Orthodoxy (2)
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 NASB
Traditions – Since the question of the authority of the Bible is so important to our faith, it’s worth taking the time to investigate once more Craig Allert’s view of the formation of the New Testament canon. You might wonder why we should spend any time at all on this subject. Don’t we all agree that Scripture is the true source of authority? As Allert says:
“The bottom line in ancient and contemporary appropriations of the canon is that it is the foundational and primary source against which any reflection of God’s revelation must be measured.”[1]
The Bible is God’s book, right? It is the standard by which we measure our faith. We all know that. So what’s the issue? Ah, the problem is what is in the Bible and how did it get there. Notice Allert’s historical assessment:
“Any examination of the history of the formation of the New testament canon cannot miss the vital role played by the church and its leaders. This does not deprecate the role of the Holy Spirit in this formation, but rather acknowledges the fact that the Spirit was at work throughout the entire process of sifting, including, excluding, and interpreting these documents . . . the Spirit was seen as living and active in the entire community.”[2]
It is certainly true that historical investigation of the formation of the canon reveals the enormous influence of Church leaders (and emperors). The books included did not arrive there stamped with God’s divine seal. They were eventually placed into a collection of canonized material by men intent on standardizing the corpus of sacred writings. We know this because even in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, believing communities used far more documents than were finally collected into the Bible. But this isn’t the only issue.
Notice that Allert’s analysis is entirely ex post facto, that is, it simply justifies whatever happened by asserting that it was God’s work. There is no criterion or evidence to determine if this is truly the case. It is dogma, asserted in order to justify the Church’s position. How does it differ in any way from me asserting that Calvin’s decision to burn Servetus at the stake because he did not endorse the Trinity was also the movement of the Spirit safeguarding the church against heresy? Allert’s assertion essentially says that whatever men do, afterward we claim it was God doing it.
Allert is aware of this problem, but his solution leaves me with even more concerns. In his final statement he says:
“Appeal to the Bible as authority is essential, but not without a similar appeal to the proper lens of interpretation. That proper lens of interpretation has been the ecclesial canons of the church in which the Bible grew.”[3]
I can understand why he says this. He is defending the Christian faith. Of course he must insist that the proper lens of interpretation is the Church. But history demonstrates that the “Church” has a lot of explaining to do when it comes to its use of the Bible as its authority. It must explain the horrific development of doctrines like the Trinity, of pogroms against the Jews, of the Crusades, of deliberate anti-Judaism in its teaching, of Replacement Theology that still continues today, of its inquisitions, its slaughter of entire populations in the New World, of its continued insistence of papal authority (or, for Protestants, its insistence that every believer has the right interpretation). The list goes on. Do we really think that the Church is the proper lens? Does history support this? Or are we willing to say, “Well, of course men in the Church made mistakes, but God was still there and He only really endorsed the good things, not the bad.” Now who’s using ex post facto excuses?
Topical Index: Craig Allert, canon, interpretation, orthodoxy, 2 Thessalonians 2:15
[1] Craig D. Allert, A High View of Scripture?: The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon (BakerAcademic. 2007), p. 173.
