Thoughts Upon Christian Orthodoxy (Or, Epistemology Can’t Save You)

Photo by Mick Haupt on Unsplash

An article I wrote recently on Scripture and divine revelation sparked considerable conversation, and no small amount of disagreement, including a fine response by Tom McCall. We Wesleyan types are due for a vigorous conversation around these matters. In this article, I looked at the positions of both Billy Abraham and I. Howard Marshall on matters of inspiration and authority. I am indebted to both of these fine scholars, though I lean more towards Marshall than Abraham on matters of biblical inspiration, revelation, and authority. Like both of them, however, I am not convinced by arguments for biblical inerrancy. 

Some responses suggested that Abraham, Marshall, and I want to make orthodox claims, but do so within a framework that accepts the presuppositions of theological liberalism. The idea, I think, is that biblical inerrancy is the necessary precondition for securing orthodoxy.

I am unconvinced (a) that deep down we are actually theological liberals, and (b) that inerrancy is necessary to secure the truth claims of Christian orthodoxy. In fact I think it’s a mistake to tie orthodoxy too specifically to a single epistemological proposal. In what follows I will talk a bit about the nature of orthodoxy, its development, and its relationship to various ways of securing religious knowledge. 

Orthodoxy and the Consensual Tradition 

By orthodoxy, I mean those truth claims representative of the “consensual tradition” of Christian faith (to use Thomas Oden’s term). They are embedded in the great creedal tradition of the Church catholic: the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Definition of Chalcedon. They are the Spirit-led, sanctified, and reasonable outworkings of the apostolic witness. To reject these truth claims is to place oneself outside the accepted wisdom of the Church across space and time. One of the defining features of theological liberalism is that it has sought to revise or reject truth claims central to the consensual tradition, such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the reality of miracles. 

The orthodox doctrines of the church developed alongside the formation of the New Testament canon. The Bible of the early church was the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament. The New Testament came together gradually beginning in the second century. The earliest witness we have to the 27-book NT canon we have today comes from a letter from Athanasius in AD 367. Even after Athasiusis’ list, there were other lists that deviated from his. No ecumenical council ever made a definitive ruling on the parameters of the biblical canon. It developed organically and slowly out of the liturgical life of the churches. 

The relationship between doctrine and Scripture during this time was dialectical. Before there was a NT canon, there were rules of faith, statements of belief that defined the parameters of Christian proclamation. The most famous of these from the early church comes to us from Irenaeus in Against Heresies. (I’ve broken this up into topical sections for readability.)

The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: 

[She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; 

and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; 

and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, 

in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess to Him, 

and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send spiritual wickednesses, and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

Note that Irenaeus is not simply talking about his own community. He describes this statement as descriptive of the faith confessed “throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth.” Yes, there were people and groups who deviated from this faith, but what Irenaeus describes here is the emerging consensual tradition. 

Works that were consistent with the rule of faith were more likely to be used widely and consistently in the churches. Works that were used widely and consistently eventually became canonized. Early Christian orthodoxy, then, contributed to the development of the NT canon. As particular works (like the four Gospels and the letters of Paul) became widely recognized as authoritative, they influenced the ongoing formation of Christian doctrine. Christian orthodoxy is not simply extracted from the Bible. It emerged alongside the Bible. Put differently, the canon of doctrine emerged in a dialectical relationship with the canon of Scripture. Each helped to shape the other. 

To say that one particular doctrine of Scripture is necessary in order to secure orthodoxy, then, cuts no ice. It simply fails to account for the way in which orthodoxy actually came into being. Scripture contributed to the development of orthodox doctrine, but doctrine also helped to determine the canon of Scripture. Further, no doctrine of inerrancy was necessary for orthodoxy to emerge. It was sufficient to consider these texts and the apostolic tradition they represented as bearing truths essential for salvation. 

Orthodoxy and Religious Knowledge 

On a number of occasions, Christians have tried to mark out certain epistemological claims as essential teaching. Roman Catholics hold that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, or in his official capacity as the Pope on matters of doctrine or morals, he is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. This is a way of attempting to secure religious knowledge. Protestants, most commonly in the Reformed tradition, have at times argued that the Bible is inerrant along the lines described in the Chicago Statement. This is another way of attempting to secure religious knowledge. In some communities, the inerrancy of Scripture is an article of faith alongside belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. In other words, these communities have included in their articles of faith not just what they believe about the immanent nature of God and the economy of salvation, but how they know that these beliefs are true. Put yet another way, they have canonized an epistemology. 

I don’t affirm inerrancy, though I know many Christians who do. I don’t demean them for this. I simply disagree with their religious epistemology–their way of securing religious knowledge. I don’t think inerrancy is necessary. I don’t think it protects us against heresy. Further, as I. Howard Marshall writes, “[The term ‘inerrancy’] needs so much qualification, even by its defenders, that it is in danger of dying the death of a thousand qualifications” (Biblical Inspiration, 72-73). Nevertheless if others wish to affirm inerrancy and insist upon its essential nature for securing Christian doctrine, I accept the disagreement and acknowledge that we all make certain contestable epistemological moves as we affirm the core doctrines of our faith traditions. 

More productive than focusing on inerrancy, in my opinion, is a deep dive into the matter of divine revelation. In what ways has God revealed himself to us? Why has he done so? What are the sources of revelation? What do we know about God because of this self-revelation? As I have written before, I believe that the Bible is a form of divine revelation meant to lead us into salvation, and that it is entirely reliable for this purpose. In other words, its function is both revelatory and soteriological. The Bible is not the only source of revelation, but it is the primary source for truth claims related to salvation and the attendant life. God has given us the Bible as a canon–a rule or measuring rod for the Christian life. Moreover, God has guided the church over time so that we might interpret his self-revelation truthfully. Hence we have come to know God as a holy Trinity–Father, Son, and Holy Spirit–who has created us, who has given of himself in Christ for our salvation, and who abides with us until the end of the age. 

Orthodoxy, then, depends upon divine revelation, but no single vision of divine revelation has cornered the market. Roman Catholics have their ways of understanding divine revelation, as do the Eastern Orthodox, as do various groups of Protestants. Yet somehow we all end up affirming the consensual tradition. We can all affirm the church’s great creedal faith. We join with that faith confessed everywhere, always, and by all (Vincent of Lerins). Exactly how we can do so is a bit of a mystery. We disagree on certain second-order teachings, including some ethical teachings, and at times we can trace these back to our ways of securing religious knowledge. The core of the faith, however, remains steadfast. 

A Note on the Global Methodist Church 

For the Global Methodist Church, I suggest that the best way forward long term is simply to maintain in our standards of doctrine the statements on Scripture. 

From the Articles of Religion: 

Article V — Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation

The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the church. The names of the canonical books are:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, The First Book of Samuel, The Second Book of Samuel, The First Book of Kings, The Second Book of Kings, The First Book of Chronicles, The Second Book of Chronicles, The Book of Ezra, The Book of Nehemiah, The Book of Esther, The Book of Job, The Psalms, The Proverbs, Ecclesiastes or the Preacher, Cantica or Songs of Solomon, Four Prophets the Greater, Twelve Prophets the Less.

All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account canonical.

Article VI — Of the Old Testament

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard who feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses as touching ceremonies and rites doth not bind Christians, nor ought the civil precepts thereof of necessity be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.

From the Confession of Faith: 

Article IV — The Holy Bible

We believe the Holy Bible, Old and New Testaments, reveals the Word of God so far as it is necessary for our salvation. It is to be received through the Holy Spirit as the true rule and guide for faith and practice. Whatever is not revealed in or established by the Holy Scriptures is not to be made an article of faith nor is it to be taught as essential to salvation.

These statements are sufficient for us as doctrinal standards. They can accommodate a variety of positions on Scripture without sacrificing its central role as a truth-bearing text and canon for the church. Theologians can argue and work out proposals within these parameters and make their cases to the people of the church through their writings and other forms of public communication. We can adopt various proposals on Scripture without making them doctrinal standards for the church. The standards themselves need to be broad enough to accommodate a breadth of orthodox, Wesleyan positions. 

Final Thoughts 

Orthodoxy is a set of truth claims regarding God and the salvation we have in Jesus Christ. Orthodoxy requires no particular epistemology. The attempt to find the right method to achieve certainty about truth claims (i.e. the fixation upon epistemology) emerged alongside modernity and was facilitated by the Reformation, with its polemical use of Scripture against the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Yet throughout Christian history, what we know to be true has tended to be far more important than how we know what we know. The “why” matters, but it is not nearly so crucial as the “what.” Jesus Christ is the one who saves us. We won’t be disqualified because of the set of intellectual moves that lead us to believe in him. 

In other words, epistemology matters. It just can’t save you. 

David F. Watson is Academic Dean and Professor of New Testament at United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio. He serves as lead editor of Firebrand.