Discussion in 'Apologetics' started by Windsong, Sep 1, 2017.
Were those councils of Roman origin?
No they were mainly ecumenical councils.
Even before these councils the 27 books we call the New Testament were in wide circulation and quoted by many early church theologians.
Thank you. I was wondering their point of origin. Rome? Do you know? Is there a resource that I might access to research this? Thank you for your reply.
He has several books on the subject.
Here is a brief overview......
In the early Christian Church, believers were forced to decide what books of Scripture they would be willing to die. If a book was not regarded as authoritative, conscience did not forbid them to surrender it to pagan authorities, but if a work was regarded as inspired and evidenced Divine authority, Christians were far less likely to part with it. Yet this was only one of the influences that gave rise to the development of the New Testament. The article below describes why certain books are authoritative to Christians and how they came to be so.
https://christianheritagefellowship.com/canonization-of-the-bible/#Reasons Canon Was Developed
Great resources. Thank you all.
The books of the NT had several geographic origins.
I'm not understanding what you mean by "Rome."
They took place within the Roman Empire between the 4th and 8th centuries.
They addressed the theological questions that arose during that period.
They were attended by bishops from everywhere and bishops alone made the decisions.
Their decisions were based on scripture (OT plus apostolic letters and Gospels) and what had been taught from the beginning of the Church at all places. (From England to India)
iakov the fool
Thank you Jim.
Are there any credible scholarly works that those with reading history of those texts could recommend to me?
Well for instance, emperor Constantine convened the Nicene council in order to arrive at the Nicene creed as we know it. I'm wondering if the canon process after that over the years were the same. Overseen and convened by Roman authority. Being as I understand , the Roman's Catholic doctrine preceded the Protestant.
The bible has 40 authors, written across 3 continents, and took 4000yrs orb, to become the jewel of heavenly wisdom that allows us Light for life, gives us a roadmap to Heaven, and offers soul filling comfort in time of need.
Lean on it.
Depend on it.
God caused it to be.....
The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology by Leo Donald Davis, The Liturgical Press
Jim gave you a good source.
Here is a free version of Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church.
Authored in the late 19th century which cuts out a lot of the theological revisionism since then.
Volumes 2&3 are what you seek to explore what is called the Ante-Nicene period and councils after (see the table of contents and meet it with some strong coffee). This tome is truly a scholarly work with some footnotes in German.
On the Protestant vs Catholic doctrine and the period in question? Perhaps for another time and thread.
Hope this helps.
I'll leave you these quotes which sum up my view of how certain books made it and some did not into the canon:
The church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity. God gave us gravity, by his work of creation, and similarly he gave us the New Testament canon, by inspiring the individual books that make it up (J. 1. Packer, God Speaks To Man, p. 81).
One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa-at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397-but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of these communities (F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1960, p. 27).
That is partially correct.
Constantine did convene the Council of Nicaea.
His purpose was not primarily theological; it was political. The recent history of the Roman Empire was one of seemingly endless civil wars between rivals who wanted to be Caesar.
When the Arian heresy arose it threatened to split the church and, because the Empire was Christian at that time, it threatened to split the empire. Constantine wanted that put to bed co he told all the bishops to meet at Nicaea and work it out.
And, just as a note, Constantine personally preferred the Arian heretical view.
Further, the Creed of Nicaea only dealt with the person of the Son.
Another council, which met at Constantinople, dealt with the person of the Holy Spirit which neo-platonists were attempting to make less than God as they had done with the Son earlier.
The result was the Nicaea-Constantinople Creed which defined both the Son and the Spirit as God.
And, that creed was unilaterally modified by the western church by the addition of the words "and from the Son" (latin: filioque) which addition was made standard in 1014. It became one of the issues culminating in the east-west split of the church because it was a unilateral change of the creed established in the ecumenical councils and deemed heretical by the Eastern Church.
So, what is commonly recited in western churches today is the modified creed.
And that's (most of )the rest of the story.
iakov the fool
Thanks for that information. Is the book you referenced the source?
Christianity I will say was not the religion of the empire prior to Constantine. It was illegal prior to gaining imperial support through Constantine.
Other than that, great information. The modified Nicean creed was initially the apostles creed as I recall.
Thank you for the link.
There's much for me to study. Thank you all again.
The book is one of the sources.
It gets kind of mushy as to when which version came into use.
The name "Apostle's Creed" is actually a piece of "propaganda/marketing" since it suggests that it came from the teaching of the apostles who did not teach that the Spirit proceeded from the Father AND the Son based on Jhn 15:26 "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me."
iakov the fool
And yet Colossians 2:8-9 says, Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ: 9 for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, 10 and in him ye are made full, who is the head of all principality and power:
Separate names with a comma.