This guest article by Nathan and Matthew Farrar is the second in a series of articles from former Christadelphians who have embraced Christian orthodoxy. (The previous article in the series by Ruth Sutcliffe can be found here.)
The Canon Conundrum
How a table of contents made us rethink our faith
There is an easy temptation to look back on beliefs
or practices that were formerly embraced, and cast them in the most negative
light possible. Nowhere is this more
tempting than when explaining why one’s former beliefs were left behind or
changed. Both authors have come to
embrace catholic Christianity, a significant move away from the beliefs given
to us during our upbringing. We were both raised in a conservative, Unamended
Christadelphian home and ecclesia in Ontario, Canada. Overall, our experiences
were positive. Indeed, our family goes back at least 3 generations on both
sides, and as such, it could be said that “Christadelphianism” is in our blood.
So, as we look back, we have no desire
to tear down what was and is positive about Christadelphia. But we did find ourselves unable, in good
conscience, to embrace and teach portions of the statements of faith. Explaining all the details is beyond the scope of this post, but our move from being
committed Christadelphians to orthodox1 Christians
can really be summed up in two words: history
matters. Specifically, Church history.
For
both of us, the question of whether Christadelphians or orthodox Christians
were correct concerning a doctrine like the divinity of Jesus could not ultimately
be determined by interpreting the Bible alone.
Why? Because both sides acknowledged that one should base doctrine upon the
“clear teaching of Scripture” and then interpret “difficult passages” in that
light. The problem was that the “clear teaching” for one group was the
“difficult passages” for the other, and vice versa!
History provided a way to break the
stalemate. It seemed reasonable to both of us to appeal to
the earliest Christians in the post-Apostolic era, authors such as Clement of
Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna and Irenaeus of Lyons. It seemed
that the closer we went in time to the Apostles (Clement is thought to have
possibly been their contemporary and Polycarp a direct disciple of John), the
more likely we would be to converging on the teaching of the Apostles
themselves. This type of consideration ultimately led us to embrace orthodox
doctrines in favor of the distinctive teachings of Christadelphians.
In
response to this approach, some Christadelphians have argued that the discovery
of proto-orthodox Christian beliefs in the writings of the early Church Fathers2 is only evidence that
apostate teaching was present earlier than we might have expected. Thus, it is
argued that these writings can and should be rejected as heretical. However,
there is one product of the early Church that Christadelphians universally accept,
namely, the contents of the New Testament. This
seems odd: why trust an apostate church to hand on a perfect and
trustworthy canon? Despite this
peculiarity, Christadelphians and orthodox Christians use the same set of New
Testament books.
Back to basics
One
feature of Christadelphian belief that was firmly impressed upon us both was
that God’s offer of salvation is revealed through
Scripture alone, and that each individual has a duty to discern, through
personal study of the Bible, what he or she must do and believe to be
saved. The Christadelphian community can and does offer teaching and support,
but ultimately the responsibility for obtaining saving truths from the
Scriptures falls to the individual seeker. This way of thinking seems
self-evident to many Christadelphians.
We say this not out of condescension, but because it also seemed
self-evident to both of us!
It
began to become less self-evident
when we learned that the authenticity of a few books in the New Testament canon
–such as Hebrews and Jude– had been disputed in the early church. Furthermore, the later subtraction, during
the Reformation, of books from the Old Testament Scriptures that had been in
use for the first 1500 years of the church was troubling. Why did these observations give us
pause? Because if salvation depends on
reading and responding to what is in the Bible, then there is a lot at stake in determining
exactly what constitutes ‘the Bible’, i.e. which books are canonical. It
is important to appreciate the difference between being able to say with
certainty “here is the inspired canon, take and read” and
“here is an argument for why our
canon is the right one.” In fact, a
great difference exists between the two.
Why? Again, because when individual response to what is revealed in
Scripture is a central pillar in the drama of salvation there cannot be any
uncertainty regarding which books are actually Scripture, and which are
apocryphal. (It is bad enough to have
disputes over what Scripture teaches, never mind what actually constitutes Scripture!) As such, it only seems reasonable that a
person should be able to understand the basis for his or her
confidence in Scripture’s table of contents.
What we attempt to show in this brief article is that Christadelphians
do not really have nor can they have a well-founded confidence that the
canon on which they rely to “make persons wise unto salvation” (2 Tim. 3:15) is
perfect.
Before
we try to explain why we hold this view, we would like to set proper
expectations for this post. This article
is not, nor is it meant to be a scholarly blog post. It also isn’t intended to trigger a protracted
debate. We were asked to comment on why we ceased to be Christadelphians, and
while many of the reasons have been covered on this blog, we are simply drawing
attention to one critical factor that influenced us.
When
the obvious becomes puzzling
One
thing we both believe strongly in is being fair to those with whom we
disagree. It only seems fair then to
begin by quoting from the statements of faith that explain clearly how
Christadelphians understand the nature of the Scriptures:
“That
the Scriptures, composing the book currently known as the Bible, are the only
source now extant of knowledge concerning God and His purposes, and that
they were given wholly by the unerring inspiration of God in the writers, and
that such errors as have since crept in are due to transcription or
translation.”
3
“That
the book currently known as the Bible, consisting of the Scriptures of Moses,
the prophets, and the apostles, is the only source of knowledge
concerning God and His purposes at present extant or available in the earth,
and that the same were wholly given by inspiration of God in the writers, and
are consequently without error in all parts of them, except such as may be due
to errors of transcription or translation.”
4
These
statements are puzzling because they presume that a source of authority
existed prior to “now”, whether extant or not, that was capable
of discerning the limits of the Scriptural canon. The nature of this extra-Biblical knowledge is not specified. That aside, if the Bible is the only source
of knowledge that currently exists, then apart from simply accepting the
(Protestant) canon as an act of faith, how could I really know
that this collection of books is complete and perfect? Are there books that were excluded
that should be included, or books included that ought to have been excluded?
There seems to be no way to gauge whether one’s confidence in the canon of
Scripture is well-placed or misguided. In order to explore this problem more
fully, we need to examine some different possible avenues to answer this
question and examine their respective implications.
The
first possibility is to confirm the legitimacy of our Bible’s contents through
internal tests. For example,
Idea 1: Christ himself
confirms what belongs in Scripture.
Answer: Christ does not tell us
what constitutes the Scriptures. He
certainly speaks of the “law and the prophets” and the psalms but neglects to
define the exact books beyond this. Furthermore, the Apostles do not
tell us what constitutes the Scriptures, though they certainly acknowledge
their importance and authority.
Idea 2: We can show what
belongs in the canon of Scripture through the quotations the books use. In other words, Scripture is self-contained
because ‘Scripture quotes Scripture’.
Answer: This works to an extent,
but is finally problematic. Song of
Songs and Ecclesiastes are not quoted in the New Testament, so would
they have been included in the “Scripture” that is referred to in 2 Timothy
3: 16-17? Or, does Jude’s use
of the 1 Enoch mean that this book ought to be included in the canon?5 This approach seems to be fraught with difficulties.
Idea 3: Authentic books
can be identified by their attestation to the authentic beliefs of Christians.
Answer: This is a fascinating criterion and one that
we think has much to be said for it, though not as a sole criteria. However,
there are issues with this approach. Certain early Christian texts such as the
Didache are alleged by some Christadelphians to reflect authentic Christian
beliefs. Why then is the Didache not canonical? Perhaps more seriously, certain
New Testament books appear to affirm beliefs that Christadelphians reject. Take an obvious example: Thomas calling Jesus “God” in John 20. Is the gospel of John – being as different as
it is from the synoptic gospels – really part of Scripture? After all, the deity of Jesus is a serious
corruption of the Christian faith according to Christadelphians. Another major problem with this approach is
its circularity: we need knowledge of correct Christian beliefs to define the
canon, but we need to know the canon to identify these beliefs!
So,
we have a collection of books that cannot be used to internally justify
their own canonicity, and according to Christadelphian Statements of Faith,
there remains no external authority to confirm the canon’s limits. So not only
can we not definitively confirm what belongs in Scripture, we do not appear to
have any objective basis for determining whether the Protestant, Catholic,
Orthodox, or some other Bible should be embraced!
Scripture
– a work of man?
The
Christadelphian community has adopted the traditional Protestant canon composed
of 39 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books. Consistent with Christadelphians’
understanding of Scripture, this set of books is understood to be the one and
only source for all truth concerning doctrine and morals. From this it is reasonably concluded that any
doctrine not taught in the Bible or any claim to a definitive interpretive
authority beyond the Bible itself is rejected as the “work of men”. This formulation is interesting for two
reasons: one, since Scripture is not
self-contained (i.e., you cannot determine the canon of Scripture
from Scripture), and is therefore not taught in the Bible, should the canon be
rejected? If not, then Christadelphians
should admit they hold core beliefs
not drawn from Scripture; in fact, they accept part of Christian Tradition. Second, since the canon underwent a period of
development and refinement, ultimately being the subject of a number of early church
councils (Rome (382), Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419)), is the Bible’s table
of contents a ‘work of men’? If not,
then why not?
The
emphasis that Christadelphians place on the study of Scripture and its full
supremacy above all other sources of knowledge about the Christian faith (e.g.,
Tradition) appears to be a straight-forward, coherent, and attractive picture
of the nature of doctrine and salvation.
Indeed, we have heard testimony from many converts in Christadelphian
ecclesias who have told us that part of what drew them in was the seriousness
with which Christadelphians approached the Bible. While we do not wish to disparage the
importance of Scripture, the way in which it has been presented masks deeper
questions about the origins of the canon and how Christadelphians can know
that it is their particular collection of books that can make us “wise
enough to have faith in Christ Jesus and be saved” (2 Tim. 3:15).
A
Christadelphian New Testament?
In
this section we propose a short and simple thought experiment. Of course, like any experiment, you will have
to draw your own conclusions. Here is the question: If the earliest church had believed as Christadelphians
do–as is supposed–would they have handed down to us the same New Testament we
have today?
It
seems plausible to think some of the books would have been selected. We have never heard any Christadelphians
express doubts about the legitimacy of Apostolic authorship as one of the marks
of canonicity. On this basis, we could
certainly see the Pauline letters being included, for example.
However,
historically, the basis on which the books of Scripture were identified did not
rest solely on Apostolic authorship but also on whether the theology bore witness to the faith of
the church. While this may initially
seem exactly backwards – Scripture should be used to define the church’s belief
– it is actually aligned with Paul’s own view of the church, which he identifies
as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Where our thought experiment gets interesting
is when we ask, how would Christadelphians have applied the theology test to
the New Testament books? For example, is
it conceivable that Christadelphians – who have no centralized authority –
would have universally accepted the gospel of John that, at a minimum, appears
to witness to the following:
- Jesus is the Word, who is God (Jn 1:1)
- This Word is an agent of Creation (Jn 1:2);
- This Word is incarnated in flesh (Jn 1:14);
- Jesus came from the Father’s side which is why he can make the Father known to us (Jn 1:18);
- Jesus uses the divine name (Jn 8);
- Jesus speaks of having personally come from Heaven;
- Jesus teaches the personhood of the Holy Spirit in John 16-17; and
- Jesus accepts Thomas directly calling him God (Jn. 20:28)
or
other writings which include:
- The song about Jesus' incarnation in Philippians 2;
- The reference to sinful angels in chains in both the Epistle of Jude and the Second Epistle of Peter;
- The “spirits of just men made perfect” clearly shown in Heaven (Hebrews 12);
- The battle of Satan and the Archangel Michael in the Epistle of Jude; and
- The depiction of the living souls of the martyrs in Revelation 6.
What
is the point of this little thought experiment?
It is this: If it seems likely that an early community holding to
beliefs and practices similar to the Christadelphians would not have
given us the New Testament now universally affirmed, then perhaps it was a very
different type of Christian community that did.
By
the book
Before
summing up, we want to quickly pursue a closely related point. Have you ever wondered why God would leave
only a book for people to study, hoping that it will lead at least some to
salvation? On its face this seems unjust
because individual abilities and aptitudes vary greatly. Scripture appears to attest to this very
fact: the man Philip taught openly
admitted he did not understand Isaiah and needed someone to teach him (Acts 8:31)! Clearly Scripture alone wasn’t enough for this man.
The Christadelphian emphasis on personal Bible study and resultant
culpability seems plainly at odds with Scripture’s own narrative testimony
about how people come to learn the gospel.
But
the matter is even more unsettling when we realize that estimates of literacy
rates in the ancient world sat somewhere around 5%, with that number plummeting
in the Middle Ages. Personal copies of
the Bible were not available to the general population (apart from the wealthy)
prior to the invention of the printing press circa 1440. So the whole notion that God has used the
Bible alone to call and instruct people seems plausible in 2016, but much less
so throughout much of Christian history.
Put more starkly, it is chilling to think that the only means of access
to “knowledge concerning God and his purposes” was completely inaccessible
to most people throughout history, and for that matter, many people in the
developing world today. We must ask, does it really make sense to say
that “God is willing that none should perish” (2 Pet. 3:9) yet makes salvation
largely inaccessible because the details are locked up in a book that the
seeker cannot read or afford? This may not be equivalent to giving a stone to a
son who asks for bread (Matt. 7:9), but it does rather seem like putting that
bread on the top shelf of the pantry!
Canon
and Church
At
the end of the day, we find Christadelphians to be in an unusual position. They accept a canon shaped by the consensus
of the early church, which had lapsed into heresy by the time this consensus
was achieved. Moreover, they accept a New Testament canon sealed by Catholic
authority – an authority Christadelphians resolutely reject. Meanwhile, Christadelphians accept the
revised Protestant canon of the Old Testament, again handed down by a body of
Christians they regard as thoroughly heretical.
The biblical canon used by Christadelphians seems to have a dubious
pedigree – and yet certainty about the boundaries of the canon is at the very
heart of Christadelphian belief. It
would therefore stand to reason that Christadelphians should have full assurance that the canon they use contains all inspired
books, adding no illegitimate books and lacking no authentic ones.
Perhaps
God worked through a corrupt Church to preserve a non-corrupt canon. But before you accept that idea, we encourage
you to ask yourself how you know this to be true? What is the basis for such confidence
within a context of great apostasy?
Furthermore, on what basis does one pick and choose where God guided the
church and where He left the Church to apostatize? Can we reasonably affirm the
lesser councils (Rome (382), Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419)) that affirmed the
canon of Scripture to be providentially-guided while denying the ecumenical
councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381) (which dogmatically defined
the doctrine of the Trinity) as the corrupted ‘works of men’? On the other hand, if the basis is your own
reason or study, why then would the canon not be an open question for each
Christadelphian to settle for him or herself as a matter of preliminary
concern? Remember: You cannot define the canon from within the
canon. Therefore, the authority for
determining what books belong in the Bible is located beyond the Bible itself. The key question then for each
Christadelphian is “What is the authority I accept for setting the contents of
the Bible?”
If
your answer is Christian tradition, the Church or some related answer, we
consider this an invitation from the Holy Spirit to you to reflect more deeply
on the nature of the Church. At the end of day no person, group or church can
give what it does not possess.
Christadelphian ecclesias make no claim to special authority or any
discernible direct guidance from God. As such they cannot authoritatively affirm or reject the canonicity of the Scriptures to
which they hold. However, if Christ had
indeed invested a church with authority–His own
authority–through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and therefore could
definitively and authoritatively resolve issues over which well-meaning
Christians differed, wouldn’t that actually be a tremendous blessing? Wouldn’t that actually be the very kind of
thing you’d hope would be true?
And wouldn’t that go a long way towards explaining how you would know
which books were indeed divinely inspired and therefore rightly belong in the
canon? We think that is worth thinking
about.
So here is what we came to
see:
There
appears to be no compelling way to identify the canon of Scripture. It is possible to make arguments for
the inclusion of books, but not to know that the collection of books that
comprise the New Testament is complete and without error. This is because to know what books belong in
both the Christian New and Old Testaments is to know something that is outside
of the Scriptures themselves, and rests on an external authority.
We
came to have serious doubts that if Christadelphians were placed into a
historical circumstance in which they had to define the canon of Scripture
(rather than inherit it) they would identify the collection of books they
currently use. Taking John as an
example: With its significant
differences from the three synoptic gospels would it have been accepted? It certainly contains passages that appear to
affirm the pre-existence and deity of Christ, the personhood of the Holy
Spirit, etc. Indeed, it is said
that many have been led astray by these very passages!
You
have to be able to explain why the books are binding on all Christians
and who has the authority to bind the canon. Finally, the answer to these two questions
should result in a justified confidence in the perfection of the canon.
If
Christadelphians have no definitive way
to know what books belongs in the Scriptures, do not claim the divine authority
to identify and bind the scriptural table of contents, and would in all
probability not identify accepted canonical books as such (e.g., John
due to chapter one’s prologue, etc.) how could the early church have looked
anything like Christadelphians? Looking
from the other end of history, how could Christadelphians claim to be a
restoration of the early church?
A
Problem for Protestants?
Some
readers may be wondering whether similar arguments could be brought to bear on any
Protestant group just as easily as Christadelphians. In short, we believe that
the answer to this question is “yes”. Specifically, Catholics claim that
because of the deposit of faith granted to her by Christ through the Holy
Spirit, the Church is protected from teaching error in matters of faith and
morals, which would include the selection of canon. However, we acknowledge
that the selection of canon is less problematic for some Protestants than for others.
Specifically,
Protestants who consider themselves to be part of a reformationist movement
do not distance themselves from the Church Fathers in the same way as those of restorationist
traditions. For example, the Anglican Church accepts the first 5 ecumenical
councils, and Lutherans maintain many Catholic teachings and practices. In
essence, reformationists grant a limited authority to the early church, such as
was necessary to provide the content of the New Testament.
6 Reformationists maintain that the Catholic Church drifted into heresy,
but that this process was more gradual, and thus the break much later. Thus,
the problem of canon is mitigated, though perhaps not eliminated.
By
contrast, restorationism–which
includes Christadelphians–allow for minimal or no historic
continuity with the early church. Rather, it is maintained that the Apostles’
teaching was, at least visibly, lost very early and not re-discovered
until much later. As such, no authority is granted to the early church and therefore
the problem of canon remains.
Conclusion
These
considerations, among others, have led the present authors to embrace as
authoritative the early church in both
its authority to define canon and key
doctrines of the faith. This church claimed to have the authority necessary to define
the boundaries of canon with confidence under the assurance of Divine
guidance by the Holy Spirit. We believe this provides internally consistent
answers to the types of thought experiments that we have considered in this
paper. As such, we differ with Christadelphians on a number of issues. However, were it not so, we still could not
in good conscience remain Christadelphians simply because we would not be in an
epistemologically sound position to identify the contents of the Bible
itself. We need to know, not
simply have arguments for, what books the Bible rightly contains.
Having
now read this article, what is a person to do?
Unfortunately, most of the time we tend to read Facebook posts, click
“Like” or offer a brief comment, and move on without much further thought.
However, if nothing else, we hope that we have been able to draw attention to the
importance of this topic and its need to be addressed. Here is our advice to
you: consider the possibility that the
views expressed on this blog generally are correct, and that this may have
implications for your life. To be
honest, we have both lost touch with friends whom we have known for years as a
result of our convictions, which is unfortunate. Therefore, do not consider the
views presented here lightly, and do not do so alone. Ask a brother or sister
you respect about this article or another that troubles you. Suggest that an article from this blog be the
subject of Sunday school or an exhortation.
Be respectful and listen carefully to what is said, but ask yourself if
the answers you receive really make sense. And pray, asking God to show you the
fullness of the Christian faith, “For everyone who asks receives; the one who
seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.” (Matt.
7:8). When the time comes, have the courage to act on your convictions. “Today,
if you hear His voice, do not harden your heart” (Ps. 95:7-8).
Footnotes
- 1 Throughout, we will use lower case ‘orthodox’ to denote the teachings of historic Christianity embraced by mainline churches and defined in the classical creeds, such as the Trinity doctrine, and upper case ‘Orthodox’ to denote the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
- 2 'Church Fathers' is a traditional name for prominent early Christian writers
- 3 Birmingham Unamended Statement of Faith, article 31, emphasis added.
- 4 Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith, The Foundation, emphasis added.
- 5 In point of fact, 1 Enoch is affirmed as canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. However, this is the exception that proves the rule.
- 6 Though it should be noted that for many of the Reformers, the rejection of Church authority did lead to a questioning of canon. Notably, Martin Luther struggled with the canonicity of James based on his sola fide doctrine of justification, referring to it as a 'straw-epistle', though in the end he did accept it as affirming the law of God. Luther moved Hebrews and James to a later position in the order of New Testament books, just before Jude and Revelation, reflecting his lower valuation of these books (as can be seen here).
