't know the date) says that the Christians used to sing hymns to Christ as God. Justin Martyr, around AD 150, has some very, very thorough explanations of his view of Christ as God.In the end, though, Tertullian has a summation of Christ as God around AD 200 (Against Praxeas) that is excellent, and it explains the usage found in the NT, in Justin's writings, and in everything else seen in the early fathers extremely well.I say all that, because when you get to Nicea and to Eusebius' letter as quoted in Socrates' history (not the philosopher Socrates), Eusebius' letter lines exactly up with what Tertullian and Justin said as well as with the Nicene Creed.Sorry this is a little long. It's very, very interesting to me, and I'm setting up my comment about Arius.Nicea did not end a fight over the Trinity; it heated it up. Arius really started the fight, but here's why it was a fight.Before Nicea, the early churches (non-gnostic) regularly quoted passages like Prov 8:22, saying that Christ was created. They did not distinguish between his being born and being created. You'll find all through the writings of the fathers statements that Christ "the Word" had an inexplicable, incomprehensible birth in the beginning. "The Word," which was part of God, was birthed by God from out of himself. They really liked to quote Ps 45:1, "My heart has emitted a good word," as a proof text.Okay, I said all that to say that what Arius said was that this birth was a real beginning for Christ. Orthodox believers--those who would agree with Tertullian, Origen, Athenagoras, and pretty much all the fathers who speak on the matter--would have said that the Word existed before his birth, but was inside of God rather than "emitted." (Tertullian explains all this thoroughly, but so do Justin, Athenagors, and Origen, who added some twist on "eternal" so that there was no beginning.)Orthodox believers (please excuse my terminology, I just mean those who agree with the writers I'm mentioning) really didn't care much about Arius's adjustment. They didn't agree, but it didn't matter much. Bishop Hosius, for example, a respected bishop from Spain, wrote a letter telling all parties involved to just drop it.They didn't drop it, however, because the real problem is that there were always a lot of modalist believers in the "orthodox" church. Such believers did not distinguish between "persons in the Godhead." They believed that the Father is Jesus is the Holy Spirit. There's only one person.Arius's bishop, Alexander, was more modalist than orthodox. He was really, really irritated with Arius's view, and bad blood developed between them. Alexander had power, as bishop, so Arius took his argument to the market place, creating jingles to be sung by children. (This is all very embarrassing, as I would consider myself as belonging to the lineage of these "orthodox" churches.)Alexander got people on his side, and Arius got people on his side. However, the "orthodox" view was really in between the two. After Nicea, you can tell from Eusebius's letter that he's scared that the modalist side, Alexander's side, may have won out too much. He is very apologetic about the Nicean decision, and he explains in a very defensive way to his congregation why he agreed with it. (As a result, and also because there was an Arian named Eusebius from Nicodemia, he is often labelled an Arian or accused of having Arian tendencies, when in fact he is extremely "orthodox.")However, the Nicene creed is really very orthodox, and agrees quite nicely with Tertullian's view, and that of the other apologists. There is one God, it says, and that one God is the Father. That one God has a Son, who was begotten of his own substance (this wording is found way back in Athenagoras around AD 170, so it's not new). Thus, the Son was made from "God stuff," the "divine matter," rather than from "mere matter" like everything else, including the angels.Since the Son is made from "God stuff," then he is "God from God, light from light, very God from very God."All very typically "orthodox," except that they now backed off from using the word created, because that helped Arius too much. Nicea made only that one small change from the "orthodox" view.In the end, though, there was another group, that Tertullian said always constituted the majority of the believers (because they were ignorant and uneducated, he said). That was the modalists, and there was a lot of them, and they opposed the Arians most strongly. They had to be appeased.As I said, the battle only heated up after Nicea, with the emperors getting involved, appointing Arian or anti-Arian bishops depending on his current view. Eventually, the "orthodox" and the modalists got mixed together, thanks to the immense charisma of Athanasius, the leader of the "Niceans."By the latter half of the 4th century, three or four decades after Nicea, the "orthodox" view was lost. It merged into the modalist view and disappeared. The modalist view lost most of its appeal, too, because now the orthodox/modalist mixture was good enough for them. In that one, there is one God, but the one God is not the Father with a Son that is his divine Word. The one God was now the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together, three in one.All that should be obvious. After all, the first words of the Nicene Creed are "We believe in one God, the Father." That is not the belief of modern believers who quote that creed. They "believe in one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."That happened during the fourth century. It was a fight between leaders of the orthodox/catholic churches (not Roman churches, as there was no Roman church except in Rome at that time; Nicea appointed four patriarchs, not one, and they appointed four, because there were none before that.) It was not the leaders of anything using a doctrine to maintain their power.Conspiracy theories are always popular, because we humans tend to think that way. That whole story of Arius looks like natural evolution, not any sort of purposeful anything.The apologists who led the fight against the other Christianities from 150 to 300 (that Equinox mentioned) didn't need a specific Trinity doctrine to disagree with the other Christianities. It seems strange to me equinox said that, because he's read a lot of those things. The disagreements on who Christ was were plenty great enough without the apologists having to invent something to fight with the Valentinians, Marcians, etc. In fact, I really object to the suggestion that there was a development. Justin, Tertullian, Origen, and Athenagoras have very little difference between them (except Justin's rather bold wording and Origen's eternal begetting), and there is absolutely no difference between Tertullian's descriptions of the Trinity and Eusebius' letter about the Nicene creed. Those are so similar and use such similar texts, you'd think Eusebius was trained by Tertullian, and since he had read him, maybe he was. Athenagoras, too, though explains the Trinity pretty thoroughly and in exact accordance with Nicea, all the way down to explaining the issue concerning the substance of God, the "material" God is made of, and Athenagoras is from over a century before Nicea.Again, I'm sorry this is so long, but it's one of my favorite subjects. They got over their strict monotheism pretty handily. Justin says there's two Gods, one begotten and one unbegotten, and Tertullian questions Praxeas' math, saying that in John 1, if there's a God and there's a Word that's with God and who is divine, then anyone who can add can count two in that passage. They didn't sweat the use of the word two, even while they said that the Father was the one God.Tertullian had a great explanation of why that was. He said that people call a sunbeam the sun when it's shining in the window, but if they talk about the sun and the sunbeam at the same time, then they "immediately remove the name of sun from the mere beam, so it is with the Word and God." He explains that the Word is worthy of the title God, but if you are talking about God and his Word, then you no longer refer to the Word as God, but as Lord.This fits really well with what Paul wrote, and Tertullian said his description was how the apostles taught the churches and their elders verbally.