Someone turned my attention to an article by Bart Ehrman, published in the Huffington Post, titled “Who Wrote the Bible and Why it Matters.” The article is essentialy an argument that the Bible contains lies. Specifically, Ehrman addresses individual books of the Bible which claim to have been written by one person and, in fact, were not.
This is called pseudepigrapha, which means “false writing.” It happens when one author pens a work, yet claims it was written by someone else. Examples are pseudepigrapha are many. The Gospel of Thomas, The Letter of Peter to Paul, The Gospel of Judas, and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene all qualify. There are dozens of these works, both for the Old Testament and the New. Ehrman’s basic argument is nothing new or extraordinary. He claims that many of the New Testament books are pseudepigrapha. The leading contenders for this designation are 2 Peter and six of the letters attributed to Paul, including the pastoral epistles.
Reasons for suspecting these works are various and complex. However, according to Ehrman, the presence of these works in the Bible demonstrates conclusively that the Bible is full of lies. After all, is it not a lie to write something, and then claim that it was written by someone else? What if I wrote this blog post, but under the author designation, said it was written by Bart Ehrman? It would be deceptive and discrediting. It would be more than an error; it would be a lie. According to Ehrman, here is “the truth”:
“Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle — Peter, Paul or James — knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.”
Anyone reading this article would get the impression that Ehrman is telling his readers something that most others are either too ignorant or too scared to reveal. But he is “coming clean” with a truth that virtually all scholars have already admitted.
The article is by no means a scholarly or balanced argument. In fact, I don’t see any arguments at all, just assertions and appeals to the scholarly masses. And anyone who does not come to the same conclusion is pushed aside as biased and uninformed.
Unfortunately, this is all too common when Ehrman’s “scholarship” steamrolls the unsuspecting public. Time and time again he presents himself as the knight in shining armor, finally making the truth known to the otherwise helpless sheep following those radical (or radically ignorant) pastors and teachers within conservative Christianity. After all, this issue is such a slam dunk that anyone who disagrees with Ehrman’s conclusions is, de facto, a “rabid fundamentalist.”
Here are a few of the problems I find in Ehrman’s article:
1. Ehrman does much to disqualify his voice when he starts the article with these words: “Apart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors.” At this point, what chance does any alternative to Ehrman’s conclusions really have? Although I hate to invoke argumentative fallacies (they are just not classy and are way overused), this is a classic case of “poisoning the well.” It is an attempt to discredit any alternatives by lumping them together with the most unholy of associations. But from the standpoint of any honest observer, this simply reveals the author’s emotionalism and/or timidity. If and when arguments are not present (or not very strong), just poison the well to achieve the same result. However, this only works with those who are not really seeking the truth.
2. Ehrman sees no need to present any sort of argument for his case. It is true – there are many scholars who agree with Ehrman that many New Testament works are pseudepigrapha, and they have good reasons. But these reasons are hardly as compelling as Ehrman assumes. A good case can also be made that each letter is authentic. I suggest picking up a copy of Donald Guthrie’s New Testament Introduction to see the evidence for and against each book in question. One can not easily dismiss Guthrie as a “rabid fundamentalist.” At the very least, you will get a much clearer picture of the issues than Ehrman seeks to give.
3. The implications are overstated. Even if one were to grant that 2 Peter were a pseudepigraph (and while I disagree, I admit it is the best candidate), what does this do? According to Ehrman, it means that the Bible contains lies. But this is not true. It would simply prove that 2 Peter was a lie. It is not scholarly in the least, in this type of argument, to treat the entire canon of Scripture (or just the New Testament) as one book written by one author (as the title of Ehrman’s article, “Who Wrote the Bible and Why It Matters,” does). Ironically, in such cases, skeptics like to attribute a unity to the Bible which they would never grant in any other situation! The truth is that even if 2 Peter and certain Pauline epistles were written by someone else, they alone would be deceptive. The rest of the books would be untouched.
4. The implications are not stated. Let us assume that the letters in question are not authentic. Let us grant Ehrman’s unsupported theses (just because we like the guy). What does this mean? The implications are rather unremarkable. No cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith is affected in the least. All the major doctrines of orthodox Christianity remain intact, finding their support in the authentic books. I am not saying that these letters are of no value, I am simply saying that Ehrman continually fails to mention, in all of his “pastoral revelations” to us poor unsuspecting people, that the message of the Christian faith is largely unaffected.
Unfortunately, I believe Ehrman’s style is much more “rabid” and far more “fundamentalist” than just about anyone else out there these days, believer or non. But, more than that, I would say his imbalanced treatment of this topic is the only “lie” I can see clearly in this article. Ehrman seems to have sold out the respect and contribution that his level of scholarship could demand, Christian or not. He is increasingly trading in his respectability as a scholar for some sort of crusade against Christianity, in which he may be seeking to solve his bitterness toward his own fundamentalist upbringing. He is a far cry from his mentor Bruce Metzger, and more and more resembles the lack of balance, meekness, and poise of so many in the New Atheist camp. I think a comment in the article from an atheist sums this up well:
“I would love to believe this article on its face. I am an Atheist, after all. But I would also love some references and citations for what are obviously some controversial claims. Otherwise it sounds a bit like Christian apologists.”
I suppose these days Bart Ehrman thinks his own musings are enough of a reference to support his claims.
195 replies to "Thoughts on Bart Ehrman’s Article in the Huffington Post"
JB,
GosMark would only be a single attestation text, too, if we only had one with no comparison.
As to what would separate the evidence for Christ if we only had GosJohn from Apollonius or Honi, GosJohn has a significant number of historical markers built into it (unlike Honi, even moreso than Apol, and at lesser of a distance in time of composition from the events than Apol even on the most hypersceptical possible dating of mid 2nd c), and is critical of its putative sources in various ways. (Although Philostratus does build in some criticism of his sources, too.) The histiographic analysis of GosJohn, by Blomberg and even moreso by Keener, is very technically strong.
The language stylisms between the two in how Jesus speaks is somewhat different, but there are a number of overlaps, too (in fact the two texts have a number of curious connections anyway, including even some linguistic stylism tics of the narrative authors), and if we didn’t have multiple attestation testimony in the unique material of the other two Synoptics representing how Jesus speaks, we wouldn’t be in a position to think GosJohn’s style represents author polishing. (i.e. where the other two Synoptics have unique material to themselves or not shared by GosMark, Jesus’ style is similarly attested.) On the other hand, oddly Johannesque language does pop up in the Synoptics on occasion and vice versa; and much of the areas of big difference in GosJohn involves private discussions with disciples and/or (arguably) oppositional rabbis, where modes of teaching or speaking might be expected to differ.
Paul personally a misogyynist? Perhaps, but the point is he took full responsibility for his actions by clearly stating “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.” Similar, I might add to his reference to a head covering for women. Separating cultural, and customs of a particular era can be rather confusing and a daunting exercise; however, elsewhere we see that Philip had daughters that prophesied whom Paul met, and I find no record of him scolding them for their gift. (Acts 21) Futhermore, Priscilla and Aquila are referred to as “My co-workers” by Paul and he expressed appreciation and an indebtedness to them. [Rom. 16:3-4] There are many other examples of Paul’s ministry with women, so clearly it seems to me that this was a solution to a Corinthian problem and not a universal policy.
What amazes me is that some of the young bucks are getting infected by the old liberal textual criticism bug. Most of this stuff has been discarded years ago with a clear shift back to an early dating for the New Testament books and the traditional authorships. Am I missing something here? Please let me know, because as a professor of New Testament studies I really need to have this information.
The Bible is just a bunch of sexist bunk. Conservatives have found ways to hurdle over passages like the ones you point out. Oh, and I am not a liberal. I am just not enslaved by any hatred the Bible intends to pour out on people.
Jim (and Newenglandsun),
Since Paul specifically says earlier that women were expected to prophesy and to pray in congregation (1 Cor 11:5), I’m inclined to the theory that the denunciation at 1 Cor 14:34-35 is Paul quoting an opponent of his in the church (maybe the Stepmom-Sleeping Guy) and is retorting back to that quote with sarcasm. He certainly quotes his opponents elsewhere in the same letter (including with sarcastic retorts), and we have strong evidence he even does so elsewhere without specifically alerting the reader he’s quoting.
So Paul spends time talking about how the gift of tongues ought to be orderly, and adds that prophesying ought to be orderly, too. Then his opponent’s teaching about women occurs to him and he quotes that person since the topic is also about orderly behavior in the ecclesia: “Let the women in the ecclesias hush, for it is not permitted to them to speak, etc.”
To which Paul then retorts, “Oh, did the Logos of God [a title for Christ] come out from you [the man who is insisting on this]? Or to you only did [the Logos] come?! If anyone [like Paul’s opponent] is presuming to be a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that what I am writing to you is a commandment of the Lord!–and if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant!”
That interpretation fits with Paul acknowledging earlier that women could pray and prophesy in the congregation just like men (what he had problems with were them uncovering their heads like men, since to him that was the same as symbolically shaving their heads which would dishonor them. Men had one honor in uncovering their heads, women a different honor in covering theirs. Women came from Adam, but all other men from women, and everyone from God, so don’t diss each other, etc.)
Indeed, I know this is the so-called modern idea today with St. Paul’s teaching about women (misogynist), but I don’t buy it a bit! Paul was writing not just in his culture, but as the great Apostle to the Gentiles, and to his own Jewish people! And to the whole Church of God in time & dispensation! THIS is “revelation”! I know a hard concept for many modernists (modernity) and postmodernists (postmodernity). But the Holy Scripture IS the doctrine & revelation of God, OT to the NT! (2 Tim. 2: 15 ; 3: 15-16 / Titus 1: 9)
In 1 Cor. 13: 2-16, Paul is laying down “ordinances” or Apostolic Traditions…”the churches of God” (Verse 16). As with Paul to some degree, I am a “churchman”…”pastor-teacher” (Eph. 4: 11)…”presbyter”. And not just a “theolog”. “Paul superimposes three “maps” of gender relationship which “together” provide a dialectic between mutuality and “order” or gender differentiation by placing “the whole” within the three “frames” of the order of creation, society and culture, and gospel eschatology.” (Anthony Thiselton, NIGTC, The Frist Epistle to the Corinthians, Eerdmans/Paternoster, 2000).
See too with your concordance St. Paul’s really great love and place for the women saints in the Church of God! Noting certainly “Phebe” in Romans 16, as other women saints there! And we surely cannot forget the profound “Lydia”, in Acts 16: 14-15.
Btw, I have a blog just hanging in “moderation”, on this subject! Another one of the reasons I am not hot on the idea of the blog! It is a poor tool at times, and sadly to my mind often so!
Jason Pratt,
From the commentary of Albert Barnes:
“In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul had argued against their doing this in a certain manner – without their veils 1 Corinthians 11:4, and he had shown, that “on that account,” and “in that manner,” it was improper for them to assume the office of public teachers, and to conduct the devotions of the church. The force of the argument in 1 Corinthians 11:is, that what he there states would be a sufficient reason against the practice, even if there were no other. It was contrary to all decency and propriety that they should appear “in that manner” in public. He here argues against the practice on every ground; forbids it altogether; and shows that on every consideration it was to be regarded as improper for them even so much as “to ask a question” in time of public service. There is, therefore, no inconsistency between the argument in 1 Corinthians 11:and the statement here; and the force of the whole is, that “on every consideration” it was improper, and to be expressly prohibited, for women to conduct the devotions of the church. It does not refer to those only who claimed to be inspired, but to all; it does not refer merely to acts of public preaching, but to all acts of speaking, or even asking questions, when the church is assembled for public worship. No rule in the New Testament is more positive than this; and however plausible may be the reasons which may be urged for disregarding it, and for suffering women to take part in conducting public worship, yet the authority of the apostle Paul is positive, and his meaning cannot be mistaken; compare 1 Timothy 2:11-12.”
@56 (Fr. Robert)
Right…, sure,…”for all times and peoples” so, do you insist we great each other with a holy kiss, are women saved via childbearing (think of all the psycho mom’s who make the news killing their kids… good to know they’re saved while my christian friends who are struggling with infertility aren’t), and other than reading the ESV’s direct and proven lie (talk about completely losing any scholarly objectivity in a translation) that Junia wasn’t an apostle – square that with Origien, Chrysostom, and all the other church fathers who mention she was an apostle – she would have been over many, many men as absolute top authority (and the very misogynistic church father’s support me on this point) in the early church. Yet you say Paul is clear on gender dominance. Sorry, but that is reading the Bible with filters on. It contradicts itself all over the map on this one.
You know, this whole people got at it later and tried to remove women by submitting false texts has an appeal, in that it lays to rest the contradictions in the Bible.
Who knows, but the Pauline letters are full of commands and advice that is no longer followed (do women in your church cover their heads?) so, unless the Bible consistently sticks to one side, I dismiss it as inconclusive. How you could have Phoebe teaching Romans to the Roman church, being a deaconess, Pricilla teaching Apollos, and Junia being an apostle and think that Paul is talking about a universal rule is beyond pathetic. At best, it lays bear some of the contradictions created by the different circumstances around the early Church getting started.
loo,
Unfortunately, the complementarians always have their answers.
http://www.gotquestions.org/complementarianism-vs-egalitarianism.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/women-pastors.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/women-deacons.html
Oh, and the word for deacon varies based on the context.
http://biblesuite.com/greek/strongs_1249.htm
Loo,
More of Barnes’s commentary on Junia:
“Among the apostles – This does not mean that they “were” apostles, as has been sometimes supposed. For,
(1) There is no account of their having been appointed as such.
(2) the expression is not one which would have been used if they “had” been. It would have been “who were distinguished apostles;” compare Romans 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Philippians 1:1.
(3) it by no means implies that they were apostles All that the expression fairly implies is, that they were known to the other apostles; that they were regarded by them as worthy of their affection and confidence; that they had been known by them, as Paul immediately adds, before “he” was himself converted. They had been converted “before” he was, and were distinguished in Jerusalem among the early Christians, and honored with the friendship of the other apostles.
(4) the design of the office of “apostles” was to bear “witness” to the life, death, resurrection, doctrines, and miracles of Christ; compare Matthew 10; Acts 1:21, Acts 1:26; Acts 22:15. As there is no evidence that they had been “witnesses” of these things; or appointed to it, it is improbable that they were set apart to the apostolic office.
(5) the word “apostles” is used sometimes to designate “messengers” of churches; or those who were “sent” from one church to another on some important business, and “if” this expression meant that they “were” apostles, it could only be in some such sense as having obtained deserved credit and eminence in that business; see Philippians 2:25; 2 Corinthians 8:23.”
And here’s from that douche at CARM:
http://carm.org/junia-apostle
Again, the complementarian arguments need to be looked at before assumptions are made.
@loo: I never used the word “dominance” on this issue, though I think a better word would be “order”. The reality is that we have here an aspect of biblical hierarchy in the Biblical Creation, btw hieros is really the place of the “sacred”. So the sacred order and authority, in the roles of man and woman is somewhat like that of the places of angels, again hierarchy, at least in this Creation.
In my life, (I am 63) as one raised Irish Roman Catholic in Dublin Ireland, in the 50’s and early 60’s, women wore both veils and hats in worship. And my Greatgram, who was among the Irish so-called PB’s (Plymouth Brethren) or “Brethren”, the women all wore veils and hats. But, I never remember seeing or hearing my Irish mother, aunts, or greataunts being diminished! They always spoke their mind, but with propriety and class, at least for the most part, unless they were angry with the menfolk – for good reason! But usually in their homes and kitchen! 😉 The woman’s castle in them days were both her home and kitchen! And for the most part, the men stayed-out of the latter, save to eat! 😉
Yes those were good days for me, and mostly precious memories!
“douche”? It appears your ad hom speaks your personal “assumption”! Why do we have to wallow in the mud when we disagree?
Btw, “newengland..”, your #54 is filled with logical fallacy, i.e. reasoning, toward both the Bible and conservatives! Are you even a Christian? I ask that for how can a true Christian speak of such “hatred the Bible intends to pour out on people”? Perhaps you meant to say “hate” toward us, “conservatives”? I mean just say it, if you feel it? 😉
Fr. Robert,
The shit that the Bible has led to:
Witch burning,
Heretic torturing,
Slavery,
Sexism,
Racism,
Homophobia,
etc.
The Bible is a tool of oppression. No, I am not a Christian. Hence, why the guy from CARM is a douche.
Referencing the “douche” comment, and Fr. Robert’s response: True, my dear father, those that wallow in the “Ad hominum” mud, usually, in my opinion have less logic and more pent-up anger to vent than “sanguine” character like you and me. The primary problem with the type of textual criticism that these (mostly amatures) are engaging in is really nothing less than decontextualised text-proofing; that is isolating books and verses from the overall context of a pleanry inspired book. Kind of reminds me of the fellow who read “and Judas went out an hanged himself” and somehow tied that in with “go thou and do likewise.” Unfortunately, he’s not around to correct his false assumption. Oh, well . . . .
Fr. Robert, wallah! I’ve got the answer. We need to establish a thorough going Protestant Magisterium. I’m volunteering. What about you? Oh, shucks, that won’t work either. You’re one of those misinformed neo-Calvinist. Oh, well . . . what to do?
Newenglandsun: {{Again, the complementarian arguments need to be looked at before assumptions are made.}}
I’m well aware of complementarian arguments, being something of a dynamic complementarian myself (and having grown up among them). Different rationales can always be quoted against each other on any topic; the salient question is whether the rationales account for the data sufficiently and validly.
Barnes’ commentary as quoted acknowledges that 1 Cor 11 only speaks against women praying and prophesying under certain limited conditions. But that would make no sense if St. Paul meant that women shouldn’t pray or prophesy at all — there would be point to drawing an extended comparison and contrast to how men should pray and prophecy compared to how women should pray and prophesy. Paul would have written that it is unbecoming for a woman to be praying to God at all, not asking them to judge for themselves whether it is proper for a woman to pray to God with uncovered head. Moreover he wouldn’t have acknowledged that a woman ought to have authority over “the head of her”.
Granted, the ground of Paul’s extended comparison and contrast might be silly, at least to modern ears, but Paul would be wasting his time and energy to make the comparison and contrast when he could have just said “Women should shut up in church” and be done with it. Barnes’ argument requires a psychological unreal motivation.
Now, if you’re only interested in pitting interpretations against one another without regard to which ones make more sense, then never mind. But I wouldn’t treat the scriptures of any religion that way. If you think Barnes’ interpretation makes more sense despite dealing less with the data and introducing a psychological disjunction in the author’s purpose, then that’s your business as much as anyone else’s I guess.
Well “newengland…”, Man/humanity is simply a fallen creature, death, dying, and total sinful depravity! Or what P.T. Forsyth called: “helpless guilt”! Constant, recurring…even ceaseless guilt! Where does fallen man find repair? Only in God In Christ, and the historic Cross…the only authority of grace & mercy! Here with and ‘In Christ’ do I find full authority and freedom!
Btw, why are you even here mate? Are you one of those “fundamentalist” atheists? It appears so!
Jim Roane and Jason Pratt,
I am dealing with the overall context of it. I don’t treat it as inspired because this isn’t good textual criticism. My argument is that it is written by sexist patriarchs and should be thrown in the garbage as fast as possible. Along with the Qur’an which is also riddled with sexist, patriarchal bigotry. Given, the Bible’s version of gender roles is a hell of a lot more sanitary than the pagans around them at the time. It still holds a sexist agenda. Most religious texts do which is why they should be treated as human documents. I certainly hope they aren’t divine. If they are divine, I’ll pay for my opposition to sexism in Hell but unfairly. I hope the deity who wrote these religious texts ends up there instead. He deserves it. I don’t. I reject the Bible proudly because it is sexist and you should too.
Oh, and Jason, Paul did command women to shut up in church.
1 Cor. 14:34-35 – the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
Have you read the Bible, Jason? Have I? Yes. Have you understood the Bible, Jason? No. Do I? No. But I know sexism and homophobia when I see it. Hence, why the Bible belongs in the garbage.
Fr. Robert,
“Fundamentalist atheists”? That’s a good one since there is no guiding dogma of atheism. I am a Luciferian. I show no mercy to those who do not deserve mercy (such as sexists). Yes, I acknowledge the existence of the Biblical Jesus as a lucifer that has existed in the anals of history. I also acknowledge the existence of Prometheus as another lucifer. Jesus is probably peeing his pants and laughing hysterically right now looking at how his teachings have been abused to spew hatred toward others.
So I guess I could be considered a highly unorthodox Christian at this rate. And I certainly don’t believe in that penal substitution crap. What? Should I cut off the finger of an innocent baby if I get a parking ticket? Bullshit! I do not have “helpless guilt”. I possess no guilt toward my animosity of sexism, racism, and homophobia.
And Jason, your scenario is entirely hypothetical.
http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/14-36.htm
Note: Paul is speaking to a plural “you”, not a singular “you”. Thus, Paul is giving a command to the Corinthians as even further evidenced by 14:37. That’s the context.
Btw “newengland…” YOUR a sinful being, just like me, and here we are both stuck! But, I have found “Christ Jesus”.. “the Lord of Glory”, and Judeo-Christianity in the Holy Bible and Scripture, and thus grace & freedom for eternity! But YOU have found just yourself, and YOUR sinful rational logic! Sad! – Hell bound like a freight-train! (And btw, the worst of Hell will be the complete absence of God forever!)…Even in this sinful, broken world, we can see the presence of God! (Rom. 1: 20)
newenglandsun:
I have a sneaking suspicion that you are dealing with some personal issues; perhaps, your sexuality, I don’t know. What I do know however is that God’s grace like the proverbial hound of Heaven will track you for the rest of your life until you give in. His job is to bring about that conversion, not mine. My only concern is to point you in what I feel is the right direction. He will do the rest. I do know that he is a God of love and mercy, and I praise him for that. Maybe I have had a unique encounter, I don’t really know; but I do know that it was real and verifiable. Ask him to reveal himself to you, and if you are honestly sincere and are willing to take the responsibility of his answer, he will do it.
Now, may I tell you what your response will be? At first it will be searing anger because you are a very angry person. But, that’s okay with me, and it is certainly okay with my understanding of God; however, after that initial stage is over, you will reflect and it is up to you to make the decision.
Fr. Robert,
“Hell” is not accepting God’s story of your life. Haven’t you read Rob Bell’s book, “Love Wins”? See the parable of “The Prodigal Son”. Any way, I’ve seen the Jesus of modern, evangelical Christianity and the Jesus as he describes himself in the gospels. I follow that Jesus (the one who describes himself), not the Jesus described by people who aren’t Jesus.
Jim Roane,
I have a sneaking suspicion that you are wrong. I do not struggle with my sexuality at all. I accept my sexuality. Others don’t. They don’t matter. And no, I wasn’t angry at what you said. I got a good laugh.
Oh, by the way, unlike Fr. Robert, I don’t think you are on a freight train headed for Hell. My thoughts are that you are headed in the right direction, but just don’t understand what direction that is yet.
newenglandsun
Hey, so I was wrong about the sexuality part-you just seem fixated on homophobia and Paul’s misogynist sexism that I thought perhaps you did. My apologies, dear lady.
Cheers! God loves you and so do I.
Jim Roane,
Hi, I’m a guy. But that was probably not evident from statements. And thank you.
The Hound of Heaven poetry and analogy does not work for the “reprobate & apostate”, and surely biblically Judas Iscariot falls here. As Jesus said, “good for that man if he had not been born”! (Matt. 26: 24 / Mk. 14:21). And in John, “Did I not choose you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil.” (John 6: 70) Indeed Judas was NEVER one of the real “chosen” Elect! See Matt. 7: 21-23…noting verse 23 especially! Yes, I actually read and believe my [the] Bible!
There is both “a remnant according to the election of grace” (Rom. 11: 5), and a another left to “destruction” (perdition) (Rom. 9: 22). “Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God.”! (Rom. 11: 22) And most surely Judas and Pharaoh lost their souls, (John 17: 12 / Rom. 9: 17-18, etc.)
Note I am an Infralapsarian: the theological position that God’s decree to save “follows” logically (not temporarily) the decision to create and permit the fall. Note most of the Reformed Creeds are Infralapsarian!
One of mine awaits “moderation”? It seems when you actually quote or refer to the Holy Scripture, you get moderated on this blog! Strange!
@”newengland…”, So I guess you are a gay man? Or did I miss something?
Btw, Rob Bell’s book is “Anathema sit”!
Fr. Robert,
I’m not gay.
Why is Rob Bell’s book anathema? Explain.
“NES”, The Rob Bell book is old history now, but not of course the heresy of Apocatastasis/Universalism. It was formally condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in 543 in the first anathema against Origenism. In modern times it is simply Unitarian and Universalist.
Fr. Robert,
Have you read the book? Bell is not a universalist. Bell believes there is both a Hell and a Heaven and that there will be a mixture of people (non-Christians and Christians) in both places. Both are more in reality “states” of mind.
Fr Robert,
1.) I am most certainly NOT “unitarian”; I am easily as trinitarian as Gregory Nyssus, the Father of Orthodoxy and president of the Chalcedonian council — who was also certainly a Christian universalist. If it comes to that there are plenty of dogmatic “unitarians” around, too, who have nothing but contempt for the so-called (but actually doctrineless) “unitarian universalist”.
There are many trinitarian Christian universalists around, although admittedly we’re still a minority (and probably always have been).
2.) Christian universalism was not condemned at Chalcedon in 543, nor at any other Ecumenical Council. It was condemned by the Emperor Justinian in 543 at a local synod, with a ratification soon afterward by Pope Vigilius — which is certainly important for Roman Catholics (along with some followup statements by various popes), but not for Protestants or the Eastern Orthodox except in respect for the learning and authority of Vigilius personally. The condemnation seems to have been read out as a preliminary to Ecumenical Council V, aka the 2nd Council of Constantinople, in 553, but no direct action was taken by that Council on the topic, even though previously revered universalists (like Theodore of Mopsuestia and Origen) were strongly denounced (not always entirely accurately) for their various beliefs about how the human and the divine natures of Christ related to one another. Relatedly, the “four holy synods” mentioned in canon 11 were the previous Ecumenical Councils, none of which had anathematized Christian universalism per se.
It might still be heretical, but not for that reason. Whether popes have ever spoken against it in actual ex cathedra authority, for exampl, is a matter of pretty intense debate, as modern RC scholars recognize as few as seven occasions of official infallible teaching (aside from the Ecumenicals), none of which have anything to do with Christian universalism.
Yes, I had it (given to me), and I read parts of it. And I have heard the bottom line. But again, talk about a theological mess, that IS Rob Bell as a pastor-teacher! An “emergent” for sure! But, there are no “states” of mind in the presence of God, either one is “regenerate” or one is not, in his “spirit”! “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.” (Phile. 25 / Gal. 6: 18)
Btw, Bell kind of reminds me, somewhat at least, of Emanuel Swedenborg, as to his doctrine of salvation. And ES also denied the Trinity and vicarious atonement, but he somewhat held to some kind of heaven & hell, too as to “states” of mind. Nothing new here, but unorthodoxy and heterodoxy!
Jason Pratt,
Doesn’t Pope Francis I believe atheists can go to Heaven?
Jason: I was quoting an Orthodox source, within the history of Origenism. In more modern times we could certainly include Schleiermacher, and perhaps Barth and Von B, the last two to degree of course? I will take my neo-Calvinism to the Bema-Seat! As you will your Universalism. 😉
Attention: Mr. Newenglandkindofaguy:
Pope Francis was saying no more than Jesus.
Throughout his life and ministry, Jesus often taught in parables. one of the shortest, yet one of the most profound of all his parables was that of the Pharisee and the Publican. the Bible tells us that Jesus “spake this parable unto those who trusted in themselves, that they were righteous, and who therefore despised and looked down upon others.” (Luke 18:9-14)
On one occasion Jesus said the self righteous, “truly I tell you, the Publicans and the harlots will go into the kingdom of God before you!” (Matthew 21:31) he even told his own disciples, “truly I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will certainly not enter into the kingdom of heaven!” (Matthew 5:20)
But, to answer your question, Pope Francis made no such pronouncement. All he said was that both Christian and atheist meet at the altar of the good. I suspect he has been reading Barth. Not sure. But that is definitely Barthian.
Btw it is “Francis” no I there. And he is a Jesuit, the last good Jesuit theologian was Joseph Fitzmer, but he’s a scripture scholar, more than a “theologian” strictly. (Fitzmyer is into his 70’s. I pray he is well!) I am NOT a fan of pope Francis myself!
NES: {{I am dealing with the overall context of it. I don’t treat it as inspired because this isn’t good textual criticism.}}
Neither did I; at no point did I appeal to Paul’s inspiration in any way. All I did was add up the details found in the text. Moreso than Barnes does, not incidentally. 😉
Also, textual criticism per se is about the transmission of the text, not about interpretation of the meaning of the text. For example, there are a few early copies of 1 Cor which don’t even have verses 34-35 or which port them to the end, in a typical “possibly spurious material” identification. There aren’t nearly enough such copies to even plausibly suggest the verses were added to the original, but it does indicate some corners of the early church suspected they had been added.
(Yay I’ve come back around to the actual original post topic tangentially! {g})
NES: {{ Paul is speaking to a plural “you”, not a singular “you”. Thus, Paul is giving a command to the Corinthians as even further evidenced by 14:37. That’s the context.}}
Good eye! Paul had more than one opponent in the Corinthian church, and tended to criticise the whole congregation when following the opposition (the following chapter 15 being a famous uncontested example). And the context, as I noted, includes a lot more than that. (There’s a character limit so I had to choose what to include.)
It’s an interpretative theory, yes, but one with data and logical validity. It isn’t an unsupported hypothesis.
NES: {{ Doesn’t Pope Francis I believe atheists can go to Heaven?}}
Yes, but as far as I can tell it’s a fairly standard inclusive Arminian way similar to that of Lewis (whom the recent popes have been fans of): God loves everyone with saving love, including atheists, and may save atheists without this being particularly noticed by anyone before the general judgment (along the lines of the sheep and the goats).
The recent popes have provided a lot of respect and support for Roman Catholic universalists, including taking steps to more-or-less apologize for dropping an anathema on Origen, but I haven’t seen them specifically saying that God will certainly save all sinners from sin, or that there is no distinction between purgatory and hell. I doubt they’ll go that far in public even if they believe it in private, as that would cause problems with the Eastern Orthodox in a different direction: that’s something to be settled in an Ecumenical council, not by papal fiat. (Or so the EOx would say.)
Fr. Robert: well if it wasn’t Barth it was probably Balthasar. 😉 (Two of the Four Big Bs of 20th century systematic theology, along with Bulgakov and Barclay — all of whom got as close to Christian universalism as they thought they could get away with in their communions, albeit Barclay made it more explicit. The recent popes are big fans of the Balt. {g})
Edited to correct: back at the office this page tends to flutter and jump around like it has epilepsy (something to do with the underlying engine). I thought I was replying to Fr. Robert, but now that I’m at the house (on a more modern browser) I see it was Jim Roane. Sorry Jim & Robert!
Fr. Robert, Rob Bell staunchly held to the Trinity and to the two natures of Christ in LW, and evangelized toward the end precisely on that ground.
I’m far from the world’s biggest fan of LW — I previously submitted a comment where I linked to a couple of extensive critiques of it (one 13 pages, one 105, the second one being more informal but more in-depth), although I don’t know if that comment will come out of auto-moderation due to the links. But while he cheats pretty badly in the first half of the book, and I don’t blame his opponents for jumping up and down on top of him for that (nor for categorizing him as universalist, since technically he is — he affirms and does not deny both the scope and the original persistence of God’s salvation, and at most allows a theoretical possibility of ongoing stalemate), there is a lot of unjustified misinformation floating around about him, too.
As to whether Swedenborg denied the Trinity, I can’t say. But Rob was being trinitarian.
Regarding the Orthodox site, the local synod may have been at Chalcedon — I’m at the house now and can’t check my sources, but the Ecumenical Council is the one that counts, and none of the Five at or before that date (nor the two afterward) condemn universalism. However, since Justinian’s anathemas (probably with Vigilius’ sanction) were read before EcuV started, that leads (as was no doubt intended) to some fuzziness over whether the Council agreed in accepting the condemnations. Since the EOx take their Ecumenicals very seriously, and many EOx scholars hold to Christian universalism anyway, the status should be regarded as ‘disputed’ at worst.
@Jason, Indeed 20th mid to late century theology was certainly general in both Catholicism and some Protestantism. I think of Karl Rahner’s view of salvation, ugh! Something close to Barclay, at least on salvation btw. There can be no doubt that Augustine greatly affected me even as a Catholic! And my most lasting priest in Dublin growing-up, was a trained old school Catholic Augustinian, and from an Augustinian Catholic Order. So great providence, as I see it! And my Greatgram, was a Irish PB (Plymouth Brethren). Her Biblicism certainly affected me! I have loved the Word of God, Holy & Scared Scripture since I can remember, and then being confirmed Catholic. But when I had an Augustinian conversion, this certainly turned me toward Classic Anglicanism, and the rest is history for me! My lasting theological education has always been geared toward the Reformation and the Reformed, but also with Augustine! I am always the Reformed student (in my adult life) and still the perpetual student type but always too a conservative, and I love both Reformed Divinity and Reformed Scholasticism. But I do like some EO Christology and Trinitarian ideas, but my own Trinitarian doctrine is closer to Augustine. Aye, I am kinda eclectic in some places, but not in others! 😉
And yes, the first five Ecumenical Councils, certainly the Nicene are central for me, as an Anglican Christian! Certainly all this shapes and has shaped my ministry as an Anglican priest/presbyter. Just some of my convictions and places! 🙂
Btw, my comparison with Bell to Swedenborg was not on the Trinity, but ES’s doctrine of heaven and so-called hell.
Fr. Robert, fair enough, I misread your “also” then!
Since we’re way hugely off topic anyway, and speaking of odd things Pope Francis has recently said, one of the quotes that got brought up over at the EU forum had the Pope talking about how God has “redeemed” the whole world.
Now, that might be a bad translation into English, but it set off a couple of bells (pun only half intended 😉 ), because while my search of the recent Great Catechism didn’t turn up anything confirming this, I’ve read enough to get an impression that one emphasis of the early church — which Augustine picked up on and ran with, which is why I’m bringing it up — is that whoever Christ has redeemed, we can trust God will surely save. (Along the lines of Rom 5, if we have been reconciled to God through the blood of Christ, how much moreso shall we be saved into his life. The term is reconciled not redeemed per se, but redeemed seems at least as strong a relevant concept.) Which the Calvinistic side of Protestantism traced back and also ran with, compared to the Arminian side which went with full scope but no original persistence instead. (Subsequent persistence to salvation by God in some strands of Arminian soteriology, but not original persistence by God.)
Anyway, I’ve been meaning to ask someone much more familiar with the Augustinian tradition than I am, how accurate that impression is. 🙂
I take it this is also connected to RCC notions (which they kind of hold to, kind of not, with echoes in various Arminian Protestant ideas) that if people can just get baptized then God will surely save them, thus the importance of infant baptism. The other side of Catholic tradition represented by Augustine would be that this was evidence of election, thus explaining God’s persistence, not a way of convincing God to persist.
Obviously there are important criticisms connected with all that, in regard to salvation by grace and not having to convince God about this (which ontologically couldn’t be done anyway). I know there are questions of trust and assurance on either side (Calv and Arm) which each side critiques each other for threatening — which critiques I tend to agree with — which are connected to ontological concerns as well: if X is held to be true instead of Y then are we really worshiping God Most High and rightly representing God Most High (instead of some lesser lord-or-god) to the world? Who are we acting as ambassadors of?
Mainly though I just wanted to bounce the historical question off someone who has studied that area of Church history more: I can’t quite imagine Augustine ever saying something like “God has redeemed the whole world”. (Paul yes, Augustine no. 😉 ) That would seem to be a point of disconnect by more recent Catholics from ideas prevalent enough in Augustine’s day that he could be accepted by the Latin church (if not the EOx) instead of censured.
Jason: If we are going to truly try and understand Augustine on Predestination, we simply must read Augustine on the subject! I would suggest three works: praedestinatione sanctorum, and De dono perverantiae. In both he reasserts that grace is given entirely without regard to merit, citing as the supreme example the incarnation, when the humanity of Christ was united to the Godhead without any preceding merit, and emphasizing the mysterious character of the divine decree. A certain number of souls are set free from the massa damnata by the foreknowledge and goodness of God, and the rest are left with the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon (Matt. 11: 21). The last is also seen in the third and perhaps best read here by Augustine, called the Enchiridion!
From Dono perseverantiae, Augustine provides a simple definition of perseverance: “a divine gift by which an individual perseveres in Christ to the end of this life.”
Finally, Augustine recognized the terrible character of his doctrine, but since it was impossible, while this earthly life lasts, to distinguish the elect from the reprobate, he recommended that it should be preached discreetly and impersonally, using the third person rather than the second, in addressing a congregation (persev. 22.61).
Btw, most certainly did Augustine greatly affect the theology of John Calvin here, who of course took it somewhat more doctrinally and systematically. But the nature theologically comes from both St. Paul and Augustine, directly for Calvin.
For me anyway, the Enchiridion is the best read perhaps to get Augustine’s great theological effort here!
Btw, too, Peter Brown’s biography: Augustine of Hippo is simply a must read, classic like!