Printer Friendly Version

Foundations for Christianity:
202 Foundations of Our Theology
and Hermeneutics


The Foundation of Our Theology:
Is Orthodox Doctrine Accummulated over Time?

(NOTE: The following essay is a philosophical overview describing more general ideologies and should be read in conjunction with our "Early Church Confirmation Rubric," which contains a more specific description of how this philosophical model operates in practical terms.)

"In necessariis unitas,
In dubiis libertas,
In omnibus autem caritas."

"In essentials unity,
In non-essentials liberty,
In all things charity."

The above quote or a similar version of it is often attributed to Augustine. While scholars debate who actually authored these words, the concept has become highly prevalent among the leadership and laypersons of the modern Church. The popularity of this axiom can be attributed in many ways to the ongoing ecumenical movement. The ecumenical movement has sought to secure the unity of the diverse Christian community around primary Christian dogma, while allowing interpretive license among denominational groups concerning "secondary" issues of the faith.

For example, while most Christians may share a greater degree of commonality on some doctrines that deal with the nature of God or the Atonement (the Trinity, the nature of Christ, the resurrection, etc.) there is a great deal of diversity and disharmony on many other matters of the faith.

One thing that the ecumenical movement is not alone in identifying is that as an ideology modern Christianity is riddled with internal discord. And this is a key point to this article, so we do not want to move over it too quickly.

From this point forward we will refer to this internal discord as "unresolved orthodoxy." This phrase, "unresolved orthodoxy" refers to the fact that in the modern Church, varying denominations have differing and often contradictory positions on a range of issues or doctrines including, for example, baptism, charismatic gifts, eschatology, freewill, etc. We refer to this phenomenon as "unresolved orthodoxy" because, particularly in certain areas of doctrine, what is orthodox and what is not orthodox has not been resolved, and, therefore, by necessity, some heretical views are considered an acceptable part of orthodoxy.

In recognition of this diverse field of doctrinal positions, one might ask the question, why are there so many divergent interpretations of a single, authoritative truth source - the Word of God, and perhaps more specifically the New Testament? Why doesn't the modern church have a single, harmonious, unified interpretation of Christian doctrine on all issues of the faith?

Two explanations have been proposed.


Option 1: Orthodoxy has been invaded by Heresy. (Pristine Apostolic View)

The minority view held by the authors of this site and others is that Christian teaching was handed down intact and fully understood at least from the onset of the Church at Pentecost in the earliest Christian antiquity. Or put more simply, orthodoxy was understood by the Apostles and received intact from them by second and third generation Christians. Thus, their doctrine might be described as "pristine," which means "belonging to the earliest period or state" and "not spoiled, corrupted, or polluted" (although there were heretical sects trying to enter and influence the Church from the beginning.)

To be as clear as possible early antiquity can be defined as the apostolic era. It could also be defined as the period of time during which the books of the New Testament were being written. Both of these descriptions encompass the same period of history, roughly 33 AD through the early 100's AD (when John the Apostle is said to have passed away).

Those who hold to this view generally tend to hold to the following principles:

1. Successive generations of the church are NOT free to reinvent or redefine Christian beliefs and teachings.
2. In general, any teaching that is new (that is, not found in the scripture and reflected in the writings of antiquity) is therefore a false teaching and must be rejected as heresy.
3. Orthodoxy is defined as a single, harmonious (non-contradictory), and knowable position on all issues of the faith that was defined and preserved for us in the New Testament scripture.
4. Heresy is defined as any doctrine that falls outside of the single, harmonious, known interpretation of the scripture defined and preserved in the New Testament canon and handed down from the Apostles to the second and third generation of Christians in the earliest Christian antiquity.

Proponents of the Pristine Apostolic Faith do not hold the writings of the second and third generation Christians (commonly known as the Ante-Nicene writers or even more specifically the Apostolic Fathers) to be infallible, inspired, or canonical. However, due to the proximity of these writers to the Apostles and the fact that many of these writers were either themselves directly discipled by the Apostles or discipled by those who were, their writings are viewed as a valuable resource for informing us of the orthodoxy that the Apostles themselves held to and taught. This is especially true where their writings harmonize with the canonical writings of the New and Old Testament authors (and where these writers themselves have consensus). Only if and where their writings can be demonstrated by the grammatical-historical method to diverge or conflict with the canon of scripture, should their views be rejected.

Under this view the unresolved orthodoxy of the modern church is attributed to the gradual acceptance of formerly identified heretical views into Apostolic Orthodoxy. Although the epistles demonstrate that heresy was already trying to creep into the Church from the very beginning, that advance seems for the most part to have been largely abated by the efforts of the apostles. However, by mid to late 200's AD the infusion of heresy into orthodoxy seems to have turned a corner, making gradually more headway until it culminated more concretely as history approached the Romanization of the Church and the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Continued divergence of doctrine can be eliminated by a return to the authoritative standard of the original orthodoxy preserved in the New Testament scripture and reflected in the earliest post-New Testament, non-canonical writings of early Church leaders, specifically the Apostolic Fathers.


Option 2: Orthodoxy is Accumulated over Time. (The Accumulated View)

The view that has been offered more and more by many modern seminarians, theologians, and pastors in order to explain why orthodoxy remains unresolved is that it was never resolved in the first place. This position, which we have labeled as the Accumulated View holds that orthodoxy was not fully grasped at the onset of Christianity, but that it is instead gradually understood through time and the continuing theological efforts of Christian leaders over almost 2000 years and counting of Church history.

Those who hold that orthodoxy was not handed down intact and understood from the earliest Christian antiquity, but is instead gradually understood over the centuries, generally hold to the following principles:

1. Successive generations of the church achieve increasing levels of understanding regarding correct Christian beliefs and teachings, which in times past were not understood by previous generations. Therefore it is acceptable and necessary for Christian belief and teaching to change over time, this change can be only slight in some areas or perhaps revolutionary in others.
2. Longevity or ancient origin is not a factor when considering the orthodoxy or heresy of a proposed doctrine or teaching.
3. Orthodoxy is defined as a range or spectrum of interpretations of scripture, which were proposed and accepted by various historically prominent Christian movements. As a whole, orthodoxy does and can contain views on a given issue that contradict one another. For some issues of the faith it is not known, which of various conflicting, but accepted orthodox views are correct and which are incorrect, which are true church teaching and which are heresy. (This view of orthodoxy has been referred to above as Unresolved Orthodoxy).
4. Heresy is defined as any wrong teaching that has been identified and discarded over time through the ongoing efforts of Christian scholarship. (As opposed to the heretical teachings, which must exist within accepted orthodoxy, but have been deemed acceptable or have not yet and perhaps never will be identified.)

Under this view, unresolved orthodoxy can be removed only through the ongoing efforts of Church theologians and scholars to examine and determine what orthodox teachings should be. However, it should be noted that as a whole the ecumenical movement is not concerned with resolving the internal conflict within the accepted orthodox denominations of the modern church. Instead they largely agree to disagree on whichever doctrines they designate as non-essential.


Accumulated Orthodoxy or the Pristine Apostolic Faith?

Given the profound fundamental theological importance that one's understanding of how orthodoxy originates has upon one's approach to interpreting the Bible, it is imperative that we gain a proper understanding of this issue. For reasons that we will now explain we submit that the Church must discard the Accumulated View of the origin of orthodoxy in favor of the Pristine Apostolic Faith. The grounds for this rejection are that the Accumulated View requires at least one if not several of the following problematic or absurd conclusions and/or inconsistencies which would be implied if orthodoxy was not fully understood and handed down intact from the onset of the Church.

If orthodoxy was not fully understood and handed down intact from the onset of the Church, as the Accumulated View holds, this would mean that either:

1. The Apostles themselves didn't understand orthodox Church teaching.
2. OR The Apostles failed to pass on orthodox Church teaching.
3. OR Orthodoxy becomes obscured in the absence of direct Apostolic guidance.


1. The Apostles themselves didn't understand orthodox Church teaching.

If orthodoxy was not resolved at the onset of the Church this would mean that either Jesus did not intend for the Apostles to fully understand his teachings or that though this is what Jesus intended, his 3 years of effort did not bear the fruit of his investment.

Neither of these options is acceptable. Consider the Great Commission.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Notice that it is clear from Jesus' words that he fully intended that the Apostles would teach the nations all the things he had taught and commanded them. Jesus' instructions here presuppose that he had equipped the Apostles with a thorough understanding of all his teaching and that the Apostles understood all the things that he had taught them. Otherwise, how could Jesus expect them to be able to pass "all that he had commanded them" on to others?

This is further evidenced by the extent to which the Gospels record Jesus teaching both to the crowds and to his disciples in private. If Jesus did not intend to equip the Apostles with a thorough understanding and knowledge of Church doctrines on all issues of the faith then why did he spend so much time teaching on so many various aspects of the faith?

On the other hand, it would be inappropriate to suggest that Jesus' was unsuccessful in his intentions to equip the Apostles with a thorough understanding and knowledge of Church doctrines on all issues of the faith. As we have shown from Matthew 28, Jesus clearly thought that his efforts to do so were a complete success.

Also, it is equally unacceptable and absurd to suggest that the Apostolic authors of the New Testament scripture, (regarded as the inerrant and authoritative Word of God for orthodox Christian teaching) did not themselves understand the theology that they were writing as they wrote it. Furthermore, for modern scholars to simultaneously conclude that they themselves understand orthodoxy while the Apostles could not or did not would be profoundly arrogant because this notion necessitates that they themselves are superior to the Apostles as interpreters of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

For all of these reasons we must reject the idea that the Apostles themselves did not fully understand orthodox Church teaching. Therefore, we still are without an adequate explanation for why orthodoxy remains unresolved in the modern church.


2. The Apostles failed to pass on orthodox Church teaching.

In order to uphold that orthodoxy was not fully resolved at the onset of the Church and still have the Apostles understand Jesus' teachings, some may suggest that the Apostles ultimately failed to pass on Jesus' teachings to the next generation of the church. This explanation for unresolved orthodoxy must also be rejected because it also would be profoundly arrogant for modern scholarship to suggest that they will succeed where the Apostles themselves failed. Once again this notion would necessitate that modern scholars are superior to the Apostles as teachers of the teachings of Jesus Christ.


3. Orthodoxy becomes obscured in the absence of direct Apostolic guidance.

In light of the unacceptability of the above two options, if one still desires to reject the Pristine Apostolic View described above, there remains a need to find someway to explain how the Apostles both understood orthodox teaching and passed it on to the next generation while at the same time the writings of that next generation can be disregarded or dismissed on the grounds that orthodoxy was not well understood by them. In order to do this, the only recourse left for those who oppose the Pristine Apostolic View is to suggest that the obscurity of orthodoxy arose so immediately in that next generation because orthodoxy necessarily always becomes obscure in the absence of direct apostolic guidance.

In more practical terms, this would mean that while Jesus and the Apostles fully understood and passed on a resolved form of orthodoxy, it was quickly obscured in a matter of only a few decades following the death of the last Apostle. This explanation would hold that successive generations of Christians were and are NECESSARILY unable to remain clear about what orthodox teaching is in the absence of any apostles.

Therefore, according to this explanation, so long as direct Apostolic guidance is not available, orthodoxy will remain beyond the reach of successive generations of Christians. And yet those who insist that orthodoxy is obscured without direct Apostolic guidance have gone on to define "acceptable" and "essential" orthodoxy as well as defining what is not, even though we are still without direct Apostolic guidance. If these scholars insist that direct Apostolic guidance is necessary in order to properly define orthodoxy, it is inconsistent for them to attempt to define what currently lies within and outside the bounds of orthodoxy. The two reasons that this is inconsistent are as follows.

First, since Apostolic guidance remains unavailable, when modern scholars attempt to define the boundaries of orthodoxy they arrogantly claim to be equivalent to or better than the Apostles, by implying that they are capable of providing the direct Apostolic guidance that is required in order to define orthodoxy.

Second, we are further removed from the Apostolic era than ever. Thus, orthodoxy would be more obscure than ever and more difficult to define. Therefore, we would have to favor the teachings of those in closer proximity to the Apostolic era over those offered by persons who are further removed. This principle would conflict with the idea of orthodoxy being accumulated over time through ongoing scholarly efforts since that view is defined by an increase in clarity over time, while simultaneously depending upon the idea that clarity is lost over time since the close of the Apostolic era.

Therefore, since we have demonstrated that none of the three options offered by proponents of the Accumulated View of orthodoxy can be accepted, we must reject the Accumulated View of Orthodoxy and instead adopt the Pristine Apostolic Faith. We must reject the idea that orthodoxy is developed over time through ongoing scholarship, and accept the idea that orthodoxy was handed down intact and understood by the Apostles to the second and third generation Christians and the modern church must return to the orthodox teachings of the early Church.


What does the Scripture have say?

The New Testament itself actually answers for us the questions that we have been addressing in this study. It upholds that:

1. Orthodox teaching was resolved, intact, and fully understood by the Apostles at the onset of the Church.
2. The Apostles and early church leadership saw it as incumbent upon themselves to proclaim and protect sound doctrine as well as to pass that teaching on to others who would do likewise.
3. All Christians of all generations are bound by these doctrines that were handed down and taught from the onset of the Church, and not allowed to deviate from them.
4. Eventually, orthodoxy would be infiltrated by false prophets and false teachers who would introduce false doctrine into the church.
5. We must be on our guard and refute those who would seek to deviate from the sound doctrine that was understood at the onset of the Church.

Acts 20:25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. 26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. 27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. 28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. 32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

1 Corinthians 11:2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

1 Timothy 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

1 Timothy 4:9 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. 11 These things command and teach. 12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. 13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. 14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. 15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. 16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

2 Timothy 1:13 What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Titus 1:9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it...13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

Titus 2:1 You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.

Titus 2:7 In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,

Titus 2:15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it as needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:6-8 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

2 Thessalonians 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

1 Timothy 6:3 If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.

2 Timothy 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Matthew 7:15 Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.

Matthew 24:11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.

Matthew 24:24 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect--if that were possible.

Mark 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect--if that were possible.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.


Conclusions

We must reject the Accumulated View of Orthodoxy because it requires the acceptance of several absurd and profoundly arrogant conclusions.

1. Modern scholars possess a more comprehensive understanding of orthodoxy than the Apostles did.
2. Modern scholars are capable of passing orthodox teaching on to the Church, even though the Apostles failed in this endeavor.
3. There is some heretical doctrine, which is an indistinguishable part of Orthodox Church doctrine.

Therefore since we must discard the Accumulate View of the origins of orthodox teaching and we must accept the Pristine Apostolic Faith. This means that:

1. Successive generations of the church are not free to reinvent or redefine Christian beliefs and teachings.
2. In general, Any teaching that is new (that is, not found in the scripture and reflected in the writings of antiquity) is therefore a false teaching and must be rejected as heresy. (Also see #6 below.)
3. Orthodoxy is defined as a single, harmonious (non-contradictory), and knowable position on all issues of the faith that was defined and preserved for us in the New Testament scripture.
4. Heresy is defined as any doctrine that falls outside of the single, harmonious, known interpretation of the scripture defined and preserved in the New Testament canon and handed down from the Apostles to the second and third generation of Christians in the earliest Christian antiquity.
5. Heresy can and must be identified and removed from orthodox Church doctrine by returning to the doctrinal positions handed down by the Apostles, preserved in the New Testament, and reflected (albeit imperfectly) in the early church writings, specifically the Apostolic Fathers.
6. Only if and where the Apostolic Fathers can be demonstrated by the grammatical-historical method to diverge or conflict with the canon of scripture, should their views be rejected.