Ancient Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Correct

Are the Christians of the first two centuries less likely to have wandered into theological error than we of later times?  Commenter Mark G at the Pontificator blog apparently thinks so:

In my youth and even now I figure that (1) the Christians of the first two centuries, being closer in time to the Apostles, were less likely to have erred than those who came later (corollary – question any teaching that seems to have popped up for the first time after 500 A.D.) ….

I dunno — the earliest Christians indisputably got it wrong in expecting Jesus to return in triumph during their lifetimes to overthrow evil and restore Israel to its rightful place.  (Then-Professor, now-Bishop N.T. Wright is demonstrably misguided in arguing to the contrary, but that’s a topic requiring a more detailed discussion.)  The early Christians also believed the sun orbited the earth and that epileptic symptoms were caused by demons.  Finally, we don’t really know all that much about the theology of the earliest Christians; the surviving written records are those written, and preserved from the ravages of time, by the winning faction(s).  So all in all, I’m not quite ready to believe that those folks were materially less likely to make theological errors than we are.

Past experience tells me that some scripturalists / catholicists will pounce on the paragraph above, accusing me of arrogantly thinking that we’re smarter than the Fathers.   Yes, I do think we’re "smarter," in the sense that we know much, much more than the Fathers did.  No rational person could dispute that we have more insight into God’s handiwork than they did.  We clearly know more than the ancients about "what has been made"; if Paul was right in Romans 1:19-20, it’s logical to suppose that we therefore also know more about "God’s invisible qualities."

This is no knock against the Fathers.  It’s simply an acknowledgement that by God’ grace we have been able to build on what they handed down to us.  As Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants" — but even Newton wasn’t the last word, because Einstein saw even further in part by standing on his shoulders. 

Comments

5 responses to “Ancient Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Correct”

  1. Pontificator Avatar

    D.C., since you do not believe that God has decisively communicated himself to mankind in Jesus Christ and faithfully shared with Israel and the Apostles truths of revelation, this whole question is moot. In the absence of divine revelation given in history, how would we even begin to determine who knows God’s will better or whose theological reflections describe the nature of God better?

  2. D. C. Avatar

    Al, I don’t think we can regard your questions as all-or-nothing propositions. I believe God revealed certain truths to us in the life and death of Jesus and in the history of the early church. But you’re correct that I don’t believe that God has decisively communicated himself to mankind in Jesus or the early church.
    As to how we determine who knows God’s will better, or whose theological reflections better describe God: That’s something we have to try to determine over time as best we can — preferably using cautious, critical-realist / empirical techniques, because (I would argue) such techniques have a better track record than any other epistemological approach, bar none. This entails humbly acknowledging that our (limited) knowledge about everything, while useful to be sure, is subject to error and incompleteness, and thus is provisional. Anyone who claims that particular knowledge, of any kind, constitutes absolute Truth has some enormous, and in my view insurmountable, hurdles to overcome.
    Thanks for the post; I really appreciate being challenged to figure out what I think in these areas.

  3. Derek Avatar
    Derek

    Both the Marcionites and the Gnostics thought they were Christians too…

  4. bls Avatar

    Interesting. If what Mark G. says in his corollary is true, it adds more heft to my argument that there is no credible teaching or tradition of condemnation of lesbianism in the Church, since the first Christian theologian who read Romans I that way was John Chrysostom, during the 5th Century.
    I love it when that happens!

  5. bls Avatar

    Anyway, it’s perfectly clear that the Church, like the rest of human society, has often been in error, and that we know more about many things today. The Church persecuted Jews and other minorities, including gay people, for centuries, and/or was complicit in the state’s acts against them. It only getting around to apologizing to Jews a few years ago; the Eastern Church hasn’t bothered to do even that much, even yet.
    I’m not holding my breath for an apology to gay people, of course. Perhaps in another five hundred years or so?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *