A sincere inquiry about the ecumenical councils

[Albion]

Bob, there's nothing special or even noteworthy about the leader of any church crediting God for whatever doctrines that church has adopted. It's nice and it's expected, but it doesn't prove anything.

 

[Bob Crowley]

You claim that Scripture is the final authority. But Scripture itself was canonised and finalised at Church Councils. Yet you say you don't accept the authority of the Councils.

So on what basis do you state that the Scriptures are the final authority?

Who Compiled the Bible and When?

Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities.

The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442).

 

[Albion]

Who are you addressing in this post, Bob?

You claim that Scripture is the final authority. But Scripture itself was canonised and finalised at Church Councils. Yet you say you don't accept the authority of the Councils.

So on what basis do you state that the Scriptures are the final authority?

Who Compiled the Bible and When?

 

[ralliann]

Starting from the beginning is, ironically, the reason why i developed these questions. To clarify, the time taken to answer my questions is appreciated and i'm certainly not trying to destabilise someone's faith or corner anybody, but it seems to me that the justification for developments regarding theology seem to become rather arbitrary after the 1st century. Bear in mind, i'm not advocating for Seventh-day Adventism, but, nevertheless, i find it hard to find objective or logical justification for any theology diverging from the contents of Scripture or the teachings of the apostolic fathers. I would argue that, beside Scripture, the apostolic fathers are the only trustworthy sources of Christianity, as they received their teachings directly from the disciples of Christ. As far as i know, there are no people in the ancient world that can make that claim. Arguments in defence of post-1st century teachings seem, therefore, cyclical;

1. The Holy Spirit is believed to accompany and guide developments in the Church.

I think the council decision in acts shows this.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
the holy ghost is spoken of as involved there.

 

[ralliann]

I'm part of the liberal half of Protestantism. Unlike both Catholic / Orthodox, and conservative Protestantism, we don't think either the Church or Scripture is inerrant. I would say that Mat 18:19 is not intended for a context like this, but is really directed at church discipline and possibly prayer for healing and the like.

It's also not clear that it implies inerrancy. 18:18 is similar to and probably based on the rabbinical power of loosing and binding, which was a rabbi's authority to make interpretations of the Torah.

This notion is from the Pharisees. Jesus and John the Baptist warned of their teachings. Moses seat was the seat of authority that spoke Moses Torah. This seat was neither Pharisee or Sadducee, as they were sectarian branches in schism with each other. It was the seat of Moses that the high priest along with the judges unanimously decided a case made it binding. All else remained matters disputable and unsettled. See Deuteronomy 21:5 and Deuteronomy 33:8-10.

But rabbis certainly did not all agree. I would say that each community has the responsibility to interpret Scripture for their community, and the authority from Christ to do so.

Following I think the pattern we see in sectarian Judaism. They usurped the authority of the priesthood.

 

[hedrick]

This notion is from the Pharisees. Jesus and John the Baptist warned of their teachings. Moses seat was the seat of authority that spoke Moses Torah. This seat was neither Pharisee or Sadducee, as they were sectarian branches in schism with each other. It was the seat of Moses that the high priest along with the judges unanimously decided a case made it binding. All else remained matters disputable and unsettled. See Deuteronomy 21:5 and Deuteronomy 33:8-10.


Following I think the pattern we see in sectarian Judaism. They usurped the authority of the priesthood.

The problem with the distinction is that Jesus didn't seem to see it

"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat" (Mat 23:2)

Jesus disagreed with lots about the Pharisees' teaching (more than is apparent in this passage) but it's not so clear that he endorsed the priests' authority against theirs.

Most of the church discipline and authority passages are in Matthew. There's some question how much of that Jesus himself actually said. But given the way the Church actually works, there's really no alternative to distributed authority. Nor does Acts and Paul's letters suggest a centralized model. There were the apostles in Palestine, but Paul claimed equal authority for himself. When you get to individual churches, it's pretty clear that James, Peter, and Paul all claimed authority, and there were local prophets. Churches had to decide how much weight to give these.

Nor did the situation get more unified until the State was in a position to enforce it.

In fact things I've read recently suggest that there wasn't even a clear separation between Christians and Jews for quite a while, much to the chagrin of leaders on both sides.

 

[ralliann]

The problem with the distinction is that Jesus didn't seem to see it

"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat" (Mat 23:2)

Yes, the Pharisees were the Judges. He wasn't condoning their sectarian doctrines. The Seat of Moses was not without the priestly approval. The high priest were the sect of the Sadducees. Therefore the high court making decisions was by consent of Both parties and therefore were bi partisan. In other words non sectarian.

Jesus disagreed with lots about the Pharisees' teaching (more than is apparent in this passage) but it's not so clear that he endorsed the priests' authority against theirs.

They still had the authority the law gives them. Why do you think he was speaking against that?
The high priest was their Judicial ruler. Paul (a Pharisee knew that)

Ac 23:5 Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.
Simply by virtue of being high priest he prophesied.
Joh 11:51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

Paul was given letters from the high priest for authority to round up religious criminals to carry out the sentence of Judgement
ACTS 2:11 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
Ac 22:5 As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished.
2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

Note the bolded portions. Under the Levitical priesthood the people received the law.
Heb 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?. There are more but this should suffice. Jesus did not speak against the authority of the offices of High priest or of Judges. He wasn't speaking of the authority of the sect of the Pharisees sectarian doctrines. They had authority to carry out the unanimous decision of the court. Which court was ruled by the sadducean high priest

Most of the church discipline and authority passages are in Matthew. There's some question how much of that Jesus himself actually said. But given the way the Church actually works, there's really no alternative to distributed authority. Nor does Acts and Paul's letters suggest a centralized model. There were the apostles in Palestine, but Paul claimed equal authority. When you get to individual churches, it's pretty clear that James, Peter, and Paul all claimed authority, and there were local prophets. Churches had to decide how much weight to give these.


Nor did the situation get more unified until the State was in a position to enforce it.

In fact things I've read recently suggest that there wasn't even a clear separation between Christians and Jews for quite a while, much to the chagrin of leaders on both sides.

The relationship between Christians and Jews does not speak to the sect of the Pharisees. They were disciples Of John's baptism. No Pharisee he.

 

[fhansen]

Hello,

My question relates to details about the validity of the ecumenical councils. The past seven years i have been studying religion in my free-time, especially Eastern religions. This ultimately inspired me to study Christianity and became very impressed by it's depth and consistency. However, there remain some problems which keep me from taking a clear theological position.

Most Christians do not consider priests, bishops or saints to be infallible. This means that they can't (solely) be appealed to in order to justify the validity of developments within Christian doctrine. The ecumenical councils, though, are considered by most Catholics and Orthodox Christians to be error-free, at least when speaking on a specific subject. My questions is as follows; if priests, bishops, saints (and even the apostles) aren't considered to be without fault, then on what grounds is infallibility ascribed to the ecumenical councils? I am aware that Christ promised Peter that His Church wouldn't be overcome by the gates of Hades, but when many Christian branches don't recognise each other - this implies that there is a specific criteria outside of the consensus of the clergy, by which the validity of developments relating to doctrine are confirmed or rejected. The ecumenical councils weren't discussed by Jesus and his disciples and aren't advocated for in Scripture either. If the ecumenical councils can't be reasoned to be infallible i see no reason to ascribe validity to any Christian teaching past the teachings of the apostolic fathers, as these were the last people to be taught by the actual witnesses of Christ's ministry. This would leave us with no basis upon which to accept, for instance, the Trinity, at least not as we know it today, being an invention by Tertullian that self-admittedly came with a majority opposition from his contemporary Christians.

It would be appreciated if somebody can answer this question in detail or forward me to literature that deals with these inquiries.

With kind regards,

Kameaux

And yet the bishops at Nicaea overwhelmingly ruled for the deity of Jesus and the Trinitarian doctrine by a huge majority. The authority is vested in the Church, and must be. The church assembled the canon of New Testament Scripture as well. And the first ecumenical council could be said to have occurred in Jerusalem, reported in Acts, already setting the model for that which would reasonably have to be done at times: meet and decide on controversies that naturally arise. God must have left His Church with that Spirit-guided authority, or Christianity would’ve disintegrated centuries ago.

 

[FenderTL5]

And yet the bishops at Nicaea overwhelmingly ruled for the deity of Jesus and the Trinitarian doctrine by a huge majority. The authority is vested in the Church, and must be. The church assembled the canon of New Testament Scripture as well. And the first ecumenical council could be said to have occurred in Jerusalem, reported in Acts, already setting the model for that which would reasonably have to be done at times: meet and decide on controversies that naturally arise. God must have left His Church with that Spirit-guided authority, or Christianity would’ve disintegrated centuries ago.

Thank you.

..The ecumenical councils weren't discussed by Jesus and his disciples and aren't advocated for in Scripture either..

Kameaux

Going back to your OP as it relates to fhansen's post. The word "Ecumenical" may not have been used but the first council and the weight it carried in decision making is certainly recorded in the Scriptures and stands as a model.
Acts 15 (NIV)

 

[Kameaux]

Thank you.



Going back to your OP as it relates to fhansen's post. The word "Ecumenical" may not have been used but the first council and the weight it carried in decision making is certainly recorded in the Scriptures and stands as a model.
Acts 15 (NIV)

If you agree that the belief of the majority of the bishops is an indicator of ''Spirit-guided authority'', then on what basis do you subscribe to the Eastern Orthodox faith? As stated before, most bishops are Catholic.

Also, and this will be my last statement, there used to be countless of books that were considered canon before the council of Nicaea. If you appeal to the Biblical canon to defend the ecumenical councils, but appeal to the ecumenical councils to defend the Biblical canon, the discussion becomes circular. I don't believe this problem has been treated sufficiently within the thread, but i respect everybody's contribution to the discussion.

 

[FenderTL5]

If you agree that the belief of the majority of the bishops is an indicator of ''Spirit-guided authority'', then on what basis do you subscribe to the Eastern Orthodox faith? As stated before, most bishops are Catholic.

At the time of the schism between east/west there were five patriarchates (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem). In the schism, Rome stood alone. I don't know how you would determine that there were more RC bishops in 1054.

Also, and this will be my last statement, there used to be countless of books that were considered canon before the council of Nicaea. If you appeal to the Biblical canon to defend the ecumenical councils, but appeal to the ecumenical councils to defend the Biblical canon, the discussion becomes circular. I don't believe this problem has been treated sufficiently within the thread, but i respect everybody's contribution to the discussion.

Eastern Orthodoxy accepts the Septuagint (LXX) as Old Testament canon, always has, I hope they/we always will. That was the OT at Nicaea. It still is. There is no disagreement on the canon of the New Testament.

 

[ralliann]

Thank you.



Going back to your OP as it relates to fhansen's post. The word "Ecumenical" may not have been used but the first council and the weight it carried in decision making is certainly recorded in the Scriptures and stands as a model.
Acts 15 (NIV)

I think the foreshadow in the law of it is clear as well. I think there is a pattern to be seen in the Church just as there was in Judaism. Same thing IMO. I have truly been considering attending classes to attend a more traditional Church because of it.