Interesting post...and a long one. I intend to work my way through it and may post some other thoughts.
But first, why study Church history? I think that the reasons that are certainly valid, but they do not show the whole picture. And, arguably, I tend to think that they don't strike at some of the more fundamental reasons that Church history is important for all Christians.
The first of these more important reasons is that Church history reflects that the faith is incarnational: Christ was born at a particular time and in a particular place, society, and culture. That, in a very significant way, set the history of the Church that he founded on a course where the time, place, society, and culture in which it would find itself was relevant to the understanding and living out of the faith.
The second is eschatological. The Church Christ founded is moving through history to the end of history. And so looking at history to see how the Holy Spirit is leading the Church gradually into a greater understanding and living out of the faith as well as (arguably) bringing the Kingdom into human history to our faith.
One more question: why start Church history with the Council of Nicaea?
Of course, the Church existed before then. And I think that a strong argument can be made that there are enough primary documents available to us of the life and thought of the Church before the peace of Constantine to get a reasonably clear understanding of it.
The class doesn't start at the council of Nicea, that was just an example. It will start in the apostolic period.
Fascinating
Hi. I have a compulsive need to be nitpicky (comes with graduate work in christian history). The creed you quoted is not the original version adopted in 325 at Nicea, but the expanded version that was adopted in 381, at Constantinople.
Why make that point? Well, the council of Nicea didn't end anything. It was one moment in an ongoing discussion, not a decisive victory for orthodoxy. Not that you were saying it was decisive necessarily, but its a point worth making. It's all very complex.
I also have questions about "creed as doctrinal statement." The creed is a summary of scripture. Just to cite one example, Cyril of Jerusalem says quite explicitly (in his Catechetical Lectures) that if you can't read, you should at least memorize the creed; that way you'll know what the bible says. So there is a much closer tie to scripture than the idea of doctrinal statement suggests.
One last thing, didn't Lutherans and Catholics sign an agreement recently where they both affirmed justification by faith? I don't think there is honestly an irreconcilable doctrinal difference there, so much as a significant difference in emphasis. The whole thing could and should have been handled without schism. But we're human.
Anastasia.
Excellent start. I always like to see Protestants studying Church history. My own studies were what led me to abandon the Reformation and join the Orthodox Church.
I think that, in addition to the ones you stated, a reason to study Church history is to put the Scriptures and doctrines of the Church into context. The New Testament is degraded by people who study it wholly apart from its proper place within the Church, history and Tradition from which it arose.
And, regarding baptism, I suggest adding 1 Peter 3:21
Keep up the good work.
James, interesting comment. The more I learn of Church history, the more (high-church) Protestant I become! I used to be haunted by the argument (used by many Catholics, though considerably fewer Orthodox) that "We agree on all these doctrines and practices that you Protestants reject, and we're the only ones who were around (in any significant numbers) before 1530". Once I learned, though, just how fundamentally Orthodox/ Eastern theology differs from its Catholic/ Western counterpart (and on major issues -- not just "Can you have pictures of saints in churches?" but "Are we afflicted by Original Sin or not?"), I realised that Traditio et Scriptura is no firmer a foundation than Sola Scriptura. The only way to arbitrate among competing interpretations of Tradition is to subordinate all of them to Scripture. I also wonder how many different Catholic/ Orthodox denominations might have sprung up, had there been as much religious liberty before 1600 AD as there was after it.
As to "why aren't writings from Martin Luther added as part of the biblical canon?", simple, one-line answer: He wasn't an Apostle, and hadn't seen the risen Christ. Same reason why the writings of St Paul are canonical, but the writings of Church Fathers aren't.
A] creed is a summary of the principal articles of faith professed by a church or community of believers.
So by creed, we mean a sort of minimal doctrine of our faith. If you don't affirm a creed, then you are outside the pale of orthodoxy; you are an apostate church.
Is a creed written by definition or is it a collection of held beliefs? How does this square with sola scriptura?
The most destructive problem with Sola Scriptura is the matter of interpretation. The early Chuch held to a collective interpretation, one that must conform to what has been believed everywhere and by all. Certainly there is no concensus on every detail, but there is room for liberty. The Orthodox still holds to this view. The Romans jettisoned it when they broke from the Eastern Church and placed the collective authority in one man. This abuse is what gave them license to deviate far from the ancient way and is largely what the Reformers were protesting. If they had rejoined the Eastern Church instead of inventing a new religion, things would have gone much better for all concerned.
There were additional sects outside of the one Church in the early years. Because they were outside of the Church, they were called heretics. Protestants, with Scripture as their authority, cannot reach the consesus needed to make similiar pronouncements today. That is why there are thousands of denominations which hold to a wide array of conflicting and often contridictory views, all claiming the same authority. Sola Scriptura simply does not work.
thank you for writing this up. the history of the early church greatly interests me and its great to have a resource to read and debate and ponder and give me starting places to do my own research. i read your journal often. just thought i'd leave a comment this time and make my presence and appreciation known.
Thank you, James, you've neatly illustrated my point. "It is not competent for the individual to presume to interpret Scripture on his own, because that can lead to competing interpretations. Only the true Church, continuing uninterrupted since it was founded by the Apostles, can have that authority". Okay, then: which church would that be? As I said, Catholics are usually more eirenic towards the Orthodox on this. But if you ask them, they will affirm that the Papacy is either clearly derived, or at least is deducible, from Scripture and first-century practice in combination.
> "Because they were outside of the Church, they were called heretics."
As John Locke noted, each sect is orthodox in its own eyes. Also, despite the post-1054 split between East and West, both Rome and Constantinople continued to believe that they had power to anathematise heresy. Neither, AFAIK, said to itself "We can no longer convene a true Ecumenical Council, therefore we have no more authority to declare our theological opponents to be heretics".
I believe in the essential continuity of the Old and New Covenants, and in a God who does not change. Therefore i have doubts about any interpretation of the Bible or History that requires us to picture God, circa 30 AD, stroking His beard and musing, "Hmmm, looks like it was a mistake to give My appointed priests the infallible authority to certify the written canon of the Prophets and the Apostles, but leave them fallible when they're handing on unwritten traditions. Better fix that glitch next time".
I'm not sure what you're quoting there, but that is a concise summary of my view. As for locating the Church, it is really not difficult. It must have Apostolic roots, an evident claim to doctrinal continuity, and must practise a fath which is in accordance with the ancient Tradition of the Church, including Scripture. There must be such a Church or Christ was wrong.
The Orthodox Church does not believe in progressive or continual revelation. She holds that there was a faith once delivered to the saints, and it is her duty to preserve, defend, and transmit this faith, unchanged, to the next generation. And she has. She acknowledges the impossibility of another ecumenical council, which is why she hasn't held or participated in one since the last true ecumenical council, the 7th, which occurred 200 years before the great schism. The seven councils interpreted Scripture and formed the dogmatic creed and canons and these are still in force today and form the governing framework of the Orthodox Church.
The Orthodox Church has never formally ratified a canon of Scripture. The Catholics didn't until the council of Trent. The canon was developed by usage and universal consent.
The Church, when meeting in ecumenical council, is authoritative/infallible. This is the true authority. The Catholics invested that authority in one man. We have no ecumenical councils, therefore we do not interpret Scripture or anathematise heresy, except to say that it is not in line with the teaching of the Church, and it thereby anathematises itself.
David, great work as usual, and valuable. I cannot wait for the remainder. As a member of an SBC church, I find your comment right on that members do not know that some things we hear now were labeled heresies long ago after thorough debate. Godspeed and thanks.
Larry
Anastasia,
You wrote:
I also have questions about "creed as doctrinal statement." The creed is a summary of scripture. Just to cite one example, Cyril of Jerusalem says quite explicitly (in his Catechetical Lectures) that if you can't read, you should at least memorize the creed; that way you'll know what the bible says. (emphasis added)
Mark has already written that a creed is a "summary of the principal articles of faith professed by a church or community of believers."
One need not have to interpret the various data of early Church history to know that what he wrote is true.
Consider the source which you cited in your own comments, St. Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Lectures. These were presentations that he made to men and women who were being prepared for the celebration of the sacraments of initiation: baptism, confirmation, and eucharist.
They would have professed a creed at their baptism, much like many Christians do today.
In fact, the creed crafted at the Council of Nicaea was based upon a baptismal creed formulated in various Syrian Churches.
Are those beliefs based in scripture? To be sure. Are they fully explicated there? No. The Church's teaching authority, manifested in the various early ecumenical councils, was necessary for that. The creeds and other conciliar canons are proof of that.
But I do think that it is important that the creeds really emerged not so much in councils but in the liturgical life of the Church, thus demonstrating the ancient truth: "lex orandi, legem credendi" (the law of worship makes the law of belief).
David,
Excellent introduction -- can't wait to see more as you work your way through this class!
One little nitpick I would offer to throw into the mix. I think it's important to articulate in discussing the work of a council such as Nicea that there was often no black-and-white understanding of what was and was not heresy before the council met. The council was not assembled in order to suppress Arianism and articulate a formal creed against it, but to discuss, debate, and decide on the matter.
A significant Arian contingent was present at Nicea, of course, but ultimately lost out to what was regarded by the majority as the orthodox position. In short, one might say that "Heresy is not heresy until a council says it is!" 
Grace and peace.
Hi Sean.
I think you underestimate the degree to which early christian writings and conversations are centered on exegetical concerns. The text is a great mystery.
James writes, "As for locating the Church, it is really not difficult. It must have Apostolic roots, an evident claim to doctrinal continuity, and must practise a fath which is in accordance with the ancient Tradition of the Church, including Scripture. There must be such a Church or Christ was wrong."
Part of the evident difficulty with this statement is that the "ancient Tradition" does not itself claim to be authoritative apart from Scripture. None of the expositions of the Fathers nor the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils have claimed a right to be heard except as explicating and affirming what the Apostles taught. The writings of doctors and churchmen are immensely valuable, but if a believer of today could have but one book, that book would be the the Holy Scriptures, not the collected writings of Chrysostom or of Augustine or of any other ancient or modern writer.
Would it be true to say that a creed is based on Scripture?
Sorry left out a word. Would it be true to say that a creed is based on Scripture alone?
Claybourn is going to have to admit his anti-Muslim sentiments one of these days; otherwise, his site will correctly be banned because it violates the "hate site" policy. A SPECIFIC example of his anti-Muslim views is his equating the iron cross with the star-and-crescent--or, in other words, equating Naziism with Islam. He said, "It is ironic that both are next to the Star of David." Never mind that the Christian cross was also nearby (although not immediately adjacent), and that Christianity has killed far more Jews than Islam ever has. If that's not defaming Islam, I don't know what is. This is just another neocon symptom of allowing hate speech for yourself but denying it for others.
Anastasia,
You wrote:
I think you underestimate the degree to which early christian writings and conversations are centered on exegetical concerns.
Not at all. I've read a lot from both the ante- and post-Nicene fathers and I fully realize that in a lot of those cases (although not all) they are commenting on scripture.
But I think that it is important to note that a large portion of those "writings and conversations" occur among those who are part what was then the Church's teaching authority and often were made up of sermons given in the context of a liturgy.
Greetings, I'm posting here as I don't want my comments on the suicide debate on this site(Mon Aug 30),to be overlooked.
Also I am posting as I am a little bit cranky. Why?
For all the useless banter about a group of old codgers who got together 1600 odd years ago to do their thing in their day. OK, yes, it had to be done....then. This is now. Why do we need to debate this stuff now..its done. Get on with preaching the message in a way that will affect modern man in these crucial days. Post stuff that will grab the lost and spin them round and out of their 21 century meltdown.
I just think its a little self gratifying thats all, to be quasi-experts on history and debaters of all things the moths are already into.
One thing never changes and that is the call of our loving Father to THIS generation, through the blood of His Son with His Spirit leading us into new ways to win souls.
Again I say, pull your heads out of the dusty old maps and history and step into your own book of Acts.
Bless you all though, and God bless US all with a new and exciting revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ : )
sozoman, beyond the oft-quoted suggestion that "Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it," I suggest to you that there is no such thing as a culture that is free of its own history. Ignoring our history is a logical impossibility: it daily informs everything we are and everything we are to become.
And your present acts will be history for your children.
Grace and peace!
What I'm saying, even when they are not explicitly commenting on scripture, their concerns are exegetical. For instance, the trinity is a solution to an exegetical problem.
They use philosophical categories/language and they certainly use reason, but I think its fair to say they are trying to interpret the text of scripture.
I'm not touching lex orandi lex credendi.
I think sozoman is right about the self-gratifying bit.
David wrote: "A final brief example of the need to study church history is the Reformation. Ask a modern Protestant why there was a Reformation, and you are likely to get an answer centered upon the sale of indulgences.
This is not true. Luther’s 95 theses were primarily related to corruption in the church, corruption that the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges."
Please re-read the 95 Theses, and rethink the above.
http://www.bartleby.com/36/4/1.html
Henry,
I did reread them and I stand by my statement.
The question of why there was a Reformation is an enormous and multi-faceted issue. Indulgences and church corruption (including simony), Renaissance humanism, a personal crisis for Luther rising out of the medieval doctrine of justification, and a whole lot more played a part.
The posting of the 95 Theses was immediately prompted by Luther's pastoral concern for his parishoners, who were buying indulgences with the false belief (and a belief supported by the salesman) that they were essentially tickets to heaven.
The Mormons (or Latter-Day Saints, as we prefer to be called) have a ready response to the conflict between the Nicene Creed and our doctrine: the Nicene Creed isn't inspired doctrine.
The LDS Church (or Mormonism, if you will) teaches that the true church of Christ fell away very quickly after his death and resurrection. True doctrines were lost, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit was lost. By the time of the writing of the Nicene Creed, no one was able to understand the scriptures well enough to write an authoritative interpretation. The influence of the Spirit was not strong enough.
The questions you asked about the canon are very good questions, and always relevant. I can attest to the fact that the study of catholic church history is interesting. However, the history of Christianity isn't much different from other kinds of history, because for over a thousand, Christianity lacked the one thing that should have made it special: direction from Christ.
In short, condemning the Mormon Church by the Nicene Creed is preaching to the choir, because no one in the Mormon Church cares.
Commenting by HaloScan
