[This article was first written on March 5, 2026, but I added an update below the main body of the article on March 7, 2026, in response to Andrew’s reply to it, as well as a second update below the first update — this one on March 14, 2026 — in response to Andrew’s reply to that update. Please note that I’ve also now changed the title of this article from “Some thoughts on Catholic and Orthodox views of Scripture” to its current title, and also that there will be some asides in the article and its follow-ups that aren’t necessarily 100% related to the main point, but were included as a response to certain points Andrew made that I thought needed a reply to.]
The reason I’m a “Concordant” believer rather than Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox (or even actually a Christian at all) is really quite simple, although if you want the full scriptural proof of my reason, it will require some homework on your part, as you’ll soon learn. In order to explain why I haven’t been able to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, I’m going to discuss a recent article by a former “Concordant” believer who goes by the name of Andrew P. (and who, although no longer “Concordant,” is still a member of the body of Christ in my view, since he did believe Paul’s Gospel at one time, and very well might still) where he explained his current view on Scripture since converting to Eastern Orthodoxy himself (although what I’m going to say in response to his article applies equally to Roman Catholicism).
Now, at first glance, a lot of what he wrote in his article that I linked to there sounds mostly logical, and while I’m not going to discuss everything he wrote, I wanted to give a quick explanation of why I can’t come to the same conclusions he did.
To put it simply, if the Bible actually contradicts itself at all in its actual meaning (not referring to types of “contradictions” that can be resolved by understanding the difference between the two Gospels, of course), we can’t trust any of it to be true since we can’t know which parts are true and which aren’t. And if the Bible as a whole is true, there’s no way that the majority of the Christian (especially Orthodox and Catholic) doctrines can be true, as I believe my own eBook proves quite definitively (which is why I do think Andrew should re-read the whole book carefully). And if someone is going to say that we need to interpret the Bible based on the interpretations of the Catholic magisterium (or whatever the Orthodox equivalent of that is), since taking the context of the Bible as a whole into consideration completely contradicts their supposed interpretations — which I would argue aren’t actually interpretations at all, but are really just eisegesis, since there’s no actual way to get pretty much any of their doctrines out of the Bible if we’re assuming the Bible is inerrant, which means they have to be reading their doctrines into it instead — they might as well just throw the Bible out altogether and simply say their doctrines are simply based on some supposed apostolic chain of tradition (which is basically what they’re claiming anyway), because they have absolutely zero scriptural authority to base their doctrines on (which they don’t need anyway, as they claim to be the authority), especially since Scripture is really not only just superfluous to their authority and doctrines, but is actually a hindrance to them when it’s taken seriously.
To put it simply, they can’t refer us to Scripture as a basis for their authority (or, really, for any of their doctrines), since if Scripture is true, then Scripture as a whole contradicts basically everything they teach, and if Scripture as a whole isn’t true, we can’t trust any of it, and we then would have no reason to believe the parts they’re “interpreting” as the basis of their authority and doctrines are even true to begin with. So as logical as their bibliological — and even their epistemological — claims might seem to be at first glance, these claims have irreconcilable problems, at least as far as I can tell.
[The below was added on March 7, 2026.]
After reading the above article, as well as some replies to his article from other members of the body of Christ on the Concordant Believers Discord where this discussion actually all began, Andrew wrote a response in a follow-up article on his own website. I’m not going to reply to the parts where he responded to the others, but I did want to give my reply to what he said in response to the article I originally wrote above, and I figured it made sense to have it all on one page, so here it is (the parts of Andrew’s response I’m replying to will be in paragraphs of bold type):
Drew presents us with a dilemma: either the Bible contradicts itself, or it doesn’t and “the Bible as a whole is true”. If the Bible contradicts itself, then there is no standard to tell us which parts are true and which aren’t, and any faith which claims to be based on Scripture (such as Catholicism and Orthodoxy) is baseless. If the Bible doesn’t contradict itself, then it does contradict orthodox Christian belief (such as the Trinity and Incarnation) and supports Concordant doctrine instead.
And this still remains true, as I believe I proved in my eBook. Even if you think you don’t have the time, I’d challenge you to go through the most recent edition of my eBook and answer all the questions I asked throughout it, because I believe it does definitively prove that the Bible teaches “Concordant” theology when the context of Scripture as a whole is taken into consideration.
I believe that the view outlined in my post is able to thread the horns of this dilemma. First, it’s clear that apart from any framework of unity and inspiration laid upon the texts, the Scriptures do contain contradictions. This is the value of historical criticism: it allows us to view the texts as texts in themselves, apart from our frameworks of belief. Historical criticism shows us that the texts, considered merely as such, do have contradictions between themselves — and not just minor ones, like the number of fighting men in Israel (2 Sam 24:9; 1 Chron 21:5), but major developments, such as between polytheism and monotheism in ancient Israelite religion.
As far as apparent contradictions in the Bible go when we read it as an inerrant whole, there have been lots of books and articles written over the years providing potential resolutions to basically all of them, and as long as we have even one possible resolution to any seeming contradiction that doesn’t contradict any other parts of Scripture in doing so, that’s enough to prove that the Bible at least probably doesn’t actually contradict itself (in its original languages in the original manuscripts, anyway). And since, again, if the Bible does have any actual contradictions, it can’t be the word of God or the authoritative basis of any theological claims, which once again means that nothing in it can be used to defend the authority of any of the so-called “orthodox” denominations of the Christian religion, and which again means that the authority of any of these denominations can only be assumed, with no foundational basis outside of that assumption itself. (And yes, I fully recognize that we’re making assumptions in our epistemology and bibliology too, but at the end of the day, all theology is going to be based on at least some assumptions, and I believe ours seem a lot more probable, especially in light of the — admittedly anecdotal — evidence that I discussed in my Why I have reassurance that we believe the truth article.)
However, I do not concede that there are contradictions within the Scriptures. When we consider the texts not merely as texts, but as Scripture, we’re already imposing a unifying framework upon them. Drew does this in his response (probably unconsciously) when he refers to “the Bible as a whole”. This unifying framework cannot come from within Scripture itself, but must be imposed from outside. As Drew hints at in his post, the framework which one chooses tells us, not so much “which parts are true and which aren’t”, but which parts are central and which are peripheral. For example, should the Hebrew Bible texts which (in their original context and considered in themselves) support polytheism be made central and be used to interpret the texts which support monotheism, or vice versa?
The Bible does teach polytheism (or rather a form of henotheism, if I’m remembering the correct term) all the way through, so that’s not a contradiction, and doesn’t really cause any problems for my points anyway.
This issue is precisely what I was talking about in my original post when I argued for the need for a “canon of truth,” the term that the early Church used to refer to its unifying framework.
The problem is, we need a basis for trusting this “church” you’re referring to (aka the Christian “church” in some form, which I don’t consider to be the church called the body of Christ, or even the church called the Israel of God, since its doctrines contradict both of these churches’ doctrines as taught in the Bible when it’s read consistently all the way through as the inerrant word of God) before we can trust that its so-called “canon of truth” is actually true, and if your claims about the Bible (that it does have errors in the form of contradictions in it when read consistently as an inerrant whole) are true, we can’t use the Bible as a basis for this “church’s” authority anyway, so all we can do is take their word for it that they’re an authoritative church created by God, and I see no reason whatsoever to believe their claim that it is has any truth to it at all (especially since I’ve seen the fruit of the Christian religion; as I’ve said to you on our Discord before, it’s one of the two darkest and most evil religions I’m aware of — at least as far as religions that are still being practiced go, although it’s quite possible there are other religions currently being practiced that I’m not as aware of which are just as evil — with the bottom line being that its fruit is so evil that, apart from some sort of biblical explanation for their apparent evil — and we’ve already determined that the Bible can’t be trusted if you’re correct about what you said regarding the Bible, so it can’t be used to excuse this religion’s evil — I can’t see it being connected with the actual God at all, unless God actually is as evil as certain Gnostics claim He is).
Finally, Drew seems to assume in his argument that if the Bible were irreconcilably contradictory, there would be no basis for Christian faith. This isn’t correct. As Irenaeus pointed out in the 2nd century, even the regions of the Church which had no Scripture (because they were illiterate) shared the same faith. This is because the foundation of Christian faith is not a text or collection of texts, but the person of the crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ, faith in whom has been passed down by his apostles and their successors, as it would have been even if they left no writings at all (Adv Haer 3.4.1-2). ”
Christ’s death for our sins, burial, and resurrection on the third day is the basis of our faith that everyone will be saved, but it isn’t the entire foundation of our faith as members of the (actual) body of Christ, since there are many other doctrines we believe as well on top of that doctrine — doctrines we only know because they’re found in the Bible. All Irenaeus demonstrated there is that local Christian “churches” which did not have Scripture back then believed Jesus existed, died, and rose again, but that doesn’t prove any other doctrines they believed were true — or that any “orthodox” Christian teachings which contradict the “Concordant” interpretations of Scripture were what Jesus and any of the writers of the books of the Bible were actually teaching either, for that matter — so it doesn’t actually refute my points at all.
Bottom line, I believe that the points I made in that original article still stand, and that you haven’t actually given us any reasons to trust that the leaders (referring to the supposed theological “authorities”) of the Christian religion are correct in any way (and considering what we know about Christians and Christianity, one would need to provide a lot of proof to get most of us who have left Christianity behind to even consider giving its leaders or their theology any benefit of the doubt). And since anyone with any basic reading comprehension abilities who reads (or re-reads) my eBook carefully and who hasn’t been blinded by the god of this world can see that there’s no refuting it (as is a fact that I believe you yourself would have once agreed with me on — and, honestly, I suspect that you probably still do somewhere deep down, but have only convinced yourself to forget or ignore this fact), I can’t change my mind about “Concordant” theology without someone writing out a refutation of the entire book, which is something I don’t see ever happening (and not only because of its length, but also because I truly don’t believe it’s possible, since I sincerely believe that anyone who was being honest with themselves while reading it would eventually have to admit that it can’t be refuted and that there’s just no way to exegete “orthodox” Christian doctrine out of the Bible, but rather that said doctrine can only be eisegeted into it). This is why you really need to re-read it — as a refresher of what you once knew to be true, and also as a refresher of the only faith that truly sets one free (at least today) rather than ensnaring one in the yoke of religious bondage all over again.
[The below was added on March 14, 2026.]
Partly in response to my above reply to his first article (and partly in response to what a couple others wrote to him about it as well), Andrew wrote what he said would be his final response to the “Concordant” believers who disagreed with him on his first two articles on this topic. I’m not going to quote it this time — although you can read it for yourself — because it didn’t really answer my primary objection, which is that we still have zero basis for believing that the Christian “church” in any of its forms is the same church that Paul referred to as the body of Christ (or even the church that Paul referred to as the Israel of God) in the Bible, be it the Eastern Orthodox denomination, the Roman Catholic denomination, or even any of the Protestant spin-off denominations (and no, we’re not one of those Protestant spin-off denominations, because we aren’t Christians to begin with like they are, as I think nearly all Christians would agree).
At the end of the day, the common denominator is that we all believe the 66 books which “Concordant” believers refer to as the Bible are the word of God, but even if I looked at those books the same way Andrew does, I believe I still wouldn’t be able to point to anything in them which even hints that any version of Christianity today (or even any specific church — local or otherwise — which was referred to as “Christian” in the first century after Paul’s death and which believed differently from what we “Concordant” believers do) has any connection whatsoever with the church called the body of Christ in the Bible, and he definitely didn’t provide any evidence from outside of the Bible to believe Christianity is not the false, counterfeit religion it so clearly appears to be (at least to me and most other members of what I believe to be the true body of Christ) either.
Simply put, the only thing Andrew really proved is that the Eastern Orthodox denomination believed (and believes) that the 66 books we now call the Bible are the word of God. And since there’s nothing I‘ve ever seen in any of these 66 books that proves any version of Christianity is true or has any spiritual authority, not to mention since my eBook seems to prove that nearly all Christian doctrines (Eastern Orthodox or otherwise) basically contradict the entire Bible (and I maintain that my eBook does seem to prove that, particularly since literally nobody has been able to demonstrate otherwise thus far — and a number of people have tried), I have to stick with what I see in the Bible until someone can show me how our scriptural interpretations as I laid them out in my eBook are incorrect, which I still don’t believe is possible, at least based on past experience, especially since — even if their interpretations didn’t so clearly seem to be eisegesis to me — I still haven’t been given any reason to believe that the methods of scriptural interpretation which the Eastern Orthodox denomination use to interpret those 66 books are the correct methods of interpretation anyway (and that’s aside from the fact that I’ve also been given no reason to believe they’re a part of the body of Christ to begin with, or that their minds haven’t been blinded by the god of this world as I believe to be the case as well). And that goes for the Roman Catholic denomination, as well as any Protestant denominations too, I should add.
Of course, in response to this, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians alike will claim that their “church” (really their respective denominations) is the only one capable of properly interpreting Scripture. But as I already pointed out, anyone with any basic reading comprehension abilities at all (and who hasn’t had their minds blinded) who compares what I wrote in my eBook to the official “orthodox” doctrines of these two denominations can see that this simply isn’t true (and this is aside from the fact that there’s no scriptural basis for their claim anyway, so the supposed authority behind this claim is nothing more than the fact that the leaders of these two denominations simply want us to take their word for it that it’s true).
So one last time, I have to ask Andrew one more time to please re-read my eBook and try to answer the questions in it — even if just to himself — as well as to try to resolve the contradictions and absurdities which I demonstrated in the eBook do arise in the Bible when we try to interpret it the way most Christians do. And I should say, this request goes equally for any Christian (be they Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Protestant) who might be reading this. Especially if they want us to change our minds and convert to their version of Christianity, since the only way to get us to do so would be to actually refute the scriptural interpretations and arguments made in that book (and also to show us some actual, definitive proof of the authority of their specific Christian denomination if they want us to become Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic).
[The below was added on March 17, 2026.]
Now that you’ve read the above article and responses I gave to Andrew, I’d also recommend reading Aaron Welch’s response to Andrew’s reply to him as well, in this article, since he did a great job of deconstructing the idea that the Eastern Orthodox denomination had anything to do with creating the biblical canon (and what he wrote applies equally to the Roman Catholic denomination as well). In fact, I’d recommend reading all the articles on his website, as he’s done some excellent work exegeting Scripture over the years.