ץ More on Christianity, Judaism, and the Closest Continuer; The Eastern
Orthodox Timeline, The 39 Articles, and the Westminster Confession. I still
haven't dipped into my Nozick, but I got thoughtful comments on my January 11 post from Tim and
Jim. Tim said something like this
(I've smoothed it a bit
stylistically):
You cite Nozick's closest continuer account of personal identity. On such an account,
identity over time is constituted by psychological continuity and connectedness.
Psychological continuity is a function of having similar (basic) psychological
attributes, memories, and so on over short temporal intervals. It is consistent with
lots of psychological change in the long run, but fails if there is too much change, too
quickly. If a neurosurgeon messes with your circuitry too radically, fundamentally
altering your personality, *you* would cease existing, though your body would continue
to exist and would now house a new person with a lot of false memories. The
'connectedness' bit just requires that the relative sameness moment to moment be a
result of an internal causal process. Thus, if your body were destroyed and a duplicate
were by chance instantaneously to be brought about in its place, including sameness of
psychology, it would be a mere duplicate, and you would have perished.
How about if, instead, *God* were to destroy your body and replace it with another,
*intending* that it be you? Opinions here differ. Some see in this the makings of an
account of the resurrection of the dead!
The 'closest' element of the label comes from what happens in a science fiction
scenario in which there are multiple 'candidates' for being a continuer of you. The
one who is most like the earlier stage counts as you. The odd (absurd?) consequence of
this is that if there are two or more tied candidates, then you die! They can't be all
be you, since one thing cannot be identical with many things which are non-identical,
owing to the transitivity of identity.
Tim also notes two problems in applying the closest continuer idea to a
religion. 1. The facts are controversial. 2. What is "close" is controversial.
1. The facts are controversial. Christians say that Jesus came with a new
divine revelation, but Jews
disagree. Thus, even if both of them agree that true Judaism consists in following all
of God's revelations but not falsely thinking something is revealed by God, the two
groups will disagree as to who is the true heir of David by this criterion.
2. What is "close" is controversial. Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics,
and perhaps the Eastern Orthodox,
attach great importance to the Apostolic Succession, whereas most Protestants do not,
but do attach great importance to sound doctrine. Both a Roman Catholic and a Baptist
might agree that Pastor X denies the Resurrection, whereas Pastor Y believes in it;
but also that Pastor X was properly ordained by five Roman Catholic bishops and not
since unfrocked, whereas Pastor Y was merely elected as pastor by a particular
congregation. The Roman Catholic would say that Pastor X, while an evil man, is
nonetheless the true heir of St. Peter while Pastor Y is not; the Baptist would say the
reverse. This does not apply directly to the Church, perhaps, because the Roman
Catholics would claim, I think, that it is impossible for the entire hierarchy to become
heretical.
Correspondent Jim noted the relevance of Matthew 5:17-18
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am
not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
and Thessalonians 2:15
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the
traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our
epistle."
A good example of different points of view is the Eastern Orthodox timeline Jim
pointed me to
that shows the Roman Catholics branching off in the 11th century. Conservative
Anglicans might have a similar chart with the Romans branching off in the 16th century.
Some Puritans would have the Romans branching off in the 1st century.
The Anglican
39 Articles says (this Www.orange-street-church.org site has links to the
Homilies too, which are a
sort of Appendix to the 39 Articles),
6. Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation
Holy Scriptures containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is
not
read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it
should be believed as an of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to
salvation. In the name of Holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the
Old and New testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
19. Of the Church
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure
word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's
ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the
Church
of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred,
not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.
21. Of the authority of General Councils
General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of
princes. And when they be gathered together, forasmuch as they be an assembly of
men,
whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and word of God, they may err and sometime
have erred, even in things pertaining to God. Wherefore things ordained by them as
necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be
declared
that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.
In this view, tradition is unnecessary, if perhaps helpful, and the original Churches
have
fallen into serious error. Gatherings of even the undoubted leaders of the Church
can make mistakes and have made mistakes, and their statements certainly are not to be
taken on authority if they have no basis in the Bible.
The Presbyterian
Westminster Confession takes the same view.
III. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord
was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely
offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him,
that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto
life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
...
V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the
time of
the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices,
circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people
of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and
efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the
elect in
faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal
salvation, and is called the Old Testament.
VI. Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in
which
this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the
sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; which, though fewer in number, and
administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth
in more fulness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and
Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not, therefore, two covenants of
grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.
[Chapter 7]
...
I. The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in
their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral
law; and in their being delivered from thos present evil world, bondage to Satan, and
dominion of sin, from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the
grave, and everlasting damnation; as also in their free access to God, and their
yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a childlike love, and a
willing mind. All which were common also to believers under the law; but under the
New
Testament the liberty of Christians is further enlarged in their freedom from the yoke
of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected; and in greater
boldness
of access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of
God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of. [Chapter 20]
...
IV. This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less, visible. And
particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the
doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public
worship performed more or less purely in them.
V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error: and some
have
so degenerated as to become apparently no Churches of Christ. Nevertheless, there
shall
be always a Church on earth, to worship God according to his will. [Chapter 25]
The Westminster Confession, being more oriented towards theology and less to practice,
discusses the relationship to ancient Judaism more than the 39 Articles do. Thus, it
emphasizes the continuity of Christians with Jews in both directions--- that
Christians are the heirs of ancient Judaism, and ancient Jews get the benefit of Christ.
It also implies that modern Jews are deviant--- they deny Christ, now that the details
are known, in contrast (it is claimed) to the ancient Jewish acceptance of a coming
Christ (without knowing exactly what this coming would be like).
All of the above is about the religious debate over what group is the closest
successor to the ancient Jews. A less important question, but one easier to tackle, is
the purely secular version of the question. Suppose we assume that the Bible and
Talmud are both purely human documents; that the Talmud is not really a codification of
traditions going back to Mt. Sinai; that Christian traditions do not date to the 1st
century, but to whenever an atheist historian would guess at their origin, and so forth.
What then? The question is still open. Modern Reform Jews are highly dissimilar to the
Jews of the Temple; are modern Baptists closer, or further?
But again I've run out of time.
[
http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/04.01.18a.htm . erasmusen@yahoo.com. ]
To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click
http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/0.rasmusen.htm.