Tertullian Misses the Gospel

I find this unfortunate, but I have to say that this is a profoundly anachronistic essay and therefore profoundly unfair to Tertullian.

The whole notion of "missing the Gospel" is historically untenable. It assumes, among other things, that the "Gospel" Tertullian was missing was clear, articulate, and present in his context, and therefore it's fair and not distorting to hold him accountable for "missing" it, just as we hold people accountable for not noticing something right in front of them due to inattention. If, however, the "Gospel" as Charlie is thinking of it was not clear, articulate, and present in Tertullian's context than the whole idea of him "missing" it is an anachronism of the worst sort. If someone actually thinks the Protestant Reformation Gospel was "there" to be missed, then that is an equally bad if not worse form of anachronism.

Either way then, it's at best irrelevant and at worst unfair to speak of Tertullian "missing the Gospel" in any straightforward sense. As many theologians have long noted, some people are seen in the light of developments that have made things clearer to have gone in a wrong direction, but we don't, or should not, treat them the way we would treat someone who makes the "same" mistake in light of a much clearer understanding of truth and in the face of ecclesial rebuke. The latter person is a heretic, the former is not.

One reason Protestants do poorly with the Patristics is because you can deal with them in a serious and historically tenable way if you don't have a developmental view of doctrine, which sounds relativistic to people who don't understand it and, frankly, demands a historical consciousness Fundamentalists and most Americans in general have never exemplified. It's a very "German" thing in its origins, although Newman saw the same issues from Great Britain without knowing any of the goings on in Germany in the 19th Century. The point is, besides the Mercersberg theologians (Nevin and Schaff), I don't think conservative America theologians have ever come to grips with this issue. One evidence of this is that many people simply don't understand this issue and thus don't see it as an issue, including exactly the theologians who ought to know better (e.g. like professional historical theologians at our seminaries).

I know Charlie is not "going after" Tertullian; but the effect is, unfortunately, the same. If Tertullian missed anything, which he clearly did, one would have to go into his historical context to make a plausible case for where he mistakenly should have accepted x, y, and z rather than Montanism, etc. But x,y, and z would definitely not have been, in any historically relevant sense, the "Gospel." Saying someone "missedsthe Gospel" is a severe charge and an enormously complicated one if it's made about a historical figure who lived as long as a Tertullian.

Charlie,

SI isn't the forum for an in-depth exchange about this, so I'll just offer responses to your three points, in inverted order.

3."Heartfelt gratitude mixed with serious reservation" is sufficiently vague to be uncontroversial to me, although I suspect I would have eventual problems with how "serious reservations" plays out. Any serious reservations I would have about the Fathers, as the group that shaped the theological and ecclesial shape of the early church, are along the lines of the "serious reservations" I might have about a plane that just successfully flew me from the US to China - I could not have gotten there without it, even if I wish some things were different, etc. The analogy is limited; the main point is that the Fathers are an indispensable and necessary part of the church's development, and any position that can't make sense of this is to that extent not part of the "one, holy catholic and apostolic church." I don't think most conservative evangelicals (including Fundamentalists) can make sense this, hence the thinness and historical shallowness of their theological work.

2. Sounds ok to me, although the use of "biblical Gospel" seems to be begging the question.

1. This just seems to be a way of saying you fundamentally either don't understand what I'm saying or don't have any substantive belief in doctrinal development, since it assumes everything I cited as anachronistic, viz. the idea that the Protestant Gospel is just there to be known, which is historically rubbish - it wasn't. It was "discovered" and even then in a context that most contemporary Protestants would find "too Catholic." Calvin was possible because of Luther, et al. who were in turn possible because of a host of contingent historical and theological factors.

I'm not sure I understand the "God doesn't change," etc. part, as I don't see how doctrinal development has anything to do with beliefs about God's impassibility, etc. If you mean God didn't develop or expand what he means by the Gospel in his revelation to human beings then that is just patently false, as it would make pure rubbish and idolatry of Judaism, whose history from Abraham ot Christ is most definitely a history of God's progressive revelation of what the Gospel means and who God is. One does not have to believe in critical reconstructions of Judaism's history to know, as any good OT scholar would confirm, that there was immense development in Judaism's idea of God, the messiah, the Davidic kingdom, and a host of other things.

Christianity is essentially and radically a historical religion; there is an important sense in which it has always understood itself as such. But after the rise of historical consciousness and the crucial ways that intersects with and shapes historical-critical studies of texts, including Scripture, this became clearer than it had ever been in history, and it really took the Twentieth century, the Holocaust, and the Third Quest (so-called) for most Christians to finally own up to how crucial Judaism is for Christianity and for Jesus himself, for example. That's two thousand years; it took until roughly the Renaissance century for people to finally understand the past as past (e.g. see Peter Burke's The Renaissance Sense of the Past), and even longer until that became widespread in historical study.

There was nothing inevitable or universal about these developments; the fact that most people, including those who live in the societies that made these discoveries and advances in consciousness, do not understand them simply illustrates that point.

I think we are afraid to let the pastness of the past be a reality to people (with some justification), but the result of that fear or simple inability is a distortion of the past. I understand that, too, and there are no easy solutions to the problems history raises; but, unfortunately, Christians need to deal with this, and only the ones who do can do profound historical work on the church's past. As I said, we don't have many of these in American conservative Protestantism.

Everything is controversial to somebody.

Might be redundant to say so at this point but, yes, we believe here that the gospel we embrace now was and has always been the gospel that had to embraced. So if T. missed the gospel as we know it, he missed the gospel, period.

But I'll still cut him this much slack: people hold to mutually exclusive ideas all the time. That is, people are not logically consistent (which has to include me though I don't like to think so). Even smart people.
The result is that though they may state beliefs in one place that are not compatible with the gospel, they may still believe the gospel... they just aren't seeing the disjunction.
Perhaps that's where there is room for development-of-doctrine factors, "anachronism," etc. It may be fair to say that what students of the Bible figured out later included recognizing certain ways of thinking were not compatible w/the gospel and had to be rejected.
But still, Paul pretty much spelled it all out in Romans, and Galatians, and Philippians, and... and...
So I'm inclined to say it's not a dev. of doctrine issue so much as a failure to think it through issue, at best. At worst, T. was just a plain old legalist.

Hi Dan,

I've indicated that SI isn't the right context for a thorough discussion of this, and I just want to repeat that so people don't misunderstand what I expect from my comments. E.g. I don't expect to change anyone's mind, for example, or for people to understand what I'm saying exactly.

I think I would agree with your "better put" statement, but I would also probably agree that the Gospel has changed, if and only if people sufficiently appreciated what saying that does not mean. Let me just offer a precis of what I think the statement involves. If you say "the Gospel changes" you have an enormously ambiguous statement, but it's grammatical structure implies at least two things that set that statement apart from certain other statements that some might wrongly think are entailed by it.

If "the Gospel" changes, there is a single, self-same, unitary subject that in some ways maintains its identity, its self-sameness, while also not remaining static. There is thus no question here of there being multiple Gospels, one for x and another for y, which is what some might think such a statement entails - but, again, they would be quite wrong. It's helpful to see an analagous statement: "Charlie changes." Of course Charlie changes: it's the nature of human beings, which are biological organisms (among other things) and subject to history, that they do so. But Charlie is still Charlie. A lot of the same difficulties that arise in making sense of statements like "the Gospel changes" arise in the philosophy of personal identity (e.g. see Parfit's book on Persons), viz. how you account for identity through change. But the point is everyone knows humans change and that they also, in some very important sense, remain the same. The issue with the Gospel is similar (although I have not even touched what we mean by the Gospel; I'm just drawing attention to the grammar of the statement); there are differences, too, but the grammatical problems are the same.

With respect to the Fathers, I'm one of those (who historically are the mainstream, incidentally) who don't see the history of the early church as "accidental," and thus the Fathers in particular play an essential role in our being where we are and in constituting Christian identity. Jaroslav Pelikan spent his life combating the idea that we could "skip" the people who formulated our most fundamental doctrines by just snatching the formulae and saying, "yep, they are Scriptural but never mind Athanasisu and Gregory...." I agree with Pelikan.

Finally, with respect to Tertullian "missing" anything, I repeat what I said: it's only just to speak of someone "missing x" if x, as the person who is making the judgment "He missed x" understands x, could be relevantly said to be available to the person. As I said, Tertullian was seen to have missed something, as were all of the Montanists, but that does not justify a statement like "Tertullian missed the Gospel." This is especially the case since many of the post facto heretic condemnations (e.g. of Origen) are seen now, in retrospect, to be unfair if understandable.

Your statements indicate that you don't understand the issue that I'm concerned about, which is fine. There is one can do about that except recognize it and move on.

From where I sit, statements like "I'm far more inclined to filter history through a theological grid than vice versa" don't make a lot of sense. Nor does not putting "stock in doctrinal development make sense" make sense to me, although I understand what you mean in saying these things. Historical consciousness is an achievement, like reading, that is irreversible by its nature; you can't not see certain things as intelligible after the transformation, although you also never stop seeing them as little black squiggly marks. So there is no issue of "believing in it" or "putting stock in it." One is either in a position in which one sees the problem to which doctrinal development is an attempted solution or one is not. If one is not, one will simply find the issue close to pointless, etc. and not put much stock in it. If one does understand the problems that it attempts to deal with there can be no question of putting stock in it: it is there, the only question is how to deal with it, make sense of it, etc.

Few people in American orthodox Protestant theology historically have seen these issues, which is one reason Nevin and Schaff, for example, are simply incomprehensible in a lot of their concerns to modern Presbyterians, including many of the scholars who write on them, who simply do not know or understand the thinkers (e.g. German romantics and Idealists) and problems (issues of historical consciouness, development, etc.) that they were concerned with. It's for this same reason - and this is something many Americans just don't understand - that many European theologians or "German" American liberal theologians simply don't engage with a lot of American theology; it plain to them that we don't get a lot of the background that frames the issues they attend to and the way in which they attend to them.

There is no way of frankly dealing with this kind of disagreement on these and analagous issues without sounding "elitist" or "esoteric" because, in fact, disagreement is not what is happening here. Charlie and I don't disagree because we're not attending to the same thing. Unlike some of the people on whom I work (e.g. FIchte), I don't think the issue is ultimately one of elitism or esotericism, where only a few people, in principle, understand what's going on. I think, in principle, practically anyone can understand them but in practice there is 1) no way of ensuring this happens to a person and 2) there is no direct way of communicating the issue, because the issue is not about something or other, it's about a kind of consciousness that characterizes one's identity and thus one's relation to the world.

As Burke, in the book I mentioned, shows, even understanding "anachronism" is a major achievement of consciousness that was not part of Medieval theology, just as i don't think it's part of many people's understanding today.

I don't see any of this is horrible or meaning we collectively can't do good and valuable work; we can, have, and continue to do so. We just don't do a certain kind of work very well and thus we don't really engage with a lot of issues that others regard as fundamental.

Larry,

I won't engage those questions and don't feel a need to explain why beyond my last post, as well as for time reasons. Still, here are two other reasons, neither of which I'm going defend - I'm just stating them.

1. I don't know what you think you mean by those questions, but to me the are questions of the scale on which you need to read hundreds of books to understand in any profound way what is at issue and in response to which a monograph study, in terms of depth and coverage, is the only appropriate answer. That is why I only touched on the grammar of the statement "the Gospel changes," which grammar itself, as I alluded to, has received an enormous amount of highly technical and complex treatment - and it's also why I said I would say the Gospel changes "if and only if..." - which you seemed to ignore. My entire discussion of the issue was hypothetical, and your question assumes the very proposition that I said I would not affirm except under certain strict conditions that don't here obtain.

2. 'In light of that, I reject the way you formulate the questions, especially the first. It indicates that we are nowhere close to being on the same page (e.g. you didn't even attend carefully to what I wrote), which is one reason answering them would require so much effort. More than half the effort would need to be spent on understanding what is being asked. In fact, that kind of question is the kind of question that is appropriate at the end of a chapter, or even a book, length exposition that frames and gives a determinate sense to what the question is doing.

This happens frequently on SI, so I"m not surprised by it nor do I feel badly about it: not everything can be meaningfully and constructively discussed on a forum, and it's imprudent not to signal when one thinks such an issue is arising.

I've already spent a good bit of my time already thinking and writing about these issues and wondering how, pedagogically, I'm going to communicate them to students. Suffice it to say that I seriously doubt whether any one-semester course would have a high probabilty of bringing about the desired outcome, viz. a certain quality of understanding, even if at a very inchoate level. I hope that maybe at the end of a sequence of courses some students might come to appreciate some of these problems. That is the kind of scale on which I see this issue, so it's simply ridiculous for me to pretend we're going to have a meaningful discussion about it on a forum.

Regarding SI not being the place, Ok, whatever, I don't know what to say about that. It's just a conversation.

Joseph, that was somewhat helpful. Larry's asked, "How has the gospel changed?"
My "better put" was an attempt to be generous. I think it worked. Knowing that the "gospel" is good news, "news" has two aspects: information and communication. Could we agree that the "good information" has not changed ever? Meaning that salvation has always been bought by Jesus in his death and resurrection and provided to mankind by grace through faith, etc.

The consequence (which I think you're trying to point out) would be that people like Abraham and Tertullian may not have been given the grace to have all of the gospel-information communicated to them. But they may still be said to have heard and understood the good news as it was revealed to them.

I think that breaks down when people assert things that contradict the gospel. Tertullian might be said to do that in some ways.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Regarding church history "non-accidental" and "essential" do not ensure correctness - or even saving grace (not that I'm saying Tert wasn't a believer).

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Charlie, yes, I know Tertullian may not have been a professional lawyer. But still, I thought he used legal language at least to an extent that suggests legal knowledge and maybe a bent in disposition, no?

As for the last paragraph, more later, I guess. It was confusing.

It is refreshing to follow a theological discussion on this blog that is about something other than fundamentalism. Without taking time to interact with anything else, I would like to affirm what Ed argued. I have read him say this before, and have to agree with him. We need to pay careful attention to our Scriptural foundation and the Jewish roots of our faith. Any time Christians get away from these two, they inevitably err. By the time Tertullian wrote his treatises, most of Christianity was far distanced from Judaism, and Christians had quit evangelizing Jews. In fact, they usually viewed Jews as cast-offs and thus incorporated the Old Testament promises and Old Testament priesthood strictly into the Church. No wonder the Jews stopped listening to the Gospel, and no wonder that great thinkers like Tertullian, for all their positive contributions, erred on this particular point.

Keep it up, Ed.

Aaron,

I'm afraid that don't know what you are talking about, quite literally. You say "this subject" as if that is clear. If you mean specifically Larry's question that I refused to answer, then I think you are patently and profoundly wrong about such a question being profitably engaged on a blog, but I wouldn't try to argue you out of such a position. By I don't know what you mean, so I can't disagree with you much less argue.

When I offer an evaluation of a subject with respect to the conditions under which it can be profitably engaged, I am either right or wrong. So, you suggesting I'm wrong. That's fine; I think I'm right. I also think I'm justified because 1) I know something about the subject and 2) that knowledge has led me to appreciate the subject as having a certain depth, complexity, etc. that makes engaging it in certain ways difficult it not impossible. Online engagement with people in a non-educational context with no background knowledge required or assumable seems a patently inapt forum in which to undertake certain activities, like those that assume an educational context andsubstantial background knowledge, for example.

Finally, since I don't know what "this subject" is, I can't take responsibility for having brought it up. I can respond to the general structure of your comment, though, even if I'm unsure (as I am) about the context.

There is a distinction --one among many-- that can and should be made between a topic and the aspects under which it is studied or discussed. One can bring up the issue of anachronism, for example, which is a relatively straightforward thing, and is something about which anyone who studies much less writes history should be aware. Anachronism may raise other issues, like the identity of a subject through developments in time. This topic could be used to illustrate a difficulty that relates to history, writing about history, etc. Someone might then want to shift the discussion to a conversation about a highly complex subject, say the Gospel, and how we make sense of that subject maintaing identity through historical development. Well, that's a very interesting turn in the conversation, but not one that I think is viable or profitable to pursue because it assumes extensive background knowledge and a kind of depth of treatment that this context does not provide.

That conversations evolve to new and relate dand more complex topics seems natural; I'm an advocate for knowing when that is happening and preventing it from going beyond what is profitable. That what I take myself to have done on this thread and others. It should be obvious that I don't think the preceding activity and series of events can be truly or fairly described as "Joseph bring up a topic only to say we can't talk about it."

Larry,

Given that I'm a student with papers to write and finals to take, I imagine you can understand that, as I indicated, my own time is also a concern here. So, I'll think about some of your points, maybe send you a message, etc. and figure what I can profitably spend me time on and what I can say in that time. So, I'll get back to you with respect to your request for some kind of summary/introduction.

I do think, however, you are unrealistic. Take an a single introductory lecture for a class - if you typed it out in manuscript (which I do anytime I speak in such a context), you're looking at something between 15-30 double spaced pages for a single, intro. lecture to a topic - that goes well beyond even a "long" post on a forum. That's the length of a term paper. If people want an introduction, I suggest, among others things, reading Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua and then his Essay on the Development of Doctrine. There also a lot of short intros to Newman and this topic, including books (quite short, if I recall) by Peter Toon, Jaroslav Pelikan, Nicholas Lash (thers latter two assume some familiarity with the issue) and a general intro. to Newman by Avery Dulles, in the Great Christian Thinkers series. The Dulles book would be my top recommendation for a single, short book on Newman.

An excellent essay that also gets at related but strictly philosophical issues is by Frederick Beiser, called "Historicism" in The Oxford Handbook of Continental Philosophy, ed. Brian Leiter (Oxford UP: 2007). One's library should have this or be able to get it.

As to my orthodoxy, if "lots of people" question that their not questioning that so much as my integrity, which I don't appreciate. Such people can send me a message, which is I think the biblical response - not, apparently, to talk about their suspicions with other people when they have not bothered to contact me- if they think I am lying in my committment to SI's doctrinal statement, since that is an implication of suspicions about my orthdoxy, viz. that I'm dishonest with respect to the posting standards of SI.

I'm also not sure about some of the things you're asking me (e.g. I don't get the grammar thing you mentioned). I'll send you some more information via a pm to clarify this.