Ecumenical Church Councils

Alan Asquith said:

Hi,

I am currently trying to understand more about how the church evolved in the first few centuries, and especially the interactions between scripture, tradition, and ecclesiastical authority.

Some people say that the Ecumenical Church Councils consisted of godly men who debated the various issues in a free and open way (albeit lively and passionately), and they reached a consensus of opinion after prayerful consideration and respectful exchange of views. Thus we can trust that the Holy Spirit led the councils to the right conclusions which are therefore binding on the church today.

But I have heard others say that these councils were characterized by behind-the-scenes arm-twisting and political intrigue, and that the decisions reached were determined by human manipulation rather than listening to the voice of God.

I've tried to check the historical records but I don't have access to anything except what's on the internet (which is hardly a reliable source!)

I would be very grateful if any of you have any knowledge or insight in to what really went on at these councils, and consequently how do you think God was at work through the councils to shape the church's development? Thank you very much.

Click to expand...

Hi if you read the constitution and the applicable ways it was interpreted in the 1st 20 years of America being a nation you will see that today a great many variances from the way they understood it. The scriptures do not change but interpretations over time do. The scriptures are full of warnings about departing from sound doctrine. There are even warnings about doctrines of demons coming into the church. If you read the letters to the 7 churches in Revelation it is clear that already in the 1st century false teachings, practices and morality were present in the church. The scriptures themselves are the same and the closer we look at those and give them authority we will find at least some basis for claiming authority over doctrine as coming from God. Evey issue is thus a debate even with scripture being the focal point. For instance I do not believe in transubstantiation. Others look and see the scripture that says Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. I look at the same passage and see the subject is belief in Christ. After making this statement many went away.
60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe. The words are spirit... The flesh was given on the cross for the sins of the world. I read in John of the wedding of Cana and the head master knew that the water was wine in fact he said you have saved the good wine for last. When I was Catholic and had communion I can tell you the wine was still wine after consecration. John had a thesis statement in Chapter 20. 30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. The whole of John 6 is written towards this thesis of believing for eternal life.
This kind of debate can be held on every issue that a counsel has made a doctrine. For instance transubstantiation was not made a doctrine until 1215. This issue is a key one as the counsel of Trent in 1545 declared a bunch of anathema's that is cursed be those who hold these positions.

1. f any one shall deny that the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; and shall say that He is only in it as a sign, or in a figure, or virtually – let him be accursed (Canon 1).
   
   
2. If any one shall say that the substance of the bread and wine remains in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the outward forms of the bread and wine still remaining, which conversion the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation – let him be accursed (Canon 2).
   
   
3. If any man shall say that Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, even with the open worship of latria, and therefore not to be venerated with any peculiar festal celebrity, nor to be solemnly carried about in processions according to the praiseworthy, and universal rites and customs of the holy Church, and that he is not to be publicly set before the people to be adored, and that his adorers are idolaters – let him be accursed (Canon 6).
   This is why many Christians are at odds with Roman Catholics because you are relegating us to hell based on our rejection of Roman communion doctrine and yet we uphold John 20's call to believe in Christ and have life in His name. I think John 20 has a higher authority than the counsel of Trent.

From the Forum Rules:

"...if you are not a member of this faith group, you may not debate issues or teach against it's theology. You may post in fellowship. Active promotion of views contrary to the established teachings of this group will be considered off topic."

“Leo, the Roman pontiff, does not hesitate to charge the Council of Chalcedon (which he admits to be orthodox in doctrines) with ambition and unadvised rashness. Indeed, he does not deny that it is legitimate, but he openly declares that it may have erred. Perhaps someone will think me foolish because I labor to show such errors, since our opponents admit that councils can err in those matters which are not necessary to salvation. But this is no superfluous labor! For even though, being compelled, they confess it by mouth, still, when they thrust upon us the decision of every council, on whatever matter, indiscriminately as an oracle of the Holy Spirit, they require more than they had originally assumed. In doing this, what do they affirm but that councils cannot err; or if they err, it is not lawful for us to discern the truth, or not to assent to their errors?” – Institutes 4.9.11

CHAPTER 9.
575

576 But there must be some limitation, there must be nothing derogatory to Christ. Moreover, it is the right of Christ to preside over all councils, and not share the honour with any man. Now, I hold that he presides only when he governs the whole assembly by his word and Spirit. Secondly, in attributing less to councils than my opponents demand, it is not because I have any fear that councils are favourable to their cause and adverse to ours. For as we are amply provided by the word of the Lord with the means of proving our doctrine and overthrowing the whole Papacy, and thus have no great need of other aid, so, if the case required it, ancient councils furnish us in a great measure with what might be sufficient for both purposes.

Deut. 4:2Rev. 22:18Mal. 2:7Isa. 56:10, 11Hosea 9:8Jer. 6:13Ezek. 22:25, 262 Peter 2:1Matt. 24:11, 242 Thess. 2:4Acts 20:29, 30577 All I advise is, to exercise discrimination, and not suppose, as a matter of course, that all who call themselves pastors are so in reality. But the Pope, with the whole crew of his bishops, for no other reason but because they are called pastors, shake off obedience to the word of God, invert all things, and turn them hither and thither at their pleasure; meanwhile, they insist that they cannot be destitute of the light of truth, that the Spirit of God perpetually resides in them, that the Church subsists in them, and dies with them, as if the Lord did not still inflict his judgments, and in the present day punish the world for its wickedness, in the same way in which he punished the ingratitude of the ancient people—namely, by smiting pastors with astonishment and blindness (Zech. 12:4Jer. 18:18Jer. 4:9Ezek. 7:26Micah 3:61 Kings 22:6, 22John 11:472 Thess. 2:3Heb. 13:17Josh. 1:7, 8Jer. 23:16Mt. 7:151 John 4:1Gal. 1:8Mt. 15:14Mt. 26:261 Tim. 4:1, 3Heb. 13:4575576577

63 563 French, “Toutesfois je ne veux point que ces propos soyent entendus comme si je vouloye amoindrir l’authorité des pasteurs, et induire le peuple à la mepriser legerement.”—However, I would not have these statements to be understood as if I wished to lessen the authority of pastors, and induce the people lightly to despise it.

Alan Asquith said:

Hi,

I am currently trying to understand more about how the church evolved in the first few centuries, and especially the interactions between scripture, tradition, and ecclesiastical authority.

Some people say that the Ecumenical Church Councils consisted of godly men who debated the various issues in a free and open way (albeit lively and passionately), and they reached a consensus of opinion after prayerful consideration and respectful exchange of views. Thus we can trust that the Holy Spirit led the councils to the right conclusions which are therefore binding on the church today.

But I have heard others say that these councils were characterized by behind-the-scenes arm-twisting and political intrigue, and that the decisions reached were determined by human manipulation rather than listening to the voice of God.

I've tried to check the historical records but I don't have access to anything except what's on the internet (which is hardly a reliable source!)

I would be very grateful if any of you have any knowledge or insight in to what really went on at these councils, and consequently how do you think God was at work through the councils to shape the church's development? Thank you very much.

Click to expand...

Here is an example of how the State used the Church Councils to force unbiblical, unchristian doctrines upon us.

the Controversy Over Images

MARCH 5, 2013 ~ JM ~ EDIT"THE CONTROVERSY OVER IMAGES"


The other day while discussing church history with a friend and fellow believer I was reminded of the Iconoclast Controversy or the Controversy Over Images that took place between 680 and 850ad. For almost 200 years the Greek State church argued over the use of images, specifically Icons and their purpose in the church…if they had any purpose at all. Many Western Christians are not familiar with this debate, at least not in detail, so I hope to give a very brief outline highlighting a few of the more interesting facts. Make no bones about it, I am unable to find any scriptural reason for the use of images, so the best I can try to do is be honest with the particulars as I have come to understand them. The debate took place between what modern historians call Iconoclasts and Iconophiles or those who rejected religious images often resulting in their destruction and those who believe religious images have a place in the Christian religion. This debate seemed bound to happen as the revelation of God in scripture came into contact with Greek culture and religion. The former rejects the use of images of the Divine and the latter wholeheartedly encourages images, statues and the like. Some Christians in both the East and West believed it was acceptable to create representations of Christ and the Trinity but there was also a group of Christians that denied any need for them. The Iconophiles believed icons were useful and even essential to worship while the Iconoclasts believed it was against the second commandment to do so. William R. Cannon points out, “A custom which primitive Christianity looked upon as idolatry was common practice in the eight century. Consequently what in ancient times had been an innovation was considered during this period as tradition.” (page 105) Diarmaid MacCulloch calls this rub of Hebrew and Greek culture the “fault line” for the old covenant forbids images of God in any sense while Greek paganism encouraged it. A similar debate can be found in the history of the Western church but it has not had the same impact on history as it had in the East. Some historians have suggested the numbering of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) might have contributed to the use of statues by Roman Catholics who, following Augustine of Hippo neatly tuck the First and Second Commandment into one and separated the Tenth into Nine and Ten. Lutherans use Augustine’s numbering of the Decalogue and take no issue with images either. I’m not sure if this really effects the views expressed by each group considering the Eastern Orthodox use the same numbering system as Judaism and Protestantism but it was mentioned a few times by different authors so I mention it here. When you take a closer look at the details of the “controversy” it soon becomes apparent that matters of theology were passed from the Byzantine Emperor to the Patriarch of Constantinople. If the verdict was contrary to the wishes of the Emperor it was likely the Patriarch would be replaced. This happened more than a few times over the course of Byzantine history. From my reading on the subject it seems Leo (III) the Isaurian, Byzantine Emperor (717 – 741), saw a growing devotion and power ascribed to religious images. He believed this was mere superstition and tried to rid the empire of religious iconography with a series of edicts (726 – 729) forbidding the use of images in worship. Leo the III was not immune to superstition. It seems likely that Leo, having fought Islamic armies, believed that removing of images might lead to military victories. Whatever the reason behind the Controversy and it was always a political issue.

(Hagia Eirene Church, Iconoclast. Notice the lack of adornment. Click on the image to enlarge.)



The Iconophiles found a champion in John of Damascus (645/676 – 749) who offered a polemic for the use of images. Cannon describes John as one of the few strong theologians of the 8th century, not in the same class as Augustine of Hippo, but without equal in the West for the time period. Using a philosophical framework of categories and causes borrowed from Aristotle John of Damascus argued the Second Commandment was abrogated by the Incarnation of Christ. “If one accepted this vocabulary and Aristotelian framework, then devotion to visual images in Christianity was safe.” (MacCulloch, page 448) The Greek church essentially changed the language which framed the debate over images from art to theology. Skipping ahead the matter came to close as Irene of Athens, former regent and now Empress after having her sons blinded and imprisoned, assumed the throne. She was in favour of Icons and had a layman who was also in favour of Icons consecrated Patriarch. Patriarch Tarasios, with help from the State, held what was deemed an “Ecumenical Conclave” in 787 or what is often called the Second Council of Nicaea which effectively restored the use of images in worship. Some further political proclamations against Icons were made but Empress Theodora (843) restored again the use of images in worship. This last proclamation of the State church “effectively closed down the possibility of alternative forms of worship in Orthodox tradition.” (McCulloch, page 452) It soon becomes apparent the debate was heated and very political. Icons and other images had a cult following that garnered the support of the State. Ultimately it wasn’t the Bible that settled the issue for the church but two Empresses backing the Iconophiles. The idea that you could reach God through images is foreign to scripture. God “calls us back and withdraws us from petty carnal observances, which our stupid minds, crassly conceiving of God, are wont to devise.” (Calvin) Some are quick to point to the Second Council of Nicaea as a historical point of reference but we cannot forget the polemics against the use of images that predate the Reformation such as the works of Claudius of Turin, the Council of Frankfurt and Libri Carolini. With the Reformers cry of “scripture alone” and “all of scripture” the debate was reopened in the West during the Reformation. John Calvin is masterful in the Institutes on this subject and I have quoted pertinent sections below for your further reading. He rightly calls Empress Irene “a wicked Proserpine named Irene” in his French edition.

Semper Reformanda,

jm

from Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1: 14.

Enough, I believe, would have been said on this subject, were I not in a manner arrested by the Council of Nice; not the celebrated Council which Constantine the Great assembled, but one which was held eight hundred years ago by the orders and under the auspices of the Empress Irene. This Council decreed not only that images were to be used in churches, but also that they were to be worshipped. Every thing, therefore, that I have said, is in danger of suffering great prejudice from the authority of this Synod. To confess the truth, however, I am not so much moved by this consideration, as by a wish to make my readers aware of the lengths to which the infatuation has been carried by those who had a greater fondness for images than became Christians. But let us first dispose of this matter. Those who defend the use of images appeal to that Synod for support. But there is a refutation extant which bears the name of Charlemagne, and which is proved by its style to be a production of that period. It gives the opinions delivered by the bishops who were present, and the arguments by which they supported them. John, deputy of the Eastern Churches, said, “God created man in his own image,” and thence inferred that images ought to be used. He also thought there was a recommendation of images in the following passage, “Show me thy face, for it is beautiful.” Another, in order to prove that images ought to be placed on altars, quoted the passage, “No man, when he has lighted a candle, putteth it under a bushel.” Another, to show the utility of looking at images, quoted a verse of the Psalms “The light of thy countenance, O Lord, has shone upon us.” Another laid hold of this similitude: As the Patriarchs used the sacrifices of the Gentiles, so ought Christians to use the images of saints instead of the idols of the Gentiles. They also twisted to the same effect the words, “Lord, I have loved the beauty of thy house.” But the most ingenious interpretation was the following, “As we have heard, so also have we seen;” therefore, God is known not merely by the hearing of the word, but also by the seeing of images. Bishop Theodore was equally acute: “God,” says he, “is to be admired in his saints;” and it is elsewhere said, “To the saints who are on earth;” therefore this must refer to images. In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them. 15. When they treat of adoration, great stress is laid on the worship of Pharaoh, the staff of Joseph, and the inscription which Jacob set up. In this last case they not only pervert the meaning of Scripture, but quote what is nowhere to be found. Then the passages, “Worship at his footstool”—“Worship in his holy mountain”—“The rulers of the people will worship before thy face,” seem to them very solid and apposite proofs. Were one, with the view of turning the defenders of images into ridicule, to put words into their mouths, could they be made to utter greater and grosser absurdities? But to put an end to all doubt on the subject of images, Theodosius Bishop of Mira confirms the propriety of worshipping them by the dreams of his archdeacon, which he adduces with as much gravity as if he were in possession of a response from heaven. Let the patrons of images now go and urge us with the decree of this Synod, as if the venerable Fathers did not bring themselves into utter discredit by handling Scripture so childishly, or wresting it so shamefully and profanely. 16. I come now to monstrous impieties, which it is strange they ventured to utter, and twice strange that all men did not protest against with the utmost detestation. It is right to expose this frantic and flagitious extravagance, and thereby deprive the worship of images of that gloss of antiquity in which Papists seek to deck it. Theodosius Bishop of Amora fires oft an anathema at all who object to the worship of images. Another attributes all the calamities of Greece and the East to the crime of not having worshipped them. Of what punishment then are the Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs worthy, in whose day no images existed? They afterwards add, that if the statue of the Emperor is met with odours and incense, much more are the images of saints entitled to the honour. Constantius, Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, professes to embrace images with reverence, and declares that he will pay them the respect which is due to the ever blessed Trinity: every person refusing to do the same thing he anathematises and classes with Marcionites and Manichees. Lest you should think this the private opinion of an individual, they all assent. Nay, John the Eastern legate, carried still farther by his zeal, declares it would be better to allow a city to be filled with brothels than be denied the worship of images. At last it is resolved with one consent that the Samaritans are the worst of all heretics, and that the enemies of images are worse than the Samaritans. But that the play may not pass off without the accustomed Plaudite, the whole thus concludes, “Rejoice and exult, ye who, having the image of Christ, offer sacrifice to it.” Where is now the distinction of λατρια and δυλια with which they would throw dust in all eyes, human and divine? The Council unreservedly relies as much on images as on the living God.

Sources: A History of Christianity:

The First Three Thousand Years Diarmaid MacCulloch Penguin (2009) ISBN-13: 978-0141021898

History of Christianity in the Middle ages; From the Fall of Rome to the Fall of Constantinople William R. Cannon Abingdon Press (1960) ISBN: n/a

Another.

Former State Church

JULY 2, 2016 ~ JM ~ EDIT"FORMER STATE CHURCH"




Recently I was asked, “why do you refer to the Eastern Orthodox Church as a denomination and former State Church?”

When I refer to the Eastern Orthodox denomination as such I honestly mean no disrespect. I am trying to deal honestly with history as I have come to understand it and help others to understand the development of the denomination over time. One simply has to look at the Russian or Greek Orthodox Churches to find evidence of this. Both Eastern Orthodox Church bodies were tied to the secular State and influenced by the State.

Unfortunately, faith in a Church hierarchy can create blinders to the truth and many Orthodox Christians fail to see what seems obvious to others. In Philip Jenkins book on the First World War titled The Great and Holy War he explains;

“The Orthodox church operated in intimate alliance with the imperial authorities, from which it drew its power and wealth. From the time of Peter the Great, in the 1700’s, the church’s ancient patriarchate ceased to function, leaving the church as a virtual arm of the government. It was supervised by a Holy Synod appointed by the Tsar and under the authority of a cabinet-level imperial official.”

“For many Orthodox thinkers, moreover, rival Christian churches, Catholic and Protestant, were only in the most technical sense fellow believers or brothers, and as such they deserved little more political consideration than did Muslims or Jews.”

“The causes of the monarchy, empire, and church were all one, and they merged into a messianic vision of the Tsarists regime…”

Many examples can be found throughout history where the Eastern Orthodox Church worked hand in hand with the State to accomplish the States goals. I have already detailed how that played out in the Controversy Over Images. The State continuously waged a war for the use of Icons until the Church relented and this happened only after murdering their opponents and replacing the Patriarch with a layman.

Even today Russian President Vladimir Putin is using the Eastern Orthodox Church to rally neo-nationalism while the Orthodox Church receives benefits from the government. After much reading on the matter, using secular and Christian sources, I have to concluded that Eastern Orthodoxy is a former State Church that carries a lot of historical baggage linked with Byzantine and other political intrigue. This often affected doctrine and relations even if the outward ritual and ceremony remained the same. If Putin has his way the Eastern Orthodox might become a State Church once again.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

JM,

Eastern Orthodox Christians claim their religious practices can be traced back to the time of the apostles. But the quotations you posted from Diarmaid MacCulloch et al indicate the early church was not unanimous, consistent, or unchanging in its liturgical practices. The controversy in the early church surrounding the use of icons in worship suggests this practice was an innovation rather than the propagation of an apostolic practice.

Click to expand...

Yes, that’s exactly it. I believe Kallistos Ware admitted some monks murdered their opponents to ensure the vote in their favour.

However, despite the flip-flopping of the early church and its capitulation to external pressure from civil government, is it possible that God orchestrated proceedings to accomplish his will and produce a church whose practices are what he intended for all Christians? I am just running this idea up the flagpole to see if it will fly. I see a possible parallel with the formation of the NT canon, which was a very untidy process - the final result was shaped by multiple human factors. But I believe in God's providence and I accept that God directed the fallible church to eventually reach the correct opinion about the canon. Despite the apparently arbitrary factors, I believe God masterminded events and worked through secondary causes to produce the correct NT canon. And the canon we have inherited is a fact of history. Even if we revised the canon today, the original canon would remain significant as being what the historical church has accepted and used for 2,000 years, and therefore what God has used to build and sustain his church during that period.


My point is that even though the early church wobbled in many areas and succumbed to pressure from without, and the ecumenical church councils were not conducted with integrity and piety, does that automatically invalidate their decisions? I am just floating this idea to see what people think. I hope I haven't violated forum rules by just mentioning the idea.

Click to expand...

Sure, God could have altered history using sinful men, but did He? I guess the question would be, did God orchestrate the intervention of the State to introduce something innovative and new, something that would seem contrary to the basic commandments repeatedly given in scripture? How you answer that question will be how you determine what is the final authority in matters of faith and practice.


Yours in the Lord,


jm

Alan Asquith said:

I am not asking this question to provoke or trip anyone up. Instead I am genuinely confused about revelation and authority, and why it is that reformed Christians insist on sola scriptura. I would label myself a reformed Christian but I haven't joined all the dots together yet and I'm unsure of my foundations.

Click to expand...

Scripture is settled.



Is Sola Scriptura in the Bible?
FROM R.C. Sproul Jr. Nov 05, 2009 Category: Tabletalk Magazine

No, and yes. The Bible does not have specific text that suggests that the Bible alone is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Those who delight to point this out, however, typically Roman Catholics and the eastern Orthodox, typically miss the point. First, their energies more often than not are aimed at the Anabaptist error that we call solo Scriptura. Here the person affirms that all he needs is himself and his Bible. The wisdom of the church in history, the community of believers, are all deemed irrelevant to understanding the things of God. Solo scriptura is reprehensible and ignorant and a-historical.

Sola Scriptura, like the Scriptures themselves, recognizes that God has gifted the church with teachers and pastors. It recognizes that the church has progressed and reached consensus on critical issues in and through the ancient ecumenical creeds. It affirms with vigor that we are all standing on the shoulders of giants. But it also affirms that even these giants have feet of clay. And there is where the Bible does in the end teach sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is a biblical doctrine not because the Bible says so. That would be a tautology- the kind of argument we find in that collection of lies the Book of Mormon. Instead the Bible is our alone final authority because it alone is the Word of God. It has been attested, authenticated, by God Himself. Miracles serve as the divine imprimatur, the proof that this is a message of God. This is how Nicodemus reasoned when he said, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him” (John 3:2). This is also how Jesus Himself reasoned when He first forgave the sins of the paralytic lowered through the roof. In response to the unspoken charge that He had blasphemed, Jesus told the man, “Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house” (Matthew 9:1-8).

I would be quite content to add as a second infallible and inerrant authority the ancient creeds of the church under the following conditions. First, those who gathered to formulate these creeds would need to have their message authenticated by miraculous works. Let them raise men from the dead. Second, we must add those creeds to our Bibles. If both sources are equally authoritative, why do we separate them? In like manner, I’d be content to add as a second infallible and inerrant authority the statements of the Pope when He speaks ex cathedra. First, however, let him raise men from the dead. Second, let us add his words, assuming he would even tell us what they were, to our canon.

But wait, there’s more. I want an authoritative list, in both instances of what these messages are. Ask someone Orthodox to show you exactly where you can read their infallible tradition and you will receive slippery ooze. Ask someone Roman Catholic for a list of infallible papal or consiliar statements, and you will receive the same.

Finally, there is this problem. In both instances, Rome and Orthodoxy, you run headlong into the problem of the infinite regress. That is, those who are less strident in their views on tradition, who deny that tradition carries additional content to the Scripture, instead argue that tradition gives an infallible and inerrant interpretation of Scripture. Okay. Where then can we find an infallible and inerrant interpretation of the interpretation? Assuming we could succeed there, of course, we would need an inerrant interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation. Ad nauseum.

No, the Bible is God’s Word. It is perspicuous, understandable. It says what it means and means what it says. It is attested by the miraculous power of God. And it is all these things, alone. It alone, all by itself, equips us for every good work. Flee anyone who tells you that more is required to understand, or more is required to obey.

If you’d like to learn more, I’d encourage you to get and read my friend Keith Mathison’s outstanding book The Shape of Sola Scriptura.

Alan Asquith said:

Some people say that the Ecumenical Church Councils consisted of godly men who debated the various issues in a free and open way (albeit lively and passionately), and they reached a consensus of opinion after prayerful consideration and respectful exchange of views. Thus we can trust that the Holy Spirit led the councils to the right conclusions which are therefore binding on the church today.

But I have heard others say that these councils were characterized by behind-the-scenes arm-twisting and political intrigue, and that the decisions reached were determined by human manipulation rather than listening to the voice of God.

Click to expand...

The Holy Spirit worked through flawed humans who had good holy intentions. There is no other choice as a Christian than to believe this. The canon of scripture and the Nicene creed are from groups of bishops. If we reject this merely because humans are flawed, then there is no basis at all for Christianity. We certainly can't believe the Bible if we don't know which writings are in it.

Alan Asquith said:

So how should we view the Didache? Undeniably it's a very early document, written in the lifetime of those who knew the apostles personally and who had first-hand knowledge of the apostles' lifestyle and practices. The Didache tells Christians to pray the Lord's prayer 3 times a day, and to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays. Those injunctions are not taught in the canonical books. However, might they be part of the traditions that Paul taught people orally and which he expected to be obeyed, for example in 2 Thess.2:15?

I am not asking this question to provoke or trip anyone up. Instead I am genuinely confused about revelation and authority, and why it is that reformed Christians insist on sola scriptura. I would label myself a reformed Christian but I haven't joined all the dots together yet and I'm unsure of my foundations.

Click to expand...

I am a Reformed believer, perhaps this blog entry I created can be of service to you concerning revelation and authority. Something important to the Sola Scriptura debate, is to properly define what is is, and what it is not. In addition to the blog entry, here are a couple of shortcuts to a couple of resources, one of them is to a search for "Sola Scriptura" on Triablogue where posts by contributor Steve Hays are helpful in addressing objections. The second resource comes from a former Roman Catholic, William Webster, his site is excellent, the resource linked here is a very lengthy article concerning Scripture and the Church Fathers related to the topic of Sola Scriptura providing lengthy and copious quotes from Catholic sources.

Triablogue search results

Scripture and the Church Fathers

On authority and canon, I recommend Dr. Michael J. Kruger, a leading expert. See this blog entry.

Nobody has a time machine, but I would be very surprised if some politicking didn’t go on; it always does. Of course, that doesn’t preclude the Holy Spirit from working to produce the outcome it desires - especially if you believe that God has sovereign control of history.

For years Catholics would say, "tradition is what the church teaches!" then we would ask where can we find what the church teaches? "In the Catechism."

As you probably already know the Pope recently allowed the catechism to be changed.

Quote:

Roman Catholics and Eastern Greek Orthodox churches accuse the other of false doctrines both base upon tradition:

1. The Catholics reject several of the specific canons of the early ecumenical councils, but the orthodox accept them as inspired.
2. Catholics and Orthodox disagree on the dates of Christmas and Easter. While the Orthodox church claims council at Nice was inspired, yet is rejects the canons of Nicea on the date of Easter which the Catholics accept.
3. The Catholics teach purgatory, yet the Orthodox reject it.
4. Universal papal jurisdiction was a rather large dogfight in 588-606 AD.
5. Although the Orthodox reject Papal infallibility, the decisions of the orthodox synods are considered infallible.
6. The Immaculate Conception is utterly rejected by the Orthodox.
7. The orthodox baptized by full immersion (thrice), the Catholics sprinkle.
8. In the Orthodox Church married men can become priests. In the Catholic church men are forbidden to marry. (except for one small part of the world)
9. The Roman Catholic church introduced instrumental music no earlier than the 7th century and the Orthodox church has never used instrumental music, but like the apostles, sang without instrument.
10. In Catholic communion, the cup is withheld from the members, while the Orthodox float the "crouton looking" bread cubes in the wine. Catholics believe the bread and wine (transubstantiation) become the literal body of Christ when the priest says, "this is my body". The Orthodox disagrees and says the change takes place at prayer. Catholics use unleavened bread, while Orthodox use leavened bread. Orthodox must keep a ridged schedule of fasts in order to have communion every week, but the most common practice is a minimum of four times a year during the four Orthodox Lents "Christmas, Easter, Peter and Paul, The virgin Mary. Catholics on the other hand, must not eat the hour before, to have communion every day. In the end, Orthodox offer communion weekly and Catholics daily. In practice most Orthodox laity have communion four times year and Catholics weekly. So which of these two traditions is the one the apostles used? All this proves that they have no valid "apostolic tradition", otherwise they would all agree! They differ on the frequency of communion, the fasting requirements and the actual method of partaking.
11. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine that says the bread and grape juice of the Lord's supper actually molecularly change to become the flesh and blood of Jesus. Of course this old doctrine was formulated before the advent of molecular microscopes which see no change. For Catholics the "Transubstantiation" occurs when the priest says the words, "this is my body". For Orthodox the change occurs when the priest offers the prayer of thanks.
12. The "Filioque" scandal: Following the Nicene creed, the Orthodox Church believed the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone. Then in 1054 AD the Roman church added to the wording of the Nicene creed "And the Son" or the "Filioque." The Roman church believed the Holy Spirit proceeded from BOTH the Father and the Son.
13. Orthodox keeps the original Nicene Creed, accepted by the Universal Church, East and West, during the first millennium without the addition of "And the Son" or the "Filioque." It accepts, on faith, Christ's words in the Gospel, that the Father is the Unoriginate Source of the Life of the Trinity, with the Only-Begotten Son and the Holy Spirit Proceeding from the Father Alone. We cannot know how the Begetting of the Son and the Proceeding of the Spirit from the same Father is different, only that it is and this distinguishes the two Persons.

Yours in the Lord,

jm