Essentials of Orthodoxy

How seriously one takes the numerous theological disputes within Evangelicalism is supposed to correspond to whether any “essential doctrines” are threatened. If the disagreement is over essentials, division is required; if not, it is considered sinful. As Norman Geisler warns: “The truth is that if orthodoxy is to be preserved, then (a) there must be a standard, and (b) it must be possible to determine someone has fallen short of it, and (c) there must be consequences for falling short of it, and (d) these consequences should be feared (respected) by those desiring to be considered orthodox.”Norman L. Geisler, “The Essential Doctrines of the Christian Faith (Part One): A Historical Approach”, Christian Research Journal 28, no. 5 (2005), Christian Research Institute, http://www.equip.org/articles/the-essential-doctrines-of-the-christian-faith-part-one-/.

Further, the importance of discerning the correct list of essentials can be clearly seen in the reasons given for why it is important to identify the essentials: (1) the essentials are the basis for Christian unity, (2) they “distinguish cults of Christianity from true Christianity”, and (3) they are “the only truths over which we rightly can divide”.Ibid. Thus, the ability to identify the essentials objectively becomes paramount to determining Evangelical orthodoxy.

The difficulty comes when one attempts to find a universal standard for Christian orthodoxy. Although Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have recourse to a living standard in the leaders of the Church, Protestants have rejected this authority. Sola scriptura demands that the Bible alone be the ultimate standard for orthodoxy, but there are serious problems with trying to hold to this standard.

Can Scripture Alone Determine Orthodoxy?

Unbiblical Categories

First, if orthodoxy is discovered by the “essentials” of the faith, there is a glaring problem: the Bible nowhere marks off its teachings as “essential” or “nonessential” to the Christian faith. Thus, any categorizing of its teachings along those lines comes from a source that is necessarily outside the Bible. Although adherents of sola scriptura generally do not deny the legitimacy of extrabiblical authorities when dealing in nonultimate issues, they do not seem to consider them legitimate when it comes to determining orthodoxy.

One attempt to locate the essentials using the Bible alone is to orient them around the gospel message—basically deducing them logically from what is necessary for the gospel to be true as essential to the faith. Although the actual lists of essentials that this method produces are often respectable, it raises some notable concerns.

A rather glaring issue is that the same essentials are not deduced by different people, because they attach different significance to various salvific issues. For example, the popular Protestant writer John MacArthur comments, “The Gospel message itself must be acknowledged as a primary point of fundamental doctrine. But what message will determine the content of our gospel testimony?”John MacArthur, “How Can We Determine What Doctrines Are Essential and What Are They?” Grace to You, http://www.gty.org/resources/questions/qa146/how-can-we-determine-what-doctrines-are-essential-and-what-are-they, adapted from John F. MacArthur, Reckless Faith (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1997), 108-17. His response is to invoke Scripture: “We are dealing with matters that go to the very heart of the doctrines Scripture identifies as fundamental. Can we get more specific? Let’s turn to Scripture itself and attempt to lay out some biblical principles for determining which articles of faith are truly essential to authentic Christianity.”Ibid. MacArthur further claims that “the Fundamentals are clear in Scripture.”Ibid.

MacArthur’s list of essential doctrines includes faith, Jesus’ divine Sonship and Messiahship, the bodily Resurrection of Christ, the Lordship of Christ, justification by faith alone, the absolute authority of Scripture over tradition, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, God’s imputation of Christ’s perfect righteousness to believers, anti-antinomianism, doctrinal and moral enlightenment, acknowledgment of our sinfulness, love for Christ, Jesus’ Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, Christ’s sinlessness, a lofty view of Scripture, and a sound method of Bible interpretation.MacArthur notes that his list is not “an exhaustive list of fundamental doctrines. Such a task is beyond the scope of this article. Furthermore, the attempt to precisely identify and number such a list of doctrines would be an extremely difficult thing to do.” MacArthur, “How Can We Determine What Doctrines Are Essential and What Are They?” It is notable that he includes the specifically Protestant notions of sola scriptura and sola fide.

On the other hand, equally popular Evangelical author Norman Geisler produces a list different from MacArthur’s essential doctrines: human depravity, Christ’s Virgin Birth, Christ’s sinlessness, Christ’s deity, Christ’s humanity, God’s unity, God’s triunity, the necessity of God’s grace, the necessity of faith, Christ’s atoning death, Christ’s bodily Resurrection, Christ’s bodily Ascension, Christ’s present high-priestly service, and Christ’s Second Coming, final judgment (heaven and hell), and reign.Geisler, “The Essential Doctrines of the Christian Faith (Part One): A Historical Approach”.

In addition to these soteriological essentials, Geisler adds that the Bible as inerrant, infallible, and inspired Scripture is also an epistemological (or revelational) essential, because we would not be able to know the essentials without the Bible. Finally, he includes the hermeneutical (or interpretive) essential as the means by which we can properly derive the other essentials from Scripture.

Not only does Geisler’s list not match MacArthur’s; it does not match his own later list in his book Conviction without Compromise. There, Christ’s Second Coming, final judgment (heaven and hell), and reign (originally one essential) was split into two items, and Christ’s reign was dropped from the list altogether.Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes, Conviction without Compromise: Standing Strong in the Core Beliefs of the Christian Faith (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 2008). If this Bible-only process is truly a logical deduction from necessary doctrines related to salvation, it is troublesome that the results do not match.Several popular Evangelical / Protestant writers have produced similarly dissimilar lists allegedly based on the same Bible-only method: Hank Hanegraaff (Christian Research Institute): “The essential tenets of the Christian faith are: Deity of Christ, Original sin, Canon, Trinity, Resurrection, Incarnation, New creation, Eschatology.” Hank Hanegraaff, “What Is Essential Christian Doctrine?”, Christian Research Institute, accessed May 28, 2015, http://www.equip.org/bible_answers/what-is-essential-christian-doctrine/#christian-books-4. Greg Koukl (founder of Stand to Reason): God’s existence and the Trinity, Jesus’ deity, the bodily Resurrection, man’s fallenness and culpability, salvation is by grace through faith—substitutionary atonement. Koukl adds the inspiration of Scripture as a “functional necessity” but not an essential. Greg Koukl, “Essential Christian Doctrines”, Stand to Reason, accessed May 28, 2015, http://www.str.org/articles/essential-christian-doctrines#.VWSBKcKh3IW. Matt Slick (founder of Christian Apologetics Research Ministry): “The Bible itself reveals those doctrines that are essential to the Christian faith. They are (i) the Deity of Christ, (2) Salvation by Grace, (3) Resurrection of Christ, (4) the gospel, and (5) monotheism. These are the doctrines the Bible says are necessary.” Matt Slick, “Essential Doctrines of Christianity”, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, accessed May 28, 2015, http://carm.org/essential-doctrines-of-christianity. S. Michael Houdmann (CEO of GotQuestions.org): “The Bible itself reveals what is important and essential to the Christian faith. These essentials are the deity of Christ, salvation by God’s grace and not by works, salvation through Jesus Christ alone, the resurrection of Christ, the Gospel, monotheism and the Holy Trinity.” “What Are the Essentials of the Christian Faith?” GotQuestions.org, accessed May 28, 2015, http://www.gotquestions.org/essentials-Christian-faith.html#ixzz3B2CBjXvR.

Two related problems remain: in both cases above, doctrines are included that are not simply deduced from the gospel (e.g., the Virgin Birth or sola scripturaIn his article, MacArthur states,“ ‘ The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul’ (Psalm 19:7). That means Scripture is sufficient. Apart from the truths revealed to us in Scripture, there is no essential spiritual truth, no fundamental doctrine, nothing essential to soul-restoration.” Psalm 19:7-9 speaks of God’s law (testimony, precepts, commandments, et cetera), not Scripture in general. Even though God’s law is found in Scripture, this does not make the two wholly equivalent. There is plenty of Scripture that does not express God’s law (e.g., poetry or the recounting of historical events). Even if the subject of each phrase were Scripture, David’s descriptions (“perfect”, “sure”, “right”, “clean”, and “true”) do not equate to “sufficient”. Further, because this psalm was true at the time it was written, the Old Testament (which was unfinished at the time) must have been “sufficient for every situation”—which, lacking even the Gospel, is plainly false. Even in the New Testament, God’s revelation consisted in more than just what was written down (e.g., Jn 16:1-12; 21:25; 2 Thess 2:15). We know Scripture is sufficient in some way for some things (e.g., 2 Tim 3:16), but “sufficiency” can be said of a thing in more than one way. In the same way that ingredients can be materially sufficient for making pancakes without being formally sufficient (i.e., having ingredients does not mean having pancakes), the Bible can be materially sufficient for the faith without being formally sufficient. The Bible might have the material we need for “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Pet 1:3), but we need to do something with it in order to achieve formal sufficiency (i.e., read it, understand it, live it).), and doctrines fail to be included that are clearly stated as being connected to salvation in the Bible (e.g., Jn 3:5; Acts 2:38; Rom 6:1; 1 Pet 3:21). Christ’s burial and appearances are specifically stated by the apostle Paul to be part of the gospel message (1 Cor 15:1-5), yet neither appears in either MacArthur’s or Geisler’s essentials list. If the essentials of the faith are truly being deduced from the gospel, how could elements stated in the gospel message itself not be included?

In the end, it seems clear that these conclusions only have the appearance of being the result of a logical method. Since this method is one of the best attempts to ground Christian orthodoxy in the Bible alone (and not, for example, in some theologian’s views, denominational confessions, or individual church doctrinal statements), this failure is significant.

Disagreeable Interpretations

Even if the Bible did list certain doctrines as essential, though, it would still fail to provide a guide for orthodoxy because orthodoxy is nearly always a matter of interpretation. In many cases of heresy, one affirms the words of Scripture without holding to the correct understanding of those words. To coin a term, one can be orthovox (affirming the right words) without being orthodox (holding the right beliefs). The science of hermeneutics (interpretation) thus becomes paramount in the debate.Remember that both MacArthur and Geisler included hermeneutics in their essentials lists. This is necessary because, for the Protestant, no other authoritative safeguard to biblical interpretation exists.“The Bible alone is clear when a proper historical-grammatical hermeneutic is used apart from any necessary hermeneutical help from tradition or creeds. This does not exclude the supplementary, but non-essential, use of the early creeds in understanding the Scriptures. It merely insists that if the words ‘sola Scriptura’ are to have any real meaning, then it cannot mean the Bible plus tradition is necessary to understand God’s revelation.” Norman Geisler, “A Critical Review of The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith Mathison”, Christian Apologetics Journal 4, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 120.

For the most part, Evangelicals are taught that the grammatical-historical method (GHM) is the type of interpretation one must use to be sure of arriving at the correct interpretation of Scripture.See John MacArthur’s ministry doctrinal statement, http://www.gty.org/connect/doctrine; Geisler and Rhodes’ Conviction without Compromise, chap. 13; Hank Hanegraaff, “What Does It Mean to Interpret the Bible Literally?”, Christian Research Institute, accessed May 28,2015, http://www.equip.org/bible_answers/what-does-it-mean-to-interpret-the-bible-literally/; Greg Koukl’s posts on whether the Bible is literal, at Stand to Reason, http://www.str.org/Search?q=Is+the+Bible+Literal%3F+; Matt Slick, “How to Interpret the Bible”, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, accessed May 28, 2015, http://carm.org/how-interpret-bible; S. Michael Houdmann, “What Is Good Biblical Exegesis?”, GotQuestions.org, accessed May 28, 2015, http://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-exegesis.html. The GHM purports to interpret the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense (where “literal sense” is the grammatical-historical sense).See the interpretation sections of International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, http://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1.pdf. Because the Bible alone is considered a source trustworthy enough for doctrine, and the Bible must be interpreted in order to fulfill this function, using the GHM can be considered to be “the fundamental method that makes possible our knowledge of all the doctrinal essentials” without which “there is no orthodoxy.”Norman Geisler, “The Essential Doctrines of the Christian Faith (Part Two): The Logical Approach”, Christian Research Journal 28, no. 6 (2005), Christian Research Institute, accessed May 28, 2015, http://www.equip.org/articles/the-essential-doctrines-of-the-christian-faith-part-two-/. See also Geisler and Rhodes, Conviction without Compromise, chap. 13. Because sola scriptura itself can be seen as dependent on a correct hermeneutic procedure, the GHM is a sort of essential of essentials.

The first difficulty with this approach is that the GHM is not affirmed in Scripture. The best that one could hope to show are cases in which the Scripture “interprets itself” (a rarity), where its results are the same as those at which an interpreter using the GHM would have arrived. This would certainly not work in all cases, though—and fails in some determinative cases.Consider the example of the prophetic fulfillments by Jesus Christ as listed by the apostle Matthew. Most of the fulfillments are more of the “fully filling” variety than confirmations of the miraculous predictive accuracy of the Old Testament. For example, the Virgin Birth prophecy of Isaiah 7 does not (if taken literally) seem to extend past the lifetime of the prophet, and thus would have been false had it been fulfilled only centuries later at the birth of Jesus. Moreover, Matthew’s citing of Hosea’s statement “out of Egypt I called my son” (Hos 11:1) is even stranger considering that it was originally a reference to a past event (i.e., the Exodus). Now, there are no real interpretive or theological problems here, for prophecies can have multiple referents—but these are not something that the GHM can ground or that it would have produced.

A second, more important issue concerning this method has to do with the GHM’s ability to promote unity, detect cults, and be useful for making divisive decisions. There is much disagreement among those who espouse the theological principle of sola scriptura and the hermeneutical principle of the GHM—yet this is the very problem this essential is supposed to solve. Further, these differences are not just over nonessential doctrine, as evidence by debate subjects often considered nonessential (including end-time issues such as the Rapture, the Millennium, and the book of RevelationOne of the more ironic evidences of this problem comes from the fact that two of the most influential hermeneutics books affirming the GHM were written by Milton Terry and Bernard Ramm. These books have been cited as exemplars of the GHM. Terry’s book was used as a textbook at Dallas Theological Seminary, and Robert Thomas cites both books approvingly in his book Evangelical Hermeneutics (see especially the notes in chapters 3 and 6). The reason for the irony is that Terry is a preterist and Ramm is a millennial—two positions that schools such as Southern Evangelical Seminary and Dallas Theological Seminary as well as scholars such as Thomas and Geisler attack for not following the GHM!), there are also multiview books on essential doctrines such as justification, sanctification, and salvation itself.John MacArthur and Zane Hodges’ long-standing debate over Lordship versus Free Grace is a good indication of how two theologians espousing the GHM can disagree over essential salvific doctrines.

Further, there are also multiview books on doctrines often considered nonessential by Evangelicals but that could be considered essential given the teaching of the historical Church as well as salvation-linking statements from Scripture (e.g., baptism or Communion). Worse, many issues acknowledged to be secondary are often fought over more fiercely when they are said to be the product of one’s denial of sola scriptura or the GHM.E.g., Norman L. Geisler, “Method Unorthodoxy”, Dr. Norman L. Geisler, April 25, 2015, The “Licona Articles”, http://normangeisler.com/licona-articles/; “Methodological Unorthodoxy”, http://normangeisler.com/methodological-unorthodoxy/; and “The ETS Vote on Robert Gundry at their Annual Meeting in December 1983”, http://normangeisler.com/the-ets-vote-on-robert-gundry-at-their-annual-meeting-in-december-1983-2/. These ongoing doctrinal disputes are serious evidence of the GHM’s failure to enable Scripture to function as an authoritative source for discovering orthodoxy.Further evidence is supplied by the proliferation of “debate style” publications pitting scholars against one another—often (but not always) including those espousing adherence to the GHM (and usually sola scriptura as well). If adherence to these principles were sufficient for proving doctrinal truths, one would not expect so much disagreement. For examples, see Douglas Beaumont, “Theological Abstrusity”, Douglas Beaumont, April 24, 2013, accessed May 28, 2015, http://douglasbeaumont.com/2013/04/24/on-protestant-abstrusity/. If the GHM can be believed, expounded upon, and taught by scholars with radically divergent views, how can it be trusted to deliver the consistent results required by a standard?One could, of course, reply that others use the GHM inconsistently, but that would be very difficult to argue without begging the question. Further, hermeneutical inconsistency can also be found in the writings of champions of the GHM. A prime example comes from Geisler’s handling of the abortion issue. In his 1971 book, Ethics: Alternatives and Issues, he argued that “the one clear thing which the Scriptures indicate about abortion is that it is not the same as murder. . . [because] an unborn baby is not fully human. . . (Ex. 21:22).” He went on to argue that abortion is not murder because life itself has not started and because the embryo is only potentially (or, in some cases “sub-”) human. His conclusion was that abortion was justifiable for several reasons (therapeutic, eugenic, incestuous, et cetera). In 1989 Geisler published another ethics book in which he reversed most of his previous conclusions on abortion—using the same passages from Scripture. (E.g., although he based nearly his entire argument for abortion on Ex 21:22, he later said, “Exodus 21[:22-23] does not teach that a fetus is a potential person. Neither can this be legitimately inferred from the passage.” He then went on to argue, based on Exodus 21, that the embryo is a human. A similar interpretive switch was made in his use of Psalm 139.) Although Geisler should be commended for admitting his error—the relevant question here is: On what basis did his viewpoint shift? He does not indicate that he switched hermeneutics, and any method that can justify two contrary interpretations cannot, by itself, be trusted to ground orthodoxy.

A third problem with attempting to use the GHM to discover orthodoxy is that, in addition to being unable to resolve doctrinal debates, the method can also be used to hide theological bias under the guise of “taking the Bible at its word.” Consider the typical Evangelical handling of Jesus’ words in John 6. There Jesus says, “The bread that I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. . . [U]nless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. . . . [H]e who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” (Jn 6:51, 53-54). The historic view of this passage is based on literal interpretation and teaches that Jesus is referring to the Eucharist (the Communion meal; cf. Mt 26:26-29; 1 Cor 11:23-25) and that in eating of it, one is literally consuming the flesh of Jesus (i.e., transubstantiation or, at the very least, the real presence of Jesus). The Evangelical position, on the other hand, is that Jesus’ words are spiritual or symbolic here. The problem here is that whereas it is true that Jesus sometimes spoke in metaphors or figures of speech (even in John’s writings; e.g., Jn 10:9; 15:1), there is nothing in the GHM that would lead to a nonliteral conclusion in this passage.See, for example, Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1995), 261-62, and Norman L. Geisler, “Does the New Testament Support the Roman Catholic View of Communion?”, Dr. Norman L. Geisler, http://www.normangeisler.com/.

Supporters of the GHM are quick to point out that it does not always have to deliver a literal interpretation. Rather, “a text should be taken figuratively (1) when it is obviously figurative. . . (2) when the text itself authorizes the figurative sense. . . or (3) when a literal interpretation would contradict other truths inside or outside the Bible.”Geisler and Rhodes, Conviction without Compromise, 197. Do these added considerations help the nonliteral interpretation of Jesus’ words here? Certainly the grammar of the passage does not indicate that this is not a literal statement, nor does the context of the passage.Note that Jn 10:9 and 15:1 are different speeches. The text does not authorize taking the passage figuratively by calling out the fact that it is figurative, and taking the passage literally does not contradict other scriptural truths.Some point to Jesus’ statement that “the flesh is of no avail” (Jn 6:63) as an indication that “flesh” is not to be taken literally here. In response, not a single person listening to Jesus understood that as a factor when interpreting Jesus’ words (nor did he correct them). Further, in the institution narrative, Jesus says that what he holds in his hand is going to be offered up (“this is my body which will be given up for you”). Obviously it was not bread that hung on the Cross. The only criterion left is that it is simply “obvious.” But whatever reason one has for thinking this is “obviously figurative,” it does not come from the grammar.

So much for the “grammatical” part of the GHM. What about the “historical”? Nothing in the historical interpretation of the passage indicates that it was not taken literally either. In fact, this is one of the rare instances in which we do know how the original recipients understood the words (made clear by the reactions of the disciples and Jesus’ reaction to them). Further, a survey of the early Church’s view of the Eucharist will show that taking Communion to be merely symbolic was not seriously put forth until about 1,500 years after the fact.This doctrine was more of an Anabaptist position popularized by Zwingli but denied by Luther. For the early Church’s view of the Eucharist, see “The Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence”, Real Presence Eucharistic Education and Adoration Association, accessed May 28, 2015, http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html.

Because the Bible does not mark out any of its teachings as essential or nonessential, and due to the GHM’s not being taught in the Bible, its inability to resolve doctrinal disputes (even between its adherents), and its easy accommodation to theological bias, it clearly cannot be used to support sola scriptura in the discernment of orthodoxy. What, then, is left?

The Church Determined Orthodoxy

When Jesus ascended into heaven, he did not leave behind a book; he built a Church. Jesus said he would build the Church and that the gates of Hades would not overcome it (Mt 16:18). Therefore, the Church cannot cease to exist, and therefore it cannot teach falsehood as being of the faith. The canon of Scripture itself, along with the determinations of ecumenical councils and the Orthodox creeds, are products of that Church (Jn 16:13, cf. 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:6; 3:15; 2 Tim 2:2). The Church, therefore, has been the guardian of orthodoxy for two thousand years.

In fact, it is entirely possible that Christianity’s message could have been communicated verbally—and only verbally—forever.Eusebius wrote, “Those great and truly divine men, I mean the apostles of Christ. . . published the knowledge of the kingdom of heaven throughout the whole world, paying little attention to the composition of written works. . . . Paul. . . committed to writing no more than the briefest epistles. . . . Of all the disciples of the Lord only Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity.” Eusebius, Church History 24. And Protestant theologian William Whitaker wrote that “Divine Providence can preserve from destruction whatever it chooses;. . . we may, in the same manner, infer that there is no need of the scriptures, that every thing should be trusted to Divine Providence, and nothing committed to writing, because God can preserve religion safe without the scriptures.” William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1849), 652. First, there is nothing inherently problematic with such a thing occurring. A simple thought experiment will show that this is the case: suppose some atheistic world dictator succeeded in destroying every copy of the Bible in existence and then somehow made it impossible to create additional texts of any kind. Would Christianity disappear from the earth? Would men no longer have access to the saving gospel? Of course not. So, at least in theory, there is no problem with these two propositions being true at the same time: (1) Christianity exists, and (2) no Bible exists.

Second, the above theory has been shown to be true in reality. Receiving the gospel message is the requirement for becoming saved (1 Cor 15:1-5), and this message was not initially communicated in written form (1 Cor 15:1), yet those who heard it believed and became saved (becoming part of the Christian Church; 1 Cor 1:2). Thus, Christianity preceded the written message.

Third, it is a historical fact that Christianity preceded the writing of the New Testament. The earliest New Testament writings are typically considered to have been written in the mid-to-late ’40s (whether the first book was the Gospel of Matthew, the letter of James, or Paul’s letter to the Galatians is debated). This means that even with a late date of Christ’s death and Pentecost (A.D. 33), there is at least a decade gap between the beginning of the Church and the very first New Testament writing. The point is even more strongly made when we consider that Paul’s writings (which are, at minimum, among the earliest New Testament writings) were letters addressed to already existing churches. Add to this decade more time for delivery and distribution, and I think it is easy to see that the Church had to go for quite some time with no (New Testament) Scriptures of her own.

Fourth, Christians existed and continue to exist without possessing the New Testament. Even when the New Testament started to be written, its contents were not in the possession of the average believer. Besides the delivery and distribution time lags, people simply did not have easy access to copies. Further, the New Testament was written at a time when most of the population was illiterate. Finally, it would be another 1,500 years or so before the invention of the printing press made the Bible widely accessible even to literate people. (Thus, this is not just an ancient, medieval, or Reformation-age issue). Even in our time, people from many parts of the world become Christians where the Bible is forbidden or inaccessible in their language. This certainly represents a hindrance to Christianity, but it is hardly destructive. So even if the skeptic were successful in showing the Bible to be untrustworthy, he has not really gained much ground—at least if he is using that untrustworthiness as an attack on Christianity itself. For even if we give up the entire Bible, Christianity remains.Evangelical apologist Gary Habermas has an interesting method that he uses when defending the historicity of Christ’s Resurrection; he calls it the Minimal Facts approach. Habermas agrees to use only the most academically respected sources (both Christian and secular) in support of his contention that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. In doing so, he avoids the Gospels, many of Paul’s letters, and several other New Testament books that do not enjoy nearly universal “authentic status” among professional historians. Using only the minimal facts that can be gleaned from whatever historical documents are left, Habermas proceeds to argue that the Resurrection remains the best explanation of the data. It’s a great approach, and his protege Michael Licona has been very successful with his version of it as well. If we took the Minimal Facts approach to the absurd extreme of not relying on anything in the Bible (the “zero facts” approach?), what would we have left over from Christianity? As it turns out, pretty much everything—for it is all found in the traditions of the Church.

The significant point is that what kept the Church going during this time was her own teaching—orthodoxy. It can be found in a multitude of sources:

• the rule of faith (e.g., Rom 1:3-4; 1 Cor 11:23-36; 15:3-5; 1 Pet 3:18; 1 Jn 4:2)
• catechetical instructions (the Didache [first century])
• sermon messages (1 and 2 Clement [A.D. 95–97])
• post–New Testament epistles (letters of Ignatius [A.D. 98–117])
• baptismal confessions (the Old Roman Creed [second to third century])
• Bible commentaries (Theophilus, Diatessaron [second to third century])
• liturgical actions and language (Liturgies of Saint James and Saint Basil [fourth century])
• ecumenical councils, canons, creeds, and definitions (by the fifth century)

From the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 to today, the Church has always determined orthodox doctrine by holding authoritative Church councils that, in turn, gave us the Creeds and the biblical canon. The difficulty for one who does not trust the Church to safeguard orthodoxy is that whatever other seemingly legitimate means one advances for Christianity, it is likely the product of the Church herself. If God kept the Church safe from error when she defined the canon of Scripture, why not when she wrote the orthodox creeds or when she has held her ecumenical councils?In “The Essential Doctrines of the Christian Faith”, Geisler admitted that his method is not the one the Church actually used (what he called the “historical approach”). Rather than adopt this method, though, he attempted to support his conclusions by noting that when his list is compared with “the list discovered by the historical approach, the same basic doctrines emerge”. However, although it is true that many of his essentials also appear in the creeds, the reverse is not the case. First, Geisler occasionally takes a phrase (or even a single word) in a creed as equivalent to an entire doctrine (for example, equating the single word for “I believe” with the doctrine of the necessity of faith for salvation or taking the phrase “in accordance with the Scriptures” in reference to the Resurrection as counting toward making the Bible itself an essential). Second, Geisler leaves many creedal affirmations out (e.g., a single resurrection, a single visible Church, apostolic succession, and baptismal regeneration)—some of which are specifically connected to salvation in the creeds (such as “baptism for the forgiveness of sins” in the Nicene Creed or that belief in the content of the creeds is necessary for salvation in the Athanasian Creed). The question one must answer is: Why should one trust only certain parts of the creeds? To do so reduces this comparative support from the historical method to theological question begging.

None of the above should be taken to suggest that we abandon the use of, devotion to, or defense of the Bible. Rather, what it shows is that God has used the Church to communicate his truths in many ways (1 Tim 3:15-16) and that the Bible—while holding the highest place as being the inspired words of God himself (2 Tim 3:15-17)—alone is insufficient for determining orthodoxy. This is not because it is insufficient for its purposes, but because such a thing is evidently not its purpose. This would be a problem only if the Bible proclaimed itself to be so, but it does not.

The Bible, being a book, must be interpreted. To prevent us from confusing our subjective interpretation with orthodox Christian teachings, God has given us his Church—the body of Christ.Saint Vincent of Lerins noted that “if one should ask one of the heretics,. . . ‘What ground have you for saying that I ought to cast away the universal and ancient faith of the Catholic Church?’ he has the answer ready: ‘For it is written’, and forthwith he produces a thousand testimonies, a thousand examples, a thousand authorities from the law, from the Psalms, from the apostles, from the prophets, by means of which, interpreted on a new and wrong principle, the unhappy soul may be precipitated from the height of Catholic truth to the lowest abyss of heresy. . . . Do heretics also appeal to Scripture? They do indeed, and with a vengeance. . . . Hardly ever do they bring forward anything of their own that they do not endeavor to shelter under words of Scripture. . . an infinite heap of instances, hardly a single page, that does not bristle with plausible quotations from the New Testament or the Old.” Saint Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory 25. It is united in belief, safeguarded from dogmatic error, and universal in scope, and it can be objectively identified by the historical fact of apostolic succession. Under the Church’s guidance one need not worry over private interpretations or feel the need to redefine Christianity for every generation (or individual). Sincere seekers of truth have been given many aids in their pursuit—and each can be trusted as it rests on or works through the “pillar and bulwark of the truth”: the Church (1 Tim 3:15).

Postscript: The Infallibility of the Church

Thomas Aquinas defined true faith in terms of one’s willful adherence to a religious authority. Because supernatural truths of faith are not directly discoverable by the senses or reason, God must reveal them somehow. Because supernatural truths of faith must be revealed, questions concerning them cannot be resolved by other means (e.g., logic, science, philosophy, or history). God’s revelation, in whatever form it takes, becomes the religious authority for believers. Christians typically insist that this authority must be infallible—after all, if we cannot really be sure what God has revealed, how can we submit ourselves wholly to it? Eternal salvation itself may be at stake.

When Jesus founded the Church on his apostles (cf. Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14), he made some rather startling assertions. He instructed the apostles to teach people all that he had taught them in order to make disciples (Mt 28:19-20). He also told the apostles they had the authority to judge sin (Mt 18:18) and said that whoever listened to them was listening to him, and whoever rejected them was rejecting him (Lk 10:16). These were no mere country preachers! The institution of the Church began with a transfer of divine authority to found a Church with the purpose of teaching doctrine and determining sin and salvation.

It is hard to imagine Jesus giving this kind of authority to the apostles, who served as the foundation of the Church, and then saying, “Of course, there is no guarantee that you will not mess it all up—but no worries.” What good is divine, eternal, and immutable truth if its teacher can be in error? Would God entrust his Church with teachings connected to mankind’s ultimate purpose (the reward of heaven or the penalty of damnation) without some means of guaranteeing she did not teach falsehood? Given this role, infallibility seems a necessity.It might be objected that Israel was under the religious authority of fallible leaders, and this might seem like a counterexample, given Judaism’s close association with Christianity. But God did not just drop the Old Testament into the laps of the Israelites and leave them to try to figure out Judaism. Rather, he provided them with inspired and infallible prophets who spoke for him and who later even added to biblical revelation when needed. However, such things are not available to the Church because Jesus was the final revelation of God (Heb 1:1-2), and the New Testament was the final inspired revelation of God’s Word. (These two points are fairly uncontested among the majority of Christians, so I will not argue for them here). So Israel does not function as a counterexample; rather it may point to the need for ongoing infallible guidance.

The Church built on the apostles was tasked with the communication of Jesus’ gospel, teachings, and forgiveness of sins (Mt 16:18; cf. Mt 28:18-20). She therefore could not fulfill her role if she fell into religious error—to do so would be to fail as the Church. Jesus, however, promised that his Church would not fail (Mt 16:18). If failure to accomplish her role as religious authority would constitute a failure of the Church, and the Church cannot fail, then the Church cannot teach religious error. Therefore, if the Church ever taught heresy, she would not be the Church! Since this would entail a contradiction, the Church must be protected from teaching religious error (which is merely the negative way of expressing infallibility).

Further, we know from the Bible that Jesus did not give such a weighty role to the apostles without a means of accomplishing it. Rather, he promised the apostles the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth (Jn 16:13), and their teachings (both written and verbal) were to be obeyed (2 Thess 2:15; 3:6). Thus, the Church’s role, promises, and descriptions do not seem to leave room for religious error. That this is the Church’s self-understanding is demonstrated by her actions. The first time a major doctrinal decision had to be made, the apostles talked it out and made their own judgment. In fact, they concluded that what they thought was what the Holy Spirit thought (Acts 15:28). If the promise of the Holy Spirit to lead the apostles into all truth did not confer on them some supernatural guidance, it is difficult to imagine how such a lofty claim could be made.

Finally, this protection does not end with the apostles. The Church’s role did not change with the deaths of the apostles, and so the means necessary to accomplish her purpose can be expected to continue as well. In the Great Commission, Jesus told the apostles that he would be with them until the end (Mt 28:18-20). The Church Jesus founded was to become the “pillar and bulwark of the truth,” and this did not cease in the first century of her existence. This implies that the apostles’ roles and promised means would not cease with their deaths but would continue somehow. We know that the apostles, in fulfilling this Great Commission, did not simply start churches and leave them on their own. Rather, they ordained leaders to guide these groups as authoritative overseers (see, e.g., Titus and 2 Timothy). This provided for the continuation of the Church’s identity, as well as continuing the Church’s functions and means. History bears this out as well—for such was the Church’s self-understanding from the earliest times, as reflected in the writings of the apostolic Fathers (some overlapping the lives of the apostles).See, e.g., “The Early Church Fathers on Apostolic Succession—Catholic / Orthodox Caucus”, Free Republic, accessed May 28, 2015, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1775198/posts.

The above theoretical, theological, and biblical considerations point to the divine institution of a Church that God safeguards from authoritatively pronouncing religious error. Given her role as communicator of God’s revelation unto salvation, and Christ’s promises and examples of divine guidance, protection from failure seems necessary to guarantee the Church’s very existence. Although this infallibility can and has been exercised through various means, there seems to remain a need for a single, infallible, apostolic office behind it all to provide an objective standard when necessary. Specific predictions and promises made to Peter, as well as the subsequent history of his successors, point to the office of the Bishop of Rome as the best fit for the “last line” of infallible doctrinal defense.See David B. Currie, Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1996), 92-94. Thus can the Church’s infallibility be grounded in both theory and practice.