From evangelical, David Bercott’s book, “Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up”
http://www.amazon.com/Will-Real-Heretics-Please-Stand/dp/0924722002
Chapter 11
Who Better Under¬stands The Apostles?
We evangelical Christians today generally think that we are following apostolic Christianity. The early Christians thought they were too, Yet, as we've seen, our beliefs and practices vary considerably from theirs. So how can we know which one of us is more closely following the pattern set by the apostles?
A tempting, but simplistic solution is to say, "Let's simply compare their beliefs and ours to what the Bible teaches." The problem is that the early Christians based their beliefs on the Bible-the same as we do. They quoted Scriptures to support their beliefs, the same as we do. The real issue is one of Bible interpretation. The most we can do is to compare their interpretations of Scripture with our interpretations of Scripture. And that in itself doesn't prove very much. So the question becomes: Whose interpretation is more likely to be correct-ours or theirs?
The Advantage Of Time
Interestingly, the early church faced a stand-off with the gnostics that was similar to our stalemate with the early Chris¬tians. Both the church and the gnostics claimed they had the True gospel. Tertullian wrote, "I say that my gospel is the true one. Marcion [a leading gnostic teacher] says that his is. I say, "Marcion's gospel is adulterated, He says mine is. Now, how can we settle this stand-off, unless we use the principle of time. According to this principle, authority lies with the one who is prior in time. It's based on the elemental truth that corruption (of doctrine) lies with the one who is shown to have originated later in time. Since error is falsification of truth,, truth must necessarily precede error." 1 Tertullian's "principle of time" is one of the main criteria modern historians use to evaluate conflicting historical ac¬counts. The one written closest to the actual events is normally given credence over one written much later.
After all, how much confidence would you have in a New Testament manuscript that differed from others and yet was produced 1400 years after the apostles had died? particularly if you had available a New Testament manuscript that was compiled within a few decades after the apostles had died? Why then do we choose doctrines that were first taught 1,400 years or more after the deaths of the apostles over ones that were taught within a few decades of their lives?
The Cumulative Effect Of Small Changes
A copy of anything is rarely a perfect duplication of the original. As Christianity has been duplicated from generation to generation, it has undergone many changes. From generation to generation, most of these changes have been very small, almost imperceptible. However; the cumulative effect of small changes over hundreds of years can be significant. Take for example the English language", From generation to generation, our language changes very slowly. The change is so slow that we can barely discern any difference between the way we speak and the way our grandparents spoke, except for slang. Howev¬er, over hundreds of years, the accumulation of these small changes is quite noticeable. For example, when we try to read thirteenth century medieval English, it's almost like trying to read a foreign language.
The same is true of Christianity. I'm sure that second century Christianity wasn't a perfect duplication of apostolic Christianty. But the second century Christians were basically only one generation away from the apostles. We're nineteen centuries away! How reasonable is it for us to argue that, after nineteen hundred years, evangelical Christianity is basically unchanged from that of the apostles? Particularly when, at the same time, we claim that orthodox Christianity had radically changed only 50 years after the apostles died?
The Advantages of Language And Culture
But the element of time is not the only advantage that the early Christians had over us. They were also in a much better position to accurately interpret the apostles' writings.
To begin with, the early Christians could read the New Testament Scriptures in the original Greek of the apostles. How many of us can say the same? Our pastors have to study ancient Greek for several years as part of their seminary training. Yet very few of them can speak ancient Greek fluently. Most can't even read and comprehend a Greek text without the aid of a Greek-English lexicon. The early Christians, however, didn't have to study ancient Greek; it was their native language. They not only spoke in Greek, they thought in it.
http://www.amazon.com/Will-Real-Heretics-Please-Stand/dp/0924722002
Chapter 11
Who Better Under¬stands The Apostles?
We evangelical Christians today generally think that we are following apostolic Christianity. The early Christians thought they were too, Yet, as we've seen, our beliefs and practices vary considerably from theirs. So how can we know which one of us is more closely following the pattern set by the apostles?
A tempting, but simplistic solution is to say, "Let's simply compare their beliefs and ours to what the Bible teaches." The problem is that the early Christians based their beliefs on the Bible-the same as we do. They quoted Scriptures to support their beliefs, the same as we do. The real issue is one of Bible interpretation. The most we can do is to compare their interpretations of Scripture with our interpretations of Scripture. And that in itself doesn't prove very much. So the question becomes: Whose interpretation is more likely to be correct-ours or theirs?
The Advantage Of Time
Interestingly, the early church faced a stand-off with the gnostics that was similar to our stalemate with the early Chris¬tians. Both the church and the gnostics claimed they had the True gospel. Tertullian wrote, "I say that my gospel is the true one. Marcion [a leading gnostic teacher] says that his is. I say, "Marcion's gospel is adulterated, He says mine is. Now, how can we settle this stand-off, unless we use the principle of time. According to this principle, authority lies with the one who is prior in time. It's based on the elemental truth that corruption (of doctrine) lies with the one who is shown to have originated later in time. Since error is falsification of truth,, truth must necessarily precede error." 1 Tertullian's "principle of time" is one of the main criteria modern historians use to evaluate conflicting historical ac¬counts. The one written closest to the actual events is normally given credence over one written much later.
After all, how much confidence would you have in a New Testament manuscript that differed from others and yet was produced 1400 years after the apostles had died? particularly if you had available a New Testament manuscript that was compiled within a few decades after the apostles had died? Why then do we choose doctrines that were first taught 1,400 years or more after the deaths of the apostles over ones that were taught within a few decades of their lives?
The Cumulative Effect Of Small Changes
A copy of anything is rarely a perfect duplication of the original. As Christianity has been duplicated from generation to generation, it has undergone many changes. From generation to generation, most of these changes have been very small, almost imperceptible. However; the cumulative effect of small changes over hundreds of years can be significant. Take for example the English language", From generation to generation, our language changes very slowly. The change is so slow that we can barely discern any difference between the way we speak and the way our grandparents spoke, except for slang. Howev¬er, over hundreds of years, the accumulation of these small changes is quite noticeable. For example, when we try to read thirteenth century medieval English, it's almost like trying to read a foreign language.
The same is true of Christianity. I'm sure that second century Christianity wasn't a perfect duplication of apostolic Christianty. But the second century Christians were basically only one generation away from the apostles. We're nineteen centuries away! How reasonable is it for us to argue that, after nineteen hundred years, evangelical Christianity is basically unchanged from that of the apostles? Particularly when, at the same time, we claim that orthodox Christianity had radically changed only 50 years after the apostles died?
The Advantages of Language And Culture
But the element of time is not the only advantage that the early Christians had over us. They were also in a much better position to accurately interpret the apostles' writings.
To begin with, the early Christians could read the New Testament Scriptures in the original Greek of the apostles. How many of us can say the same? Our pastors have to study ancient Greek for several years as part of their seminary training. Yet very few of them can speak ancient Greek fluently. Most can't even read and comprehend a Greek text without the aid of a Greek-English lexicon. The early Christians, however, didn't have to study ancient Greek; it was their native language. They not only spoke in Greek, they thought in it.
