I encountered a fascinating quote by Tertullian today (referring to 1 Cor.11:19):
Unquestionably the Divine writings are more fruitful in affording resources for any kind of subject. Nor do I hesitate to say that the Scriptures themselves were arranged by the will of GOD in such a manner as to afford material for heretics, inasmuch as I read that there must be heresies, which cannot exist without the Scriptures. - De praescriptione haereticorum [On the Prescription of Heretics] XXXIX, English trans. T.H.Bindley, 1914.
This seems to speak to the intent of God to give people over to their rebellions. Tertullian apparently regarded the Scriptures as intentionally written in a manner that would be conducive to distortions in order to prove those who would belong to the Lord and those who would not. A fascinating proposal to say the least. This would nuance the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture and speak to issues of election and connectedly…to revelation. What are your thoughts on this?
I don’t believe anything is wrong with the Scriptures, as much as I do those who read and interpret them for their times and circumstances. This is what makes careful, honest, wholistic (that is, the Bible as a whole–probably didn’t use that word well) and prayerful approach to the Scriptures so necessary, as well as undertaking a proper hermeneutic toward them.
I would certainly concur Bill. There is nothing wrong with Scripture. It is all with us and thus demands that we take prayerful and obedient care in relation to the Scripture.
Rick, can you explain how you think it effects revelation?
By use of the term “revelation” I am referring to the notion of God’s choice in revelation. It would speak to the notion of God giving revelation unto life to some and to judgment to others…despite the contents being the same. Does that help to explain my use?
Yes, I do think I understand. Unless I am mistaken, you are using revelation as Barth described it, and therefore that there is a real sense in which God reveals the scriptures (i.e., the Word of God is given) for the purpose of life to some; yet he reveals the scripture to others for the purpose of judgment. And, unless I am mistaken, you are saying that the contents are the same but the difference is how the person receives the revelation: one lives and abides by it while the other twists it to his own destruction. God, knowing the hearts of men, can therefore give it to one for his destruction and another for life. Am I correct? If so, that is a very interesting suggestion, and I would need to think on it more.
That is exactly the manner in which I am speaking. I found it rather fascinating to read something that seems to point in that interpretive direction in Tertullian. I’ve done a fair bit of reading of his works (as I find him to be quite fascinating), but had never before noticed that statement. I would be interested in your take on it after you’ve had a bit of time to reflect.
I both like and dislike this notion.
I like it because it leaves no room for the all-too-common notion that the scriptures are absolutely plain and can be fully understood at face value. This implies exactly the opposite: that the scriptures may even be deliberately vague. This seems to be a play on Jesus’ reason for speaking in parables, and that gives it a lot of weight.
I don’t like it because it’s quick to call “heresy” and gives us almost unlimited license to do so on anyone who disagrees with our interpretation of scripture. It seems that it would very easily lead every argument to conclude with “If you disagree with me, then you obviously aren’t guided to the correct interpretation by the Holy Spirit, as I am, and therefore you are a heretic whom God has preordained to eternal torment.” Or something like that.
Rick, I like your term “giving over to rebellions” – taken from Romans, if I’m not mistaken. But I struggle with the way that the church fathers, and even some NT writers, apply that notion to “heretics”. Jews saw Samaritans as enemies because of differences in belief and practice, but Christ didn’t; so where does John get off, telling those who disagree with him that they are false Christians? How is a difference of opinion or a misunderstanding a rebellion? And how can we, separated from Christ’s teachings by two thousand years of theology and culture and in a Church split into thousands of denominations – can we really apply Tertullian’s logic here and now?
I must say that there is always a level of subjectivity involved in discussions of orthodoxy (as in all matters), yet this does not mean there is no standard for orthodox confession. Those who deny Jesus as the Christ, or that he has indeed come in the flesh are to be refuted and denied from the assembly (according to the writings of John). “Heretic” seems indeed to be used rather loosely in many contexts, but this looseness does not deny it as a valid description in some cases. Misuse does not equal no appropriate use. There seems to me to be quite a spectrum concerning the Faith that encompasses many levels of misunderstanding, distortion or rejection. There is still some manner of apostolic witness that has been maintained and confessed by the Church that appropriates the word and work of Christ Jesus in a manner which is determinative of proper confession and practice. Questions of core orthodoxy do not pertain to what seems, more often than not, to divide various communities of the Church. Instead, tertiary matters seem more the culprit (especially as these have tended to be construed as core). At least, that is my basic (over-simplified) thought on the matter.
Though you like it because it denies perspicuity, I think that is why I would have to deny Tertullian’s notion. It seems illogical that the Scriptures would be written in a manner conducive to heresy. They were written for instructing the churches. Otherwise, who could blame or identify the factions?
I would not argue that the manner in which it was written is conducive to distortions, but in the fact that it is written, it is conducive to distortions. When I originally posted, I had understood it this way; so that despite its perspicuity, God’s Word is clearly revealed to individuals through the medium of Scripture but the reprobate twist what they receive. In this concept, I would still put emphasis on God’s revealing of the Word as opposed to the simple written word. However, since it is written, one can twist it and try to convince others.
Regarding heresy, Jesus strongly rebukes those who he saw as wrong; and I think we need to be willing to do so as well due to the seriousness of their error. Jesus didn’t talk all that sweetly to the Samaritans; he still said things like “You worship what you don’t know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews” (Jn 4:22).
So I think we need to talk seriously about error: if someone denies the deity of Christ, respond as if it were as severe as it really is.
For example, one of my Elders is willing to say that a prominent preacher is not a Christian; he says this because the person teaches ‘Free Grace’ (Bonhoeffer’s ‘Cheap Grace’) and also due to a number of things in the person’s life. I have to agree with him not only because of how dangerous of a doctrine it is, but that Paul clearly says “it is no surprise if Satan’s servants disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.” Can we really play around and suppose the person is simply mistaken, or act as if his doctrine is a small issue? I do not think so.
I am not completely sure how all this works out: that is, God’s interacting with mankind through his Word, and we with him, and the sorting of doctrine. I am also not completely sure how it works within transmission and translation history. It seems quite complex. (I still need to read more of CD too.)
Aaron, I like what you say:
“…the fact that it is written, it is conducive to distortions.”
Of note, the passage of Scripture that Tertullian refers to does not really say anything about Scripture itself.
The Scripture that comes to my mind, regarding this topic, is Matthew 13:10-13:
“And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”
He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.”
It seems like the Lord Jesus is specifically referring to 2 intentions, for why He chose to speak in this manner (in parables), on this occasion.
At least in this example, God was speaking in a form that was intended to keep some people blind, but yet also intended to give godly wisdom to those who were truly His disciples (to them, for whom it was given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven).
Jwheels, where do you “get off” disagreeing with the Apostle John, or with the Word of God?
Who said I disagreed? I asked a question, because it doesn’t make much sense. If I didn’t ask a question for fear of offending the Word of God, I wouldn’t understand what it’s actually trying to tell me – I’d just have to write it off as a mystery of God.
Besides, as I was trying to say, it appears that the Apostle John disagrees with Christ, who is Himself the Word of God. When there appears to be a discrepancy, I have no problem siding with Christ over John.
I guess I should say that “it appears that you disagree with the Apostle John.”
In which case, I can also say that “if there appears to be a discrepancy, I have no problem siding with the Apostle John over yourself.”
Practically speaking, how can you actually “side with Christ” over the inspired writings of an Apostle, if you only know Christ through the inspired writings of His Apostles?
Do you treat all words of the Bible as if they are the words of Christ himself? If they are all exactly equal, and seem to disagree with each other, then we’re in some trouble – which is why I’m asking.
We don’t actually have the direct words of Christ, we only have what certain sources have preserved, and they disagree with one another regarding wording even in shared sayings. But we must not think that every book of the Bible is saying exactly the same thing; we have 4 gospels because they all have a different point and perspective. 1 John does not have the same point as the Gospel of John, and the Gospel of John does not have the same point as any of the other gospels, yet even so we can see continuity in the recorded actions and sayings of Jesus across the 4 gospels. This continuity of character and intention does not translate as well to other theologies, such as those of Paul and John, which suggest that we do things that Jesus himself seemed reluctant to do. There appears to be a discrepancy between the multiple texts of the New Testament collection, yet we want to give full credence to them all as the direct Word of God; how can this be?
I sincerely hope that you would side with John over me – but what if John and Jesus seem to disagree?
jwheels, I honestly do not see Jesus and Paul and John disagreeing about anything.
This is what I perceive:
I see you disagreeing with certain statements of Scripture (which are exclusive of heretics and immoral persons), and so you are looking to other places in Scripture to try to justify your rejection of those “exclusivist” passages. Meanwhile, those passages that you use to justify yourself are not actually rejecting the godly exclusion of heretics and immoral persons. For example: Jesus Himself says “judge not” but then within the same chapter he says that we must treat people who are “dogs and swine” differently compared to those who are not like that, and we must “beware of false prophets” and know that many will be told “depart from me” in the End. Jesus’ own words – interpreted in their own context – cannot be fairly portrayed as rejecting “exclusivist biblical teachings”.
I perceive that you personally have an aversion to exclusivist strains of biblical theology, and probably an aversion to the holiness of God and His wrath against sinners. You need to repent from this aversion, and seek to embrace those things in Scripture which contradict you. If you see the Bible as a source-book that you can pick and choose from – rejecting some parts, while embracing others – then you do not actually believe the Word of God, and you do not actually have a God who can be distinguished from your own imaginations of him.
While I fully agree with your assessment of Scripture in reply to Jeff…I don’t agree with your assessment of Jeff. Thank you for your comments Chris, but I would ask if you would refrain from attacking persons who are commenting here. If we can keep an irenic tone it would be much appreciated.
There certainly is an exclusivist notion to God and His people (thus the very term “holy”), but it is also not typically exclusive in the manner many would like to posit…wherein it seems we draw a circle of those included and it just so happens we are in the circle. Instead, I find that it calls for humility and graciousness just as we hold to the standard of holiness in all things.
Thanks Rick, and Chris, I suppose I’m grateful for your willingness to hold me to account. That said, you seem to be getting a lot of things out of my simple question that I did not intend to put there, so I’d like to give clarity another shot.
I’ve been a Christian all my life, and for most of my life I was very defensive of scripture. The more I studied it, however, the more I saw that I did not need to defend it – that open inquiry of it gave it a chance to shine on its own, without my defense of it. So now I’m not afraid to ask questions that even five years ago would have had my “heretic” alarm going off, because a question is just a question and scripture stands up to scrutiny.
I’ve been studying the Bible academically for a while now – 4 years in a BA in Biblical Theology and the past 3 years in an MA in Systematic Theology. I say this not to toot my horn, but to give you an idea of where I’m coming from: I have a great love for God, and I spend almost all of my time studying God and the world God created. Again, not trying to speak some sort of authority or something – Rick can attest to my fallibility! – but I’d like to dispel your notion that I read what I want into the Bible. If I did, I wouldn’t still be here doing this, because I would have found the gospel I really wanted long ago! That is to say, if I’m finding my own desires in scripture, I’d probably be saying much more radical things than this
Part of my studies requires me to read a lot of theologians and interpreters I disagree with, and I’ve discovered that sometimes, though I still disagree with their solutions, I find that they’re asking important questions. I had to read a book for my New Testament Theology class (which is taught by a rather conservative evangelical NT scholar) called “Beyond New Testament Theology” by Heikki Raisanen. Everyone in our class disagreed with Raisanen’s conclusions, and we even struggled with his premises, one of which was that there is no such thing as a single “New Testament theology”, but instead that there are many “New Testament theologies.” Basically, that sometimes the different NT writers disagree with each other. At some point in the book, he even suggested that the heretics that John was talking about in 1 John were the other NT writers! I struggled with this quite a bit, but I can’t in good conscience dismiss a question without a solid answer, so this question has stuck with me: how much do the NT writers really agree with each other?
The more I read the New Testament, the more I see Jesus doing things that are profoundly earthly-focused; this is somewhat new to me, as my faith was almost entirely focused on an otherworldly eschatology when I was growing up. Everything was about getting to heaven, but here’s Jesus, talking to politicians and the poor – not just about their souls, but about their money, their rulers, their loyalties, etc. He talks about heaven, sure – and I have to figure out how these earthly concerns and these heavenly things fit together. And if I’m just reading one book of the New Testament, it seems like I can fit them together in a way that makes sense…until I read another book of the New Testament, which also talks about earthly things and heavenly things, but they don’t fit together in exactly the same way.
Each book of the New Testament has its own aim: Matthew portrays Jesus in a different way than Mark does, even though they use a lot of the same stories. Paul had specific things to talk about when he wrote to the Corinthians, and they weren’t the same things that he wrote to the Romans about. It makes sense that they’re not all saying exactly the same thing, and I can write the differences off as differences of emphasis, but the fact of the matter is that there are things in the NT that don’t always add up. Grant Osborne, who literally wrote the book on hermeneutics (The Hermeneutical Spiral), said that though he’s an Arminian, there are equally good arguments for Calvinism, and neither can disprove the other. There are tensions in scripture, and no matter how much we try, we’ll always end up putting more emphasis on one text than another, or even on one paragraph over another, because we like to have answers and we like them to be clear.
So what happens when this tension between texts is high? Can they both be right, somehow? Raisanen isn’t committed to them both being right – he figures that they just have different perspectives, that they flat out disagree, and maybe even hate each other. For most of my life I was taught that everything in the Bible is absolutely consistent in every way, and that this isn’t a question at all, so it was never asked. Now that it’s finally asked – whether or not I can find any places where it actually occurs – I need to have an answer of some sort: how do I deal with the tension if the tension seems too high?
I thought that Rick’s post touched on the issue somewhat: why is the Bible so full of tension, so difficult to understand at points? Tertullian thought that it was to confuse heretics, which would certainly answer my question for me! I don’t understand it, therefore I must be a heretic, right? But by Tertullian’s logic, if I disagree on something, this is God giving me a chance to damn myself. If it is the will of God that I should damn myself by asking such questions, then so be it; thanks for trying to turn me back, but beware if in so doing you yourself are working against him and be equally damned! I’m not trying to be facetious, but just to take Tertullian’s solution to its ultimate end. His solution is an easy one on the surface, as long as we’re all assured that we’re not the heretics. Perhaps he never asked himself if maybe he was the one who was a heretic? No, this solution isn’t satisfying, and amounts to God baiting people and using their confusion to damn them. That seems counter-productive if God’s plan is to save the world.
So I’m left with this tension, and not sure how to answer it – so I ask, Chris, what do you do when there seems to be a disagreement between two New Testament writers? Please understand that I’m not even saying that there is – I need to study these points of tension much more before I’m willing to quote chapter and verse and say that this is where biblical consistency falls apart! – but only that I’m asking if there’s a way to deal with it. If you have an answer, I’d really love to hear it; if you’ve never asked the question before, then maybe together we can find an answer; or, if you like, feel free to consider the question as an impossibility (that’s totally fine too). But whatever you do, please don’t judge me for asking questions, and psychoanalyze my internet posts to find out my heresies, and I’ll refrain from doing so to others.
Thanks for reading this far,
Jeff
Jeff, I really appreciate your humble and forthright response to my forthright remarks.
Rick, I appreciate you keeping me accountable to godly communication.
I think that the question you raise is valid and important, Jeff – “what do you do when there seems to be a disagreement between two New Testament writers?”
Here’s what I think we should do – please feel free to give my critique or any kind of feedback on this – I am open to receive your criticism:
1. We must seek to approach all questions pertaining to Scripture with a faithful and repentant heart – faith and repentance are a continual duty of everyone who would approach the Word of God:
Meaning: We must not be willing to deny any statement of Scripture. We must start with the assumption that all Scripture is God-breathed and reliable and true in terms of its intended meaning.
2. We must be content to focus upon what is most clear & central to the overall message of the canon of Scripture.
We can have doubts over the meaning of being “baptized for the dead” in 1 Cor 15, for example – and simply say “I don’t know what this means,” while firmly believing and rejoicing in the truth that Jesus is Risen from the dead!
3. We must seek to give more weight to “what is most clear and direct” over “what is less clear and direct” – without using the later as a contradiction to the former.
- e.g.: Who were the opponents of Paul, in Galatians – we can know somethings about them, but not their exact identity… What we can know, absolutely, is that people are not justified by works of the law. Did James have particular opponents in mind (if so, who were they exactly)? What is most clear is that faith without works is dead. We should not take some “possible implication” of Paul to go against what James clearly says, nor should we take some “possible implication of James,” to go against what Paul clearly says.
What do you think of this framework?
That seems to me to be a great launching point for discussion of the Scriptures Chris. I appreciate your thoughtfulness in posting this as you have.
[...] The Bible Was Made for Heretics? (iheartbarth.wordpress.com) [...]
Rick, I’ll probably post about more of my thoughts later, but I thought I’d share an amusing comment…
I shared the original post with a few friends… Yesterday I was in a theological disagreement with one of them, so he replied, “you know… This is what Tertullian was talking about.”
So, if nothing else, it makes a good joke/trump card.