Reflections and Questions

I have been reflecting on a query I posed in the last post: “It makes me wonder why we can accept the books on the Church’s authority but reject other things that are based on that same authority.” I think I may have some ideas about that after thinking on it.

Since the canon of the New Testament is accepted so widely by Christians, it follows that they believe that this was indeed composed of the books that should be there. Thus, the Church must have been guided by the Holy Spirit or else they could hardly have chosen the books that everyone accepts. Now if they were not guided by the Spirit, why do we accept their list? Why aren’t there a number of competing lists drawn up by Protestant scholars who have chosen better books for the “real” canon?

If we then admit that the Church was lead by the Spirit to choose the correct books, we are then faced with another set of questions. Not the least of which is if the Spirit led them in this instance, how can we be so sure He was not leading them in other instances? If we are willing to repudiate their views on baptism, communion and a host of other things, what sense does it make to trust them with such a foundational matter as the canon of Scripture?

I briefly mentioned the Nicene Creed last time. Again, it is acknowledged by the majority of Christians today as a valid exposition of the Biblical faith. If the Church was in tune enough with Scripture and the Holy Spirit to write such a document as this, why would we conclude they had become apostate much earlier?

We are left with several options in regard to these things:

1. The Church was not guided by the Spirit—we should not trust them to set the canon or write the creed.
2. The Church was guided by the Spirit but only for certain things.
3. The Church was guided by the Spirit and should be listened to in other matters.

In my opinion, only numbers 1 and 3 are consistent positions. If we acknowledge #1, we then have to rethink many things about our faith.

First, we have to decide which books are valid out of all the ones that are available to us. This would be no easy task. Since the Early Church was much closer to the time of composition, it would stand a much better chance of being able to separate the authentic from the spurious. But since they were “apostate” we obviously cannot trust them and need to throw out the whole thing and start over.

Thinking of the books that have been accepted, one might question why some of them were included at all (as when Martin Luther rejected the Epistle of James as “an epistle of straw). For example, the book of III John could be held up to such scrutiny. Would we choose it? On what basis?

Secondly, we ought to question the basics of the faith as set out in the Creed. For instance, are we so sure that Jesus Christ is of one substance with the Father? Maybe if we have no Creed (and no tradition) to guide us, we could accept the doctrinal formulation of Arius that Jesus was LIKE the Father. Wouldn’t that be close enough?

From there who knows what would come under scrutiny next? But wait…this has already happened. It’s called Liberal Christianity. They have questioned the leading of the Holy Spirit within the Church over the period of the last 2000 years. Then they have come to very opposite conclusions.

This is the height of arrogance. To believe that we 21st Century Christians are smarter and better equipped to decide what is true, valid and Christian than the 20 centuries of saints that preceded us. We have arrogated to ourselves a status of enlightened and “professing ourselves to be wise, we have become fools.” We have been beguiled into believing we are more spiritual and smarter than “our ignorant ancestors” were. The siren song of spiritual pride has drawn us into shipwreck.

It seems to make a great deal more sense to believe the Church, which we have already allowed to choose the books we call the New Testament and set up the doctrines we call the Creed. It is much more reasonable to suppose that the Spirit, whom Jesus promised would guide into all truth, has done just that. The Church after all is “the pillar and ground of the truth” according to I Timothy 3:15.

It might do us well to begin looking not just at what we believe and why, but also at the implications and logical conclusions that follow from our beliefs. If we do that, we may well come to some very shocking (and quite revealing) conclusions.