I have to admit, I am very amused by how often this discussion seems to go in circles rather than address the actual points I am making directly.
And I think that is starting to create a serious asymmetry in the discussion.
My Catholic background is repeatedly treated as an interpretive framework that may be colouring the evidence, while your own congregational background is acknowledged and then effectively neutralized by saying that you “try not to let it colour” your interpretation and instead rely on historians and context.
But surely you can see the problem there, because I could say exactly the same thing about myself: I know I am Catholic, I know that this gives me certain expectations, and I therefore deliberately compare my reading with primary sources and with historians who are not Catholic and in some cases are openly critical of Catholicism. Or are you trying to tell me that Von Harnack has a pro-catholic bias?
Neither of us acquires neutrality simply by saying that we are trying to be neutral.
And, interestingly, in your previous post you explicitly said: “from this background, I probably interpret the pre-Nicene texts differently than you.”
So you yourself acknowledged that your ecclesial background affects the way you read the evidence.
Now the formulation has become that you try not to let your background colour your interpretation and instead let historians guide you.
Fine. I have no objection to that at all.
But then the obvious next question is: which historians?
You have made a specific historical claim: that before Nicaea there was no unified Catholic Church, but rather something closer to a network of autonomous local churches sharing common roots and cooperating with one another.
If that conclusion comes primarily from historical scholarship rather than from your own congregational framework, then please show me the historians who actually argue for that model.
Not historians who merely say that early Church structures developed over time. I agree with that.
Not historians who say that local churches possessed substantial autonomy. I agree with that too.
I mean historians who actually support the stronger proposition you have been making: that the pre-Nicene Church was not already understood as one universal apostolic Church possessing a normative common faith and supra-local structures of authority.
Because one of the historians you yourself cited, Justo González, says that the second-century churches: “all agreed on the one faith, and could jointly prove that this faith was indeed apostolic.”
That already sounds considerably stronger than a loose network of autonomous congregations.
And then there is Adolf von Harnack, who could hardly be accused of trying to vindicate Roman Catholicism.
Harnack explicitly describes the isolation of Scripture from ecclesiastical tradition as a sixteenth-century revolution and says that in Christian antiquity “the Church, its doctrine, institutions, and constitution, were held, in and by themselves, to constitute the source of knowledge and the authoritative guarantee of truth.”
So this is not simply me taking Catholic categories and forcing them into ancient texts. And most definitely the Protestants Von Harnack cannot be accused of trying to validate catholic theology.
A historian who was deeply critical of Catholic dogmatic development still concluded that the ancient Church did not operate according to an isolated Bible interpreted autonomously by local congregations.
And that is precisely why I keep trying to bring the discussion back to the evidence (which is exactly what you are running from, or so it seems, which brings to to go in circles) rather than our respective psychological frameworks.
At some point, “we have different frames of interpretation” stops answering the historical argument.
We definitely interpret texts differently, rhe question is whether those interpretations are equally capable of explaining the evidence.
They are not automatically equal merely because both are possible in our own minds.
If Irenaeus speaks of one Church, one faith, one tradition, one house, one soul, one heart and one mouth; if he uses apostolic succession and the worldwide agreement of the churches as criteria for identifying authentic Christianity; if Cyprian says “The episcopate is one” and “The Church also is one”; and if even Harnack concludes that Scripture remained embedded in authoritative ecclesiastical tradition and interpretation, then simply saying that these things look different from within your own framework does not resolve the historical AND doctrinal problem (because most Protestants, unlike Von Harnack, say that their view is theologically correct because it goes to the roots of Christianity).
Otherwise there is no evidence that could ever count against your model.
Every inconvenient text could simply be answered with: “I interpret that differently.”
That is not historical methodology. That is a model protecting itself from any possible falsification. It is not all that different, structurally, from the fringe fundamentalist claim that contrary evidence can simply be dismissed as something Satan placed there to deceive us. *
Once every piece of evidence against a position can be reinterpreted as further confirmation of the position (or as something that has no value and can be dismissed and ignored, so that subjectivism may reign supreme), the model has insulated itself from being tested at all.
So yes, I completely agree that context matters and that none of us is perfectly neutral, but rather than continuing to discuss whose background may or may not be colouring whose interpretation, I would much rather deal with the concrete historical question:
-
Which historians actually support your specific reconstruction of the pre-Nicene Church?
-
And how do they account for the evidence from Irenaeus, Cyprian, apostolic succession, trans-local doctrinal unity, and the developing structures of ecclesial authority? If Irenaeus says one Church, one faith, one tradition, one house, one soul, one heart, one mouth; if he appeals to apostolic succession as a criterion of authentic doctrine; if Cyprian says “The episcopate is one” and “The Church also is one”; if Scripture was interpreted under an ecclesial creed; if bishops were regarded as successors of the Apostles; and if ecumenical councils acquired binding doctrinal authority throughout orthodox Christianity.
If all of this is true (and if it isn’t it should be proven) then how can we answer those questions?
That is the point I have been asking you to address, and so far you haven’t. You are, of course, perfectly entitled not to engage with the evidence (you are less entitled to degrade it to mere intepretation colored by catholic views, because the words of the Fathers are very clear, and if they actually aren’t it should be explained why), but if you choose not to, the asymmetry in this discussion becomes even more obvious.
*”there ought to be no doubt whatever that the popular forms of geology and paleontology should be included as ‘sciences of satanic origin.’” (George McCready Price, Theories of Satanic Origin, citato in Ronald L. Numbers, “‘Sciences of Satanic Origin’: Adventist Attitudes Toward Evolutionary Biology and Geology,” Spectrum 9, no. 4 (January 1979), p. 17 ) https://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/Spectrum/1977-1978_Vol_9/22253165.READER_030.pdf