Orthodox epologists often invoke the Vincentian canon against Evangelical theology. The standard by which we distinguish the true church from heretics and schismatics is the threefold criterion of ubiquity, antiquity, and unanimity: “What has been believed everywhere, always, and by all” (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est).
By this criterion, Evangelical theology is summarily condemned for its theological innovations. Novel interpretations of Scripture can’t possibly be true. For how could Christians have been so wrong for so long?
At that point, the Orthodox epologist doesn’t even feel the need to open a Bible and see for himself if, say, St. Paul teaches sola fide. For the Orthodox epologist knows, a priori, that no novel interpretation of Paul is even possible.
There are, however, a couple of basic problems with the Vincentian canon:
1.When an Evangelical begins to point out obvious examples of division within the early church, such as the Christological and Trinitarian controversies, iconoclasm, schisms, and variations in the canon, the Orthodox epologist has to put the backpeddle to the metal.
He suddenly abandons the Vincentian canon for the Newmanesque canon. What counts is living tradition. An evolving consensus.
Everybody doesn’t need to be onboard when the ship leaves port. They only need to be onboard by the time the ship disembarks—whenever and wherever you stipulate the eventual destination. The last church father. The last ecumenical council. Or some later figure. Or some later development.
Of course, the problem with this fallback position is that, as soon as an Orthodox epologist abdicates the Vincentian canon, he instantly forfeits the right to dismiss Evangelical theological due to its theological innovations.
I’m assuming, for the sake of argument, that Evangelical theology is all that innovative. There are Evangelical theologians who dispute this allegation. But I’m skipping over that debate for now since it’s mooted by the Orthodox themselves.
2.On a related note, Perry Robinson likes to trace Evangelical errors, as he views them, back to Platonism or some ancient heresy. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that his superficial parallels are historically sound, that would directly undercut the Orthodox charge that Evangelical theology is false because it’s innovative. For if, ex hypothesi, Evangelical theology is false because it’s derivative of some ancient heresy or ancient heresy, then it can’t very be false because of its novel character.
The net result is that Orthodox epologists are using objections against Evangelicalism which cancel each other out. In that event, we don’t have to defend our Evangelical faith against Orthodox attack. Rather, we can quote on Orthodox epologist against another. Who needs to fire a shot when your opponents are forming a circular firing squad?
The Vincentian canon is more than just quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. Read The Commonitory.
ReplyDeleteVincent goes onto explicitely list what to do in the case of division, which includes tests such as adhering to the decisions of a general council. One can hardly be accused of abandoning Vincent by actually reading all he said instead of just a bit.
But notice the equivocation of Steve between an evolving consensus and innovation. They are not the same. That an actual consensus takes time does not indicate innovation, Newmanesque style.
Now if evangelicalism goes back to ancient heresies, Vincent is no help to you unless you can prove universality, at least at one point in time. Division at one point in time cannot be compared lack of consent throughout all time.
In short, read Vincent and not a straw man of what he said.
Vincent goes onto explicitly list what to do in the case of division, which includes tests such as adhering to the decisions of a general council. One can hardly be accused of abandoning Vincent by actually reading all he said instead of just a bit.
ReplyDeleteRead Vincent..okay. let's go with a summary:
With regard to antiquity, that interpretation must be held to which has been handed down from the earliest times;
Can you demonstrate without begging the question, the interpretations of Scripture or other practices that have been handed down "from earliest times?" Let us start with, let's say, prayers to the dead or veneration of images. One can be true to tradtition without tradition being true.
with regard to universality, that which has always been held, if not by all, at least by the most part, in preference to that which has been held only by a few;
Can you demonstrate that the dogmas of your Church have been the majority, going back to antiquity? "Orthodox" on this very blog said we need as little as ten percent. Vincent says otherwise.
with regard to consent, the determination of a General Council on any point will of course be of summary authority, and will hold the first place;
How do you know which councils are, in fact, to be preferred? What does one do when councils conflict?
next to this, the interpretation which has been held uniformly and persistently by all those Fathers, or by a majority of them, who have lived and died in the communion of the Catholic Church.
So, if the West and East differ, why should we prefer the East?
Accordingly, whatsoever interpretation of Holy Scripture is opposed to an interpretation thus authenticated, even though supported by the authority of one or another individual teacher, however eminent, whether by his position, or his attainments, or his piety, or by all of these together, must be rejected as novel and unsound.
Finally, how do we know that the interpretation of the majority is correct? This simply begs the question.
That an actual consensus takes time does not indicate innovation, Newmanesque style.
It would if it contradicted Scripture.
Now if evangelicalism goes back to ancient heresies, Vincent is no help to you unless you can prove universality, at least at one point in time.
Vincent is not our rule of faith, so this objection is unresponsive. It's Perry Robinson, one of the better Orthodox epologists that likes to go this route.
Can you demonstrate without begging the question, the interpretations of Scripture or other practices that have been handed down "from earliest times?"
ReplyDeleteAgain, that's not all Vincent says. He talks about in the case of dispute following general councils and the catholic understanding of all.
Can you demonstrate that the dogmas of your Church have been the majority, going back to antiquity? "Orthodox" on this very blog said we need as little as ten percent. Vincent says otherwise.
If you drew up a list of years from 1 to 2000 and ticked off those years where all or almost all or the majority of those Christians in communion with the historic church, or a contender for the historic church if you want to list more than one, I'm quite confident that it would be easily a case of Orthodoxy, but to demonstrate it to you if you don't want to see the obvious, would take some time.
How do you know which councils are, in fact, to be preferred? What does one do when councils conflict?
Back again to universality and consent, or where a split occurs actually over a council decision, one must regard antiquity and majority.
So, if the West and East differ, why should we prefer the East?
You'd have to decide whether prior to 1054 there was a universal, or ancient tradition for drawing up lists of infallible papal statements.
Finally, how do we know that the interpretation of the majority is correct? This simply begs the question.
Since language is owned by all, you could do worse than use the majority to analyse the meaning of language. If 9 out of 10 people think a word means X, then chances are it means X.
If these people are the ancients close to the language of the time, even more so.
To assume that you as an individual can do better than the group is arrogant both technically and in the practical functioning of the Church. It also turns the Church into an club for intellectuals where the supposed smart people who understand group together, and the non-smart people, lacking the necessary faculties, can do no better than join some heresy.
But it's not merely a majority, it is a majority of those who are recipients of the Tradition. The fathers of all 7 ecumenical councils had the attitude they wanted to pass on the common understanding of the Church. They didn't sit around debating exegesis.
If you pass on a message to 100 people, and then come back later to get the message back, the majority are going to retain the truth.
the Orthodox epologist has to put the backpeddle to the metal.
ReplyDeleteSteve, you crack me up.
What a great quote.
"If you pass on a message to 100 people, and then come back later to get the message back, the majority are going to retain the truth."
ReplyDeleteIs that why "telephone" is so successful.
They didn't sit around debating exegesis.
ReplyDeleteSo much the worse for their authority then.
"On a related note, Perry Robinson likes to trace Evangelical errors, as he views them, back to Platonism or some ancient heresy."
ReplyDeleteIts funny that you mention that. I was reading J.N.D. Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines last night and was struck by the number of times that Kelly traced Athanasius' doctrines (which are still in Orthodoxy) of say the fall and man's redemption to Platonism.
"He suddenly abandons the Vincentian canon for the Newmanesque canon. What counts is living tradition. An evolving consensus."
Apophaticism, the Theandric view of reality, etc.
There are plenty of doctrines within Orthodoxy that were innovations.
jimmy said...
ReplyDelete“The Vincentian canon is more than just quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. Read The Commonitory.__Vincent goes onto explicitely list what to do in the case of division, which includes tests such as adhering to the decisions of a general council. One can hardly be accused of abandoning Vincent by actually reading all he said instead of just a bit…In short, read Vincent and not a straw man of what he said.”
That’s all completely irrelevant to what I actually wrote. Did I say I was commenting on the way in which Orthodox epologists interpret the text of Vincent? No. Did I frame this as an exegetical question? No.
What I said is that I was commenting on the two-step which Orthodox epologists often use. They lead with the claim that Evangelical theology is false due to its theological novelties, in contrast to Orthodox theology—which is what Christians always believed. Evangelicals are bucking the universal consensus of the church in time and space.
That’s the opening move that Orthodox epologists commonly use in attacking Evangelicalism. We have examples of this in our very own archives.
When challenged, they then begin to backtrack from their original claim. That can also be documented from our archives. So they are using two contradictory objections.
“But notice the equivocation of Steve between an evolving consensus and innovation. They are not the same. That an actual consensus takes time does not indicate innovation, Newmanesque style.”
Jimmy is the one who’s equivocating. For the alternatives don’t need to be symmetrical. When an Orthodox epologist lays down a threefold criterion, then he needs to do justice to each prong of his threefold criterion. One out of three won’t do. And two out of three won’t do.
“Now if evangelicalism goes back to ancient heresies, Vincent is no help to you unless you can prove universality, at least at one point in time.”
I don’t need Vincent. That’s not my criterion. I’m addressing Robinson on his own grounds. Sorry you’re too dense to follow the argument, even after I explicitly stated the terms of the argument.
“Division at one point in time cannot be compared lack of consent throughout all time.”
Notice how this upends the usual Orthodox argument. The criterion is no longer the presence of universal agreement, but the absence of universal disagreement. That’s a complete reversal.