Religion Discussion (Rebuttal)

Thank you for your kind words regarding my previous response. Your agreement makes proceeding much easier.

Before I attempt to make a case for the Church's divine authority, which I will undoubtedly have to do, I'll first attempt to answer your misgivings and doubts here.

You note that you doubt that the teachings of Jesus the Christ survived after the approximately three hundred year period before the codification of the Bible. You doubt this based on the Council of Nicaea, which defined explicitly that Christ was God, and that God was one Being, three Persons, in response largely to the Arian heresy. Your position is essentially that if Christians then didn't agree that Christ was God, and that was only 300 years after Christ, how can we be sure any teachings survived.

The first step in addressing this doubt is examining history.

First point. Historically speaking, the Bible was not codified until the late 4th century. But that doesn't mean no written testaments as to Jesus Christ's life and teachings existed. It means that Christianity didn't have a set canon of Scripture that was authoritatively held by all as inspired, revelatory material. The first Gospel concerning Christ's mission and ministry was written by about ten years after His death, well within the lifetime's of the 12 Apostles and His other disciples. The final Gospel considered legitimate was written by about 95-100 AD, and is thought to still be within the life of John the Evangelist (though it may have been assembled or written partially by his students). Paul's letters, however, quite possible pre-date all of the other writings of the New Testament, as they began with Paul's own ministry and evangelization.

So let's not fall prey to the error of believing that there were no written records of Christ's teachings, nor of His apostles' teachings.

Second point. When talking about oral traditions, particularly those of the early Christians, or the Hebrews, etc. it's important to realize that what we're NOT dealing with is the child's game of telephone. Exactly the opposite in fact. It is not as if the Early Christians were whispering secrets of Jesus' life to each other, passing them along with all too dimly recalled accuracy. The Apostles themselves were the ones teaching about Christ, and their writings support the fact that they personally instructed those who were to be their successors. In the Greek, these are known as the episkopos and presbuteros, and are often cited in the New Testament.

Moreover, these were teachings and traditions of immense importance to the Early Christians, beliefs which were frankly considered just as important as written Scripture. They were treated with immense care towards maintaining their integrity, it is not as if they were haphazardly handed down or fudged around with.

Third point. We have, thankfully, the writings of many Early Christians that attest to the various beliefs of Christians, both providing historical context and background information as well as further written evidence. You challenge that Christians before Nicaea were divided about whether Jesus was God. This is not accurate. The writings of Early Christian Fathers strongly attest to Christian beliefs held by the Church before their definitive definition by any council. For example, St. Ignatius wrote of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist before the dogmas concerning transubstantiation were completely defined.

It is, therefore, possible to know, both from Biblical writings and extra-Biblical writings what, precisely, the Church believed prior to the Council of Nicaea's codification of Christian dogma. When doctrines or dogmas are defined by the Church, it means that the Church has examined the revelatory materials it possesses (Scripture and Oral Tradition), and is clarifying some point of belief which has become confused. It doesn't mean the teaching is new.

Now, I wish to address specifically the nature of the doubt you've presented here, which is that, "if the people can't agree on even this point how can we be sure that any teachings did survive?"

I'd like to note that I believe your reasoning here to be fallacious. That people don't agree on something does not mean, or even indicate, that the original teachings didn't survive. After all, might not one side of the disagreement be the original teaching, as we Christians claim it is? That people have or had a disagreement as to their beliefs should neither be surprising, nor should it raise doubt as to whether orthodox doctrine is possible. Humans are fallen creatures, imperfect and flawed. We make mistakes. It's not only likely, it's assured that someone, somewhere, will make a mistake, and teach something incorrect that they believe to be true.

And this says nothing as to the authority of the Church. That is a seperate issue entirely. In the historical situation of Nicaea, we have the disagreement between the Arians and the orthodox Christians, and we have the Church authoritatively teaching that the Arians are heretics. We can know, via simple logic, that some Christians did believe Christ to be God, by virtue of the fact that the Arians didn't and argued with them. And likewise we can see the Church laying out an authoritative teaching on the subject.

Now, in regard to the Church's authority here, I'd like to raise an interesting pair of points, both regarding historical continuity. I think we can both agree that God is unchanging, and therefore any authority of His must be similarly unchanging. It cannot disappear, it cannot change its mind, etc. So when I claim the Church is authoritative, I am also claiming the Church can never be destroyed, and that the Church can never go back on those things it has taught authoritatively.

You ask how we can know whether any teachings did survive. I would note in the case of the Arian controversy that we can at least know that the Arians were wrong. Had the Arians been inspired by God and had His authority, they would have survived, instead of disappearing for centuries. Instead, despite being numerically weaker, and opposed to by the Roman imperial government at the time, it wasn't Arianism, but orthodox Christianity which survived, and even thrived.

Next, we must consider all of the time between today and the birth of the Church, wherein the Church has never once gone back on any of her teachings. We know the Church teaches Trinitarianism. We know also that the Church has never swayed or denied that belief, regardless of pressures put upon it to do so, and Arianism was neither the first, nor the last to doubt some aspect of the Trinitarian formula. The witness of the heretics themselves proves, historically speaking, that Christians have consistently believed in these things, and the Church has consistently taught them to be true.

And we return to that original argument, that humans are flawed creatures who inevitably make mistakes and errors. If it is true that humans make mistakes and errors, and I know of no one arrogant enough to claim that they do not, how can it possibly be that this Church has not only existed for 2000 years continuously, (despite some rather abysmal leadership and plenty of corrupt periods), but has maintained consistent teaching throughout that period? If it was merely human, it would have failed in some way. It would have disappeared, as has every empire before and most during it, or it would have contradicted itself.

Now, you bring up an interesting idea that Islam joined with remnants of those who didn't believe Christ to be God. But which people? Plenty of heretics denied this, not all of them Arians, and not all of them at the same points in time. I don't deny that Islam shares many commonalities with Arianism, but there's a 300-400 year gap between Arianism as a corpus of believers and Islam as a corpus of believers. Where'd it go in the meantime? Where was its authority? And if they're the same or related, and inspired by God, why do they differ then on several other key teachings?

Again, that there are differences of belief doesn't mean anything other than this:

That we need an inspired, authoritative teacher, which is a living institution, as opposed to a book or set of writings. Why? Because people make mistakes and believe things which are in error, and written works only rarely address, in very specific and convincing language these individual and personalized doubts and complaints. That there are doubts in the minds of some doesn't mean the Church isn't authoritative. It means that there had better be an authoritative Church to correct them!

I do hope and believe this has addressed your initial doubts and criticisms, and also made a beginning in regards to showing the Church to be authoritative. As with the last time, I shall post this on my blog as well. Your reply is already there. Have a great one, Mr. Diga, I hope to hear from you again soon with whatever we'll address next!

God Bless,