Councils of Nicaea, Ephesus and Chalcedon: Development of Episcopal Ministry and Forming Christian Doctrine
The Council of Nicaea, 325
Introduction
The council was the first of seven ecumenical councils in
the ancient church history. The calling of the council
marked a triumphant church that survived many
persecutions and repressions. However, as soon as the
church was established its legitimacy in the empire, it
found itself a new challenge; this time the challenge came
not from outside, but it came from within the church. It
was a theological interpretation issue. Church had to sort
out among many loosely interpreted sayings to church’s
orthodox teaching on the nature of Christ the Son of God.
The time has come for a church to deal and formulate the
orthodox doctrine for the many generations to adhere to.
Soon after apostles wrote the gospels and letters, people
began to interpret them and had various understandings.
One of the issues was on what Christ said about himself
and who he really was. And different churches and
traditions had different beliefs, interpretations and
understandings on the Bible and its interpretations. As a
result, all the ancient seven councils dealt with the
interpretation of nature and status of Christ and his preexistent
relationship with the Father, and the use of icons
in the church.
Background
The cause of the Arian controversy, which brought about
the council of 325, stemmed on Arius’ teaching on nature
and relationship of the Son and the Father.
The start of the Arian debate was probably occurred in
the city of Baucalis, where he was a presiding priest in
318. (Kelly, 231)
He was trying to preserve a monotheistic understanding
of the God in the Old Testament in light of the Anti-Arian’s
view of the Son as being the co-equal and co-existence
with the Father. Issue of the day was not whether the
Father was God, but how is that the Son is God? This
question has been asking by many long before the
council of Nicaea, 325. Paul of Samosata of Antioch
taught that God adopted the Son, which is called
adoptionism (dynamic moarchianism). He wanted to
defend uniqueness of the God. Philo of Alexandria, who
was a famous Jewish exegete, influenced Arius. Origen
also taught adoptionism of the Son, but unlike Arius
Origen taught the Son had no beginning and was not
created being. For many early Christians, who were
mainly from Judaism background, the question was a
problem for the understanding of the monotheistic system
of the Jewish religion and new belief in the Son of God.
Many wanted to safeguard the unique characteristics of
the Father as the only God.
Various Beliefs in the Empire
And there were other challenges that also faced the early
believers. It came from the pagan religions of the Roman
Empire. The Roman Empire already had an official state
religion, it was directed to the emperor himself. Further, it
had a tolerant policy toward other beliefs and religions as
well. According to Davis, “religious belief within this farflung
ranged from a lofty but nebulous pantheism to
primitive animism.” (Davis. 17) Roman’s pantheon is a
good example. Pantheon means “every god”. It tolerated
as many religions and beliefs as long as they did not
cause disturbances within the empire. Arius and his
followers wanted to focus on theology of Paul of
Samosata’s monarchial understanding of the Father God.
They simply wanted to adhere to the teaching of God as
uncreated while the Logos/the Son created being.
In the midst of various views of the Son’s nature and
status, the time for defining the orthodox Christology was
ready. This important issue was to deal by the newly
crowned Constantine came to the throne.
Constantine the Great (c. 274-337)
After Constantine became the sole ruler of the Roman
Empire in 324, he wanted to rule peacefully. But there
was a disturbance brewing in the North African churches.
Constantine received an appeal to intervene in the affair
of a schismatical movement called the Donatists
controversy. After successful resolution, he was ready to
tackle another more important theological controversy.
This was called “The Council of Nicaea, I, 325.”
When the Arian controversy was broke out, Constantine
wanted to get involve right away. Because it threatened
the tranquility of the realm, which he was ruling. And also
it caused a schism among the churches. Williams, “Arius
mistake was to emphasize the numerical strength of his
support, especially in Libya. Constantine assumed that
Arius was threatening a schism, the one thing which all
the imperial efforts were designed to avoid.” (Williams, 77)
Calling him, “Ares”, a god of war. (77)
Evidently the emperor did not like his realm turned into
another battleground. So he called a council to smooth
things out while still there is a chance of reconciliation.
In 325, Constantine the Great himself convened and
presided the council at Nicaea near Bithynia. He wanted
to settle growing Arian dispute, after failing of a
settlement among the church leaders. This he tried by
sending his advisor Hosius of Cordova in 324 in Antioch.
Constantine felt that he was obligated to see the
controversy settled quickly and bring the unity both in
church and society.
Council of 324 was a rehearsal for the Nicaea council. The
Number of delegates was 318 and they were mostly from
the East. The key figures were Alexander, bishop of
Alexandria, and Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria. Eastern
Leaders of Anti-Arian side were Athanasius of Alexandria,
Eustathius of Antioch, Marcellus of Ancyra (Modern
Turkish Ankara) and Macarius of Jerusalem.
Arian side was Eusebius of Palestinian Caesarea,
Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of
Chalcedon and Secundus the Libyan and Theognas the
Libyans.
Arius (c. 256-336)
Who was Arius? He was born in Libya about 256, and
was educated under Lucian of Antioch, who was martyred
in 312. Later he became an elderly priest in Alexandria.
He was also influenced by Philo of Alexandria (c. died 50)
and this may explain his insistence on monotheism.
(Davis, 51)
When the controversy had broke out, Arius was already
an old man. According to Rowan Williams, “ If
Epiphannius is to be relied on as regards Arius’ place of
birth, , is he also to be trusted when he describes Arius an
‘old man’ (geron) at the time of the outbreak of the
controversy?”(Williams, 31) It fits his skilled rhetorical
skills and vast knowledge of his subjects. He also had
many followers and devotees.
The key Issues of the controversy were nature and status
of Christ in relationship with the Father. Arius taught that
Jesus was created being that given the special status
“Son of God” by the Father. Williams notes, “Taken as a
whole, these citations had apparently been used by Arius
an his followers to establish three basic theological
points: (i) The Son is a creature, that is, a product of God’s
will; (ii) ‘Son’ is therefore a metaphor for the second
hypostasis, and must be understood in the light of
comparable, metaphorical usage in Scripture; (iii) The
Son’s status, like his very existence, depends upon God’s
will.”(Williams, 109) For Arius’ teaching was based on his
desire to safeguard the Fatherhood as the only God. So
he had to formulate such that the Logos/Son is a
creature.
Arius teachings were one of the many loosely
interpretations of Christ’s nature at that time. But what he
brought to the church was a new teaching that Christ was
a creature and had a beginning. Many of his thoughts and
remaining writings were found in the Thalia, (or so called,
banquet) which is a loosely collected writings of Arius.
However, all of his works were neither destroyed nor lost.
The Council
The council received an overture of Arian party. Davis
notes, “It seems that Eusebius of Nicomedia was first off
the mark and offered a creedal statement favorable to
Arian views.” (Davis, 59) And the council rejected and
excommunicated Arius. Walker notes, “The action of the
council, as well as the texts of its creed and canons, are
known only form unofficial, and sometimes much later,
report. Soon after it opened, the assembly showed the
direction it was going to take by rejecting a confession of
faith present by the Arian.” (Walker, 134) After the council
Arius felt that he was unsafe to stay in Palestine and
moved to Dacia.
Outline of the Council
The main issue that the council dealt with the Logos. And
the Logos was applied to the Son. How the Logos/Son
was begotten? It was the understanding and
interpretation of the Greek word gennetos, which is
translated “begotten.” The It can be interpreted as “came
to be” “derivative” or “generated.” Early believers applied
it to mean that only the Father is the sole “unregenrated”
hence to express monotheistic status. Everything else
that existed was “generated” including the Logs/Son.
The Logos/Son was subordinate to God and had other
common with the creatures that something the Father did
not.
This seems to look subordinate on the part of the Son’s
status. But Greek philosophical tradition and
understanding provide deeper insight. And the council
explained it fully. Something created does not mean
“identity of status”, but it could also differentiated. The
Logos/Son was generated like other creatures but it can
also mean, “born from God” and thus in a secondary but
real sense it is God or divine. (Walker, 133)
Arians accepted the phrase “ begotten from the Father”
and “only begotten” as to mean God the Father created
from nothing. But they rejected a phrase “from the
substance of the Father.”
The council added a phrase to safeguard the Son’s divine
being by added “True God from true God.” This phrase
made the Son is God. (Davis, 60) Son is true God in the
notion that “the Father was never other than Father;
therefore Son and Father must have existed from all
eternity, the Father eternally begetting the Son.
The word “of one substance (homoousios) was applied
with the Father in relationship to the Son. One substance
(homoousius) saying that the Son shares the same being
with the Father, and fully divine. (Davis, 61)
Ironically Paul of Samosata of Antioch was one who used
the homoousius to describe the Logos’ eternal power of
the divine wisdom. Even though he used it to explain how
Jesus became the Son of God by inhabited by the Word
(Logos). (McGucin, 255)
Even though many were not satisfied with the
terminology, it set settled the controversy and began to
draft the Nicean creed, which would not be completed till
another ecumenical council called the Council of
Constantinople, 381.
Conclusion
The council declared, “The Son and the Father are
coequal and coeternal and “that Christ is one being
(homoousios) with the Father”. The council’s others
decisions were included an initial formulation of the
Nicene Creed, adoption of twenty articles of church
policies, the Melethian schism at Alexandria, and set the
date of Easter be celebrated on the first Sunday after the
full moon following the vernal equinox. If Easter and the
Passover were on the same day, Ester is move to the next
Sunday.
The First Council of Nicaea was the first ecumenical
council of the Christian church. (Ecumenical here does
not mean that is used in the 20th century as a movement
toward the unity among churches.) And the council was
the beginning of formation of the orthodox doctrine on the
Trinity and Christology, which is implied in the Gospels
and the writings of the fathers. This paper hopes that this
teaching to be passed on many to years to come.
Reference
Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Council
(325-787): Their History and Theology. Collegeville,
Minnesota: A Michael Glazier Book, 1990.
Evans, G. R. (Ed.) The First Christian Theologians: An
Introduction to Theology in the Early Church. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
“Journal of Theological Studies”, N.S., Vol. XXIX, Pt. 1,
April 1978.
Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Creeds. Third Edition. New
York: Continnum, 2006.
McGukin, John A. A-Z of Patristic Theology. London:
SCM Press, 2005.
Peterson, Susan Lynn. Timeline Charts of the Western
Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House,
1999.
Young, Frances. The Making of the Creeds. London: SCM
Press, 1991.
Walker Williston and Richard A. Norris, David W. Lotz,
Robert T. Handy. A History of the Christian Church. 4th
Edition. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1985.
The Council of Ephesus, 431
Introduction
This article describes a brief outlines of the Council of
Ephesus 431. I hope that this outline will cause the
readers to go beyond the outline described here and read
further of the whole council in order to appreciate
Christological controversy and triumph of the orthodoxy
in the 5th century.
Political Background
• Roman empire was a under siege.
• It was threatened by several frontiers.
• Huns tribe came from the east.
• Vandals and Sueves from West
• After the Council of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople
(381), Roman Empire was under siege.
• After the death of Theodosius the great in 395, the
kingdom split into two of his sons: Arcadius in the
East and Honorius in the West.
• Visigoths sacked Rome in 410.
• Vandal king Stilicho married emperor’s niece, and
Emperor Honorius to marry Vandal’s daughters.
• Augustine wrote his masterpiece, The City of God to
defend Christianity.
• The Roman Empire was unstable.
• In the West, the Germans were raising new kingdom
with Arian Christian faith.
• Empire was involved with another theological turmoil.
Ecclesiastical Rivalries
• Theodosius II, grandson of Theodosius the great,
became the Roman emperor in 408.
• By this time, Constantinople became a primacy of
honor over the other eastern bishoprics, namely,
Antioch and Alexandria.
• See of Constantinople was vacated.
• Nectarius, the bishop of Constantinople had died in
397.
• Theophilus of Alexandria wished to put one of his
supporters.
• Emperor chose John of Antioch in 398.
• In 425, Atticus, the patriarch of Constantinople died.
• In 428, Bishops chose Nestorius, eloquent and austere
superior of monastery in Antioch.
• At first, Nestorius promised to emperor that he would
launch attacks on all heretics.
• “With me, sire, overthrow the heretics; with you I will
overthrow the Persians” (Leo Davis, First Seven
Ecumenical Councils)
• Nestorius overthrew Arians from the churches.
• Morally Nestorius was following Novatians purist forms,
and attracted the imperial audience.
• However, he himself was about to be accused of
heresy.
Theological Controversy
• In 428, Antiochene clergy whom Nestorius had brought
began to preach against “Theotokos”, the title of
Mother of God as applied to Mary.
• He said, “Let no one call Mary Theotokos, for Mary was
only a human being and it is impossible that God
should be born of a human being.” (Leo, 140)
• Theotokos had been used since Origen, Athanasius,
Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of
Naziansius, and host other leaders of churches.
• Theotokos was used since 3rd century and was a part
of a church tradition of Constantinople.
• Nestorius attacked the title “Theotokos” in every
opportunity.
• People of Constantinople began to defend the title and
accuse Nestorius that he denied Jesus is God.
• In the West Pope Celestine was rooting out heresy
along with Augustine.
• Nestorius sent his sermon to Celestine and was not
accepted.
• Now issue became too large to be ignored.
• West understood that Nestorius was saying that Mary
could no be called Theotokos but Christotokos,
because Jesus was not fully divine but only a man
adopted by the Divine Word.
• West relied upon Latin translation of Nestorius Greek
writings.
• At Alexandria, the patriarch Cyril was ready to do battle
with Nestorius.
• Cyril had a tradition of Alexandria, the wealth of Egypt
and armies of monks who filled its deserts.
• In 429, Cyril wrote letters to the monks of Egypt about
errors of Nestorius.
• Nestorius accused of Cyril and sent refutation to Cyril.
• Theologically, what was the battle all about?
1 It began over the title “Theotokos”.
2 It involved differing Christologies.
3 Nestorius represented Antiochene tradition.
4 Cyril, the Alexandrian Philosophical Attempt
• Antiochene, basically Aristotelian, beginning with Jesus
of the Synoptic Gospels and attempting to explain
how this man is also God. (From below)
• Alexandrian, basically Platonist, beginning with the
Word of John’s Prolgogus and attempting to
understand implications of the Logos taking flesh.
(From above)
Antiochene Theology
• It followed Eustanthius of Antioch’s (fl. 325) the Word-
Man Christology (2 natures).
• It rejected Apollinarians (c. 315-392) and insisted that
the Lord’s humanity included an animating principle
and normal human mind.
• (2 natures)
• Diodorus of Tarsus (d. 394) was condemned as a
heretic. He taught Christ was Two Sons: the Son of
God (the Logos) and the Son of Man (Jesus) He tried
to rescue Apollinarius’ Jesus by defending the full
divinity and humanity of Christ.
• Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428) was a teacher of
Nestorius. He also defended humanity of Christ.
Theology of Nestorius (c. 386-431)
• Nestorius was a part of Antiochene tradition.
• He was a Patriarch of Constantinople.
• He followed Syrian Christology, Diodore of Tarsus,
Theodore of Mopsuestia and Paul of Samosata, who
said a man Jesus who had been possessed by the
divinity.
• For Nestorius his understanding of diversity of Jesus
Christ was the key.
• He had difficulty in explaining the unity of Christ.
• For Nestorius, Theotokos was saying about
Apollinarius, who taught Jesus was the divine.
• He preferred Christotokos, because the manhood of
Jesus was completed by the presence of the Word.
• Christotokos was accurate for Mary bore Christ, a man
who was at the same time a divine.
• Nestorius was an Adoptionist, splitting the God-man
onto two distinct persons artificially linked together in
a moral union by the exercise of mutual good will.
• In Christ, there are tow natures (persons). Nature means
concrete character of being. Two individual beings.
• Nestorius wanted to avoid any confusion and mixing the
natures.
Council of Ephesus 431
• It was called by Theodosius II.
• 160 bishops gathered.
• Venue was changed to Ephesus and this greatly
inconvenienced all of Nestorius’ supporters from
Syria.
• Council was held without Nestorius’ presence.
• The council decided that “Unorthodoxy of Nestorius”
was pronounced.
• His weakness of argument was he could not bring
within the framework of a single, clearly conceived
personality the two natures of Christ.
Results of the Council of Ephesus
• Orthodox doctrine of Ephesus 431:
• A single person existing “in two nature”.
• “Union of two natures has been accomplished” (JND
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 329)
• And Nestorius’ doctrine of ‘two Sons” was no more.
(Ibid, 330)
• Cyril’s teaching of Jesus was wholly and completely
divine, thus only one single person, and that person
God.
• Everything Jesus did, whether it was a human act or a
powerful act, was equally a work of the single divine
Lord, now embodied within history.
• Thus Christ is the pattern of the world’s salvation.
• A major resistance on the way from Rome and Syria.
• The council brought great bitterness and reactions for
many years.
Reference:
Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils
(325-787): Their History and Theology. Collegeville,
Minnesota: Michael Glazier Book, 1983.
Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Creeds. 3rd edition. New
York: Continuum, 1972.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. Credo: Historical and Theological Guide
TO Creeds And Confessions of Faith in the Christian
Tradition. New Haven and London: Yale University Press,
2003.
Young, Frances. The Making of the Creeds. London: SCM
Press, 1991.
The Council of Chalcedon, 451
Introduction
• It was held aftermath of the Council of Ephesus 431.
• Politically, empress Pulcheria (399-453), who was a
sister of emperor Theodosius II, and a wife of
emperor Marcion was theologically involved.
• Pulcheria, even though she was marry to the emperor,
remained as a nun.
• She was a throughout orthodox in her position.
• She helped to organized the Council of Chalcedon with
her husband Marcion.
Eutyches (c. 380-456)
• In 448, Eutyches was seventy years old monk from
Constantinople area.
• He was a strong supporter of Cyrillian theology (one
person of Christ).
• He was well connected in the monastic world in the
eastern empire.
• Eutyches opposed Nestorianism (two person of Christ).
• In principle, he was immersed in Apollinarianism (Christ
was without human soul, just one divine nature).
• He repudiated two natures of Christ.
• He was accused of embracing Apollinarianism of
teaching of one nature of Christ.
• Apollinarius was a bishop of Laodicea and was identified
with Cyrillianism.
• He was condemned as a Docetist.
Political Background
• Nestorians continue to attack Cyrillian camp.
• Eutyches appealed to Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem and
Thessalonica.
• Antioch opposed Eutyches.
• In defense, Eutyches, Dioscurus and Chrysaphius
formed a group to oppose attack.
• Dioscurus was a patriarch of Alexandria.
• He was condemned as a heretic, but is a saint in Coptic,
and Syriac church.
• Chrysaphius was an eunuch who advice emperor
Theodosius II.
• Leo I (400-461) was a pope who stood in line of
orthodoxy.
• He condemned Eutyches as a heretic.
• Leo said, “Eutyches deserved a verdict of
condemnation.” (Davis, p. 176.)
Robber Council Background, 449
It was held on August 8, 449 with Dioscurus as the
president of the council. And participant included pope
legate Julius of Puteoli.
And there were 170 bishops who favored Dioscurus.
• The Robber council restored Eutyches and isolated
Julius of Puteoli who did not understand Greek.
• By vote of 111 out 130, Eutyches was declared orthodox
and restored his office of priest and archimandrite.
• Dioscurus deposed Eutyches’ accusers Flavian and
Eusebius.
• Dioscurus tried to stop all who opposed him. He
removed them from offices.
• Flavian of patriarch of Constantinople appealed to
emperor Theodosius II and his sister Pulcheria.
• He demanded a new trial or council.
• But Flavian died while in exile.
• Leo called the Council of Ephesus 449 as a latocinium,
which means robber.
• Theodosius II died in July 450.
• Pulcheria took power and married a general Marcion and
worked behind him to crush Dioscurus party.
• Empress Pulcheria was sided with Pope Leo I, who
angry with the Robber council and Dioscurus.
• Eutyches was sent to exile by the Marcion.
• Council was called on 451 by emperor.
• Place was in Chalcedon, across the Bosporus.
The Council of Chalcedon 451
• It was at Chalcedon on October 8, 451.
• 500 bishops attended the council.
• Council demanded the exclusion of Dioscurus for Pope
Leo I labeled him as a heretic.
• However, Dioscurus was remained.
• Second session began on October 10.
• The council issued a document.
• Third session began on October 13.
• They deal with the issue of Dioscurus.
• Dioscurus’ was charged with receiving heretic Eutyches.
• Eutyches was condemned as a heretic by the pope.
• The council approved the decision of the Pope.
• Fourth session began on October 22.
• Vote was cast between pope Leo and Dioscurus.
• Decision came down to Leo.
• Dioscurus was condemned.
• Eutyches’ condemnation was stayed.
• Leo tome was received as an orthodox along with
writings of Cyril and Confession of Flavian.
Theological conclusion
• “Unity of person in Christ with two natures”
• The Divine of the same substance as the Father
(homoousios to patri), the human of the same
substance as us (homoousos emin), which are united
unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably.
• It affirmed the definitions of Nicaea and Constantinople.
• It declared the errors of Nestorius and Eutyches.
• It condemned:
5Those who deny the title Theotokos (‘Mother of God’) to
the Virgin Mary thereby implying that the humanity of
Christ is separable from His Divine person;
6 Those who confuse the Divine and human nature in
one, and therefore hold that the Divine nature is by
this confusion passible
7Those who hold that the two natures existed before the
union but became one at the Incarnation.
Aftermath of Chalcedon
• After death of emperor Marcion, Zeno the Isaurian
became the new emperor.
• He wanted to appease both Eutychean and Leo I.
• He issued the “Henotikon” in 482.
Contents of Henotikon
• The condemnations of Eutyches and Nestorius made at
Chalcedon.
• An explicit approval of the twelve anathemas of Cyril of
Alexandria
• Avoiding any statement whether Christ had one or two
natures, in an attempt to appease both Non-
Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian Orthodox
Christians.
• But appeasement did not work out.
Reference
Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils
(325-787): Their History and Theology. Collegeville,
Minnesota: Michael Glazier Book, 1983.
MaGuckin, John. A. St. Cyril of Alexandria and the
Christological Controversy. Crestwood, New York: St.
Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2004.
Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Creeds. 3rd edition. New
York: Continuum, 1972.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. Credo: Historical and Theological Guide
TO Creeds And Confessions of Faith in the Christian
Tradition. New Haven and London: Yale University Press,
2003.
Young, Frances. The Making of the Creeds. London: SCM
Press, 1991.
The Development of Episcopal Ministry for the Purpose
of Canon and Creed
In this article, I would like to look at life and work of
Irenaeus of Lyon and his understanding of Episcopal
ministry for the purpose of canon and creed.
It is very important to know and understand how and why
Irenaeus insisted on apostolic authority and it tradition.
And it is also important to know his background in order
to understand his insistence on tradition of church and its
teaching based on apostolic teachings. Now, I would like
to take a look at life of Irenaeus of Lyons.
Life of Irenaeus
Irenaeus is considered the first catholic theologian, a
teacher and a saint in the church. He was born around A.
D. 130 in Smyrna near Turkey and died of martyrdom
around A. D. 202 (there are still debate about his death).
His name means “peaceful or peaceful one”, and a legend
notes that while he was young, he listened a sermon of
Polycarp, who was a disciple of Apostle John. He moved
and went to Rome to study and later became a presbyter
of Lyons in France. According to Williston Walker,
Irenaeus was a bishop emigrated to the West from Asia
Minor. He is first known to history as a presbyter of the
church at Lyons.(Walker 78, 1985) With his Eastern
background and Western training, he became a bridge
between West and East. In dealing with heresy, he was
once sympathetic with Montanist movement, a 2-century
heretical movement that arose in the region of Phrygia
and Mysia. The movement began within the church by
Montanus. It was called “the New Prophecy” by the
follower of Montanus, who converted to Christianity. A
legend notes that Irenaeus even asked Pope Eleutherius
to allow Montanist to remain, yet his association with the
sect is not evident.(Livingstone 847, 1997) Here we can
see Irenaeus’ tolerance and his sympathy of the sect. He
wanted to bring a bridge between East and West, for the
former church was engulfed in Quartodeciman
Controversy. On the other hand, his dealing with Gnostics
is rather harsh. Because it was a direct threat to church.
His exposure of Gnosticism is well known and
documented. Irenaeus’ writing is different than of
apologist, who wrote usually against heretics and
gentiles. Instead his writing is addressed to Christians.
Evans notes that, “The major work of Irenaeus, bishop of
Lugdunum (Lyons) form A. D. 178, is a polemic against
Gnostic heresies, elaborated with extensive treatment of
orthodox Christian teaching… It is a work of different
literary genre from that of the apologists, and expects
different kind of readership, i. e. a Christian one.”
(O'Donovan 15, 1999) Unlike the other apologist who had
much interaction with Gnostics and their writings,
Irenaeus did not dealt directly with them. Instead he wrote
to the Christians to do away with them. He was more of a
pastor/bishop who protected and nurtured the flocks of
Christ than deal head on with the heretics.
Irenaeus’ main literary works are Demonstration of the
Apostolic Preaching, and An Indictment and Overthrow
of the Falsely named ‘Knowledge’. The latter work is
commonly called Against Heresies (Adersus omnes
Haereses). The work was probably completed around A.
D. 185. The Against Heresites survives in fragments, but a
Latin translation from about 380 is complete. It is
stimulated but not determined by opposition to
Gnosticism, a form of theosophy that today attracts
interest and sympathy. Now I would like to focus more on
contents of Against Heresies.
Against Heresies
In Irenaeus view, the first and most urgent threat was
Marcion and the Gnostics that arose out their denial that
the true God and the World-Creator are one and the
same.
In his reply, Irenaeus insisted that the rule of faith and
Scripture alike know only one God, the Creator, who
‘contains all things’ while being himself contained limited
by nothing.”(Irenaeus 359-360, 1987 (Reprinted))
Irenaeus saw God as not some remote being or
distanced, but He himself is intimately present in His
creation. Here we already see that his theology is very
pastoral and relational. Unlike the teaching of Gnostics,
which taught impersonal god, dualistic views of world as
good and evil, and highly alienated understanding of
knowledge (gnosis). For many Gnostics, knowledge is not
for everyone, but for those few and enlightened ones. In
this kind of heretical teachings, Irenaeus had no room for
discussion nor being apologectical with them. He was
not interested in arguing with Gnostics. Rather, Irenaeus
saw himself as above all a preserver and interpreter of
tradition, and he was integrating themes from Pauline and
Jeannine thought, and weaved into his anti-Gnostic
synthesis theme. (Walker 78, 1985)
Irenaeus saw the importance of emphasizing the
traditional elements in the church, especially the
Episcopate, Scripture and religious and theological
tradition. (Livingstone, 847, 1997) He stressed that the
continuity in the apostolic tradition was the continuity of
the apostles with one another as the faithful messenger of
Christ. Thus, it was important for him to acknowledge the
apostolic succession. For Irenaeus, “Peter was an apostle
of the very same God as Paul was.” (Irenaeus, 436, 1987)
They were the pillars of the church and stood the tradition
of apostolic. Walker noted that “Peter and Rapul both
died at Rome, and the luster of their name was
associated with the church there (Rome) from an early
date, even though neither was actually its founder”
(Walker, 75, 1985).
Marcionism and Montanism brought worldliness and
compromised church’s teaching. In order to combat
these, Irenaeus stressed the apostolic continuity. Pelikan
notes that, “Apostolic foundation and the apostolic
succession were another criterion of apostolic continuity”
(Pelikan, 118, 1971). Irenaeus notes that, “It is within the
power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to
see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the
apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and
were are in a position to reckon up those who were by the
apostle instituted bishops in the Churches and [to
demonstrate the succession of these men to our own
times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like
what these [heretics] rave about.”(Irenaeus, 415, 1987)
Irenaeus clearly supports the perpetual succession of
bishops. Stuart G. Hall argues that “By A. D. 180,
Irenaeus argued that everywhere bishops were appointed
by apostles, and that the pedigree of the bishops of his
time could be traced back to the apostolic founders of
churches” (Stuart, 34, 1991). The role of the Apostles as
the teachers of the Church is now evident throughout
Irenaues’ teaching. Now let us look at Irenaeus’
understanding of canonicity of Scripture and Creeds.
In dealing with Gnostics, he saw the importance of
authority of Scripture, both the Old and the New
Testament and Episcopal ministry based on apostolic
tradition. He believed the apostolic teaching and tradition.
Irenaeus emphasized on the canonicity of Scripture. He is
the first Catholic theologian to limit to first four gospels in
the New Testament: Book of Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John. He is the first Catholic theologian to incorporate
into canon of Scripture as the divinely inspired. Pelikan
notes that “ For Irenaeus, Christ is the treasure which was
hidden in the field, that is, in the Old Testament
Scripture.”(Pelikan 1971) He acknowledged all of the
New Testament books except, the epistle of Hebrews and
Jude. Irenaeus notes that Heretics do not follow neither
Scripture nor tradition. He notes that, “When however,
they are confuted from the Scripture, they turn around
and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not
correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are
ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from
them by those who are ignorant of tradition.”(Irenaeus,
415, 1987 (Reprinted)) Here we see Irenaeus using of
both tradition and Scripture as a norm of Christendom.
He held up a high view of Scripture and tradition. Walker
notes that, “The great weigh of argument, however, was
borne by an appeal to the prophetic and apostolic
Scriptures, which, he was convinced, would themselves
confute heretical teaching directly if attention were paid to
their plain sense and if their obscure passage were
understood in the light of those whose meaning was
obvious.”(Walker 78, 1985)
In dealing with creeds, Irenaeus saw the creed as the Law
of Truth. Pelikan saw that “the evolution of Christian
creeds is an essential and unavoidable part of the history
of early Christian doctrine; almost equally unavoidable is
the temptation to document the inclusion of particular
articles from the creeds.”(Pelikan 116, 1971) Irenaeus
spoke of the faith, which the church had received from the
apostles and from their disciples, and preceded to quote
a creed. Irenaeus says, “the church, though dispersed
throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth,
has received from the apostles’ and their disciples this
faith: [she] believes in one God, the Father…and in one
Christ Jesus, the Son of God… and in the Holy Spirit, who
proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of
God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the
passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the
ascension into heaven and His [future] manifestation from
heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in
one, and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human
race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and
Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible
Father, ‘every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and
things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every
tongue should confess’ to Him, and that he should
execute just judgment towards all; that He may send
‘spiritual wickedness, and the angels who transgressed
and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and
unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into
everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace,
confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those
who have kept His commandments, and have persevered
in His love, some form the beginning [of their Christian
course], and others form [the date of] their repentance,
and may surround them with everlasting glory.”(Irenaeus
330-331, 1987 (Reprinted)) Irenaeus used earlier version
of the Apostles’ Creed to encourage the righteous to
steadfast, and urged the wicked to come repentance.
Later the Creed brought unity and a criterion of apostolic
continuity. According to Kelly, “Christians have been
accustomed to understand by the word creed a fixed
formula summarizing the essential articles of their religion
and enjoying the sanction of ecclesiastical authority.”
(Kelly, 1, 1972)
References:
Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1987 (Reprinted).
Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Creeds. London, Longmans,
Green and Co., 1972
Livingstone, E. A. & F. L. Cross, Editors. The Oxford
Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford University
Press, 1997.
O' Donovan, Oliver & Joan Lockwood O' Donovan,
Editors. From Irenaeus to Grotius: A Sourcebook in
Christian Political Thoughts. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1999.
Pelikan, J. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition
(100-600). Chicago and London, The University of
Chicago Press, 1971.
Walker, William & Richard A. Norris & David W. Lotz, and
Robert T. Handy. (1985) .A History of the Christian Church.
New York, Scribner.1985.
The Question of Authorities in Forming Doctrine
Introduction
What is Christian doctrine? And where does the
authorities in forming doctrine come from? This is a thesis
of this paper. To answer the first question, I would like to
quote late Church historian Jaroslav Pelikan’s book
called The Christian Tradition: A History of the
Development of Doctrine, vol. 1: The Emergence of the
Catholic Tradition (100-600), Pelikan notes that “What the
church of Jesus Christ believes, teaches, and confesses
on the basis of the word of God: this is Christian
doctrine.”(Pelikan, 1, 1971) Christian doctrine has its
foundation on the teaching of the church. And a church
would not be church without Christian doctrine, which is
teaching of Jesus Christ.
Why is it important to study the question of authorities in
forming doctrine in Christianity? There are many ways and
elements that can help answer the questions. First, a
study of this nature can help to confirm an origin and
necessity of the Canon of Scripture; apocryphal sources,
pseudepigraphal writings, Episcopal ministry in apostolic
succession; 3 Ecumenical Creeds and numerous
ecumenical councils. Second, a study of this nature can
trace the development of false doctrines (commonly
called heresies). Church history can also help show us
how false doctrines originated and spread within
Christendom. Third benefit of studying is learning about
the past in order to understand present-day teaching of
doctrines in the church today. We need to read more
about the past or study the origin of doctrine in order to
understand present day Christianity. Without a grasp of
the question of authorities in forming doctrine, we will fall
into a false teaching or might have defective view of
Christianity.
In this article, I would like to survey numerous concepts of
authorities in forming doctrine by looking into the
Canonicity of Scripture, apocryphal sources, three
Ecumenical creeds, church councils and a development
of Episcopal ministry in apostolic succession.
If Christianity is a fact and impresses a doctrine on
believers mind, it must have some origins or a source of
origin. And then what gives doctrine authority and
mandate? Christian doctrine had already undergone a
long period of development by the time that the latest
books in the canon of the New Testament had been
written, and most of the known work of the ‘Apostolic
Fathers’ had been written, such as Didache. According to
Lampe, “Didache is very early indeed, perhaps dating
from well within what is generally thought of as the New
Testament period.”(Lampe, 23, 1978)
Now, with these backgrounds, I would like to take a look
at the Canonicity of Scripture as the foundational
authority in forming Christian doctrine.
Canonicity of Scripture
The question, however it is addressed, should be raised
as to why the Scripture should be made the primary
source and criterion for forming Christian doctrine? It is
because like anything else there must be some sort of
authority in any situation, in this case, its in forming
doctrine.
Henry Newman notes that, “If Christianity be an universal
religion, suited not simply to one locality or period but to
all times and places, it cannot but vary in its relations and
dealings towards the world around it, that is, it will
develop… Hence all bodies of Christians, orthodox or not,
develop the doctrine of Scripture.” (Newman, 79, 1960)
Christianity is about a movement or belief, which follow
Jesus Christ. Thus, it is logical to turn and look into his
teaching and what he had said and did. On the
assumpsion that Gospels are reliable source of historical
information, and what Jesus endorsed must also be
regarded as further source of authority in forming
doctrine.
In choosing which books (or writings) to be considered a
canon in Christian tradition is much more complex. There
were many books of the Bible (Old Testament called
Jewish Writings, Septuagint, Apocrypha, Gnostic writings,
pseudepigraphal, Didache, and other New Testament
manuscripts) were available in early period of Christianity.
The development of the canon is a fascinating and
important area of importance in Christian doctrine and
teaching of apostles. Thus studying the origin of
canonicity of Scripture is actually studying apostles’
teachings as well. For Jesus did not write anything.
Pelikan agrees with John Knox who believed that
“Canonicity and apostolicity became almost synonymous
terms”(Pelikan, 114, 1971). The list of canonical or
apostolic books continued to fluctuate for many
centuries. But what did not fluctuate was the Christian
doctrine, i. e. orthodox formulated doctrines that had
originated from councils and later became known as
Ecumenical creeds. (There are three recognized
Ecumenical creeds, the Apostle’ Creed, the Nicene Creed
and the Athanasian Creed.)
Controversies surrounding the canonicity of Scripture
range from Jewish bible, apocrypha, pseudepigraphal
writings and many New Testament fragment and
manuscripts. And there were also believers who were not
sure of them on determining orthodox position in the
church. Bernard David noted that, “Only fraction of the
writings from early times still exist, and it is difficult to say
how representative the remnant is. If a writer was a wellknown
bishop, pastor, or other church leader, we have
some reason to believe he represented a significant view
in the church. If a writer is unknown or had no significant
position in the church, it is quite possible that he was not
truly representative of the church of his time.”(Bernard,
104,1999) This was one way to establish an authority in
canonicity of Scripture. Authority rested on the writer of
bible’s position and influence.
Apostolic Fathers viewed the Scripture and the baptism
formula to be regarded as presenting norm of Christian
faith.(Reinhold, 82, 1935) According to Reinhold there
were two sources for sources of authority. He noted that,
“Jesus Himself describes and employs the Old Testament
as an infallible authority (i. e. Matt. 5. 17. Lk. 24. 44), and
the apostles also use it as such (e. g. Rom. 1. 2. Gal. 3. 8,
22; 4. 30, etc. But the Lord says of his own words also,
that they shall outlast heaven and earth, and asserts the
same of the principles to be proclaimed by his apostles
(Matt. 10. 40; 16:19).”(Reinhold, 82, 1935)
On Apocrypha
In dealing with Apocrypha, many did question its
authority. Yet there were many who identified the writings
to be regarded with equal status, writings such as
Hermas, Barnabas, the Didache, 1 and 2 Clement, the
Apocalypse of Peter, etc. Some writers in the early
Christendom, notably Tertullian and Augustine, gave full
or partial approval to some of the Apocrypha. Bernard
notes that, “Under the influence of Augustine, regional
councils in North Africa in the late fourth and early fifth
centuries endorsed the Apocrypha. Other writers, such as
Origen and Athanasius, did not regard them as Scripture.
Some did not deem them canonical but used them for
study and preaching. Jerome, translator of the Vulgate
(Latin Bible), insisted that they were not the Word of God.”
(Bernard, 104, 1999) Thus the books were neither
received as the Word of God or not as the Word of God as
it is today.
On Creeds
In dealing with Creeds (here we are dealing with the three
Ecumenical creeds, which all branches of Christianity
recognized as the creeds of the church.), it played an
important role in ancient doctrinal controversies,
especially those on the Godhead. Bernard notes that,
“The earliest ‘rule of faith’ (fundamental doctrines or
statements that were accepted generally) focused on faith
in the one God… It is the basis of the Apostles’ Creed
used today.”(Bernard, 137, 1999) The Apostles’ Creed
was not written by the apostles, but it contained their
teaching and beliefs based on Jesus Christ. The creed
was a respond to new doctrinal challenges, yet it did not
contain some of important doctrinal issues that face the
contemporary church. (Bernard, 137, 1999)
The Nicene Creed was the creed that was developed
during the Council of Nicea in 325. The creed was a
direct result of the council that reacted against teaching of
Arius, who was a deacon in Alexandrian church, held a
view that the Son or the Logos was created and adopted
by the Father to be divine. And he taught that there was a
time, which the Logos did not, existed and later created
to be a divine. The Arian doctrine of Christ as creature
collides with the tradition of describing him as God.
Pelikan notes that, “But, the Arian use of the titles Logos
and Son of God, which together had come to summarize
the central meaning of that tradition…For while the
tradition of describing Christ as God was indeed the basic
doctrinal and liturgical issue at stake in the controversy fro
the beginning.”(Pelikan, 200, 1971) The Nicene Creed
reaffirmed the basic belief in Christ as divine
and Homoousios (same essence as the Father). The
Athanasian Creed was clear exposition after the Nicene
Creed, of Trinitarian controversy and the Incarnation of
the Son. It stated and restated the twofold nature in the
one divine person of Jesus Christ. Three ecumenical
creeds were the authority of the councils and creeds that
originated the formation of early Christian doctrine.
Both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox view the
ancient creeds and councils as authoritative source of
doctrine. Protestantism affirms the sole authority of
Scripture, but in practice most protestant churches also
appeal to the creeds as definitive and normative.(Bernard,
137, 1999)
On Apostolic Ministry
In dealing with development of apostolic ministry, it is
necessary to look at Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258). He was
a student of Tertullian and considered one who
emphasized the importance of church. He even said that
church is salvation or there is no salvation outside the
church. His reason for such belief is based on widespread
of persecution during his time (It was Decian
persecution). Williston Walker notes that, “As he (Cyprian)
saw it, the church was found ultimately upon the apostles
whom Christ commissioned. It was therefore the apostles
as single college (collegium: a body of colleagues),
severally exercising a single undivided authority, who
were the foundation of the church and hence in Cyprian’s
view (and not his alone) devolved upon the bishops, the
successors of the apostles, who severally exercised the
authority of a single collective ministry.”(Walker, 1985)
For Cyprian, authority of Episcopal ministry in apostolic
succession based on God, and Christ. For him, there is
one God, and Christ is one, and there is one chair
(episcopate) founded upon the rock by the word of the
Lord. To denying the authority of the apostolic succession
ministry is to denying church. This view led to the system
of synodical government by bishops and they had
authority of apostolic tradition.
Conclusion
The question of authorities in forming doctrine was long
and combative at times. The canonicity of Scripture,
development of the Ecumenical Creeds and numerous
councils and rise of Episcopal ministry in apostolic
succession had to do with both church history and
development of Christian doctrine and dogma. Sole
authority of Christian doctrine is based on the authority of
Scripture. And from the Scripture everything begins and
ends. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy do include
apocrypha writings in their Bible along with both the Old
Testament (commonly called Hebrew Bible) and New
Testament, whereas Protestantism recognize only Old and
the New Testament. In dealing with three Creeds, all
branches recognized as a norm and authoritative.
References:
• Archer, S. (1993). "Hooker on Apostolic Succession: The
Two Voices." Sixteenth Century Journal 24(1): 67-74.
• Elwell, Walter A. (Editor) (1984). Evangelical Dictionary
of Theology. Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
• Evans, G. R. (Editor). (2004). The First Christian
Theologians: An Introduction to Theology in the Early
Church. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing
• Bernard, D. K. (1999). A History of Christian Doctrine.
Hazelwood, MO, Word Atlane Press.
• Brakke, D. (1994). "Canon Formation and Social Conflict
in Fourth-Century Egypt: Athanasius of Aleandria's
Thirty-Ninth "Festal Letter"." The Harvard Theological
Review 87(4): 395-419.
• Bray, G. L. (1984). Creeds, Councils and Christ. Downers
Grove, Il, Inter-Varsity Press.
• Erickson, M. J. (1985). Christian Theology. Grand
Rapids, Baker Book House.
• Irenaeus (1987 (Reprinted). Against Heresies. Grand
Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Kelly, J. N. D. (1972). Early Christian Creeds. London,
Longmans, Green and Co.
• Lampe, G. W. H. (1978). A History of Christian Doctrine.
Edinburgh, T & T Clark.
• Leith, J. H. (1982). Creeds of the Churches: A Reader in
Christian Doctrine from the Bible to the Present, John
Knox Press.
• Matter, E. A. (1991). "The Bible in All Ages?" The Journal
of Religion: 79-90.
• Meyendorff, J. (1960). The Orthodox Church: Its Past
and Its Role in the World Today. New York, Pantheon
Books.
• Newman, J. H. (1960). An Essay on the Development of
Christian Doctrine. Garden City, Image Books.
• O'Donovan, Oliverr and Joan Lockwood O'Donovan,
Editors (1999). From Irenaeus to Grotius: A
Sourcebook in Christian Political Thoughts. Grand
Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Pelikan, J. (1971). The Emergence of the Catholic
Tradition (100-600). Chicago and London, The
University of Chicago Press.
• Pelikan, J. (1974). The Spirit of Eastern Christiandom
(600- 1700). Chicago and London, The University of
Chicago Press.
• Reinhold, S. (1935). Textbook of the History of Doctrine.
Eugene, OR, Wipf and Stock Publishers.
• Reiser, W. E. (1978). What Are They Saying About
Dogma? New York, Paulist Press.
• Walker, Williston and Richard A. Norris, David W. Lotz,
Roert T. Handy (1985). A History of the Christian
Church. New York, Scribner.
• Willis, J. R., S.J. (2002). The Teachings of the Church
Fathers. San Francisco, Ignatius Press.
Introduction
The council was the first of seven ecumenical councils in
the ancient church history. The calling of the council
marked a triumphant church that survived many
persecutions and repressions. However, as soon as the
church was established its legitimacy in the empire, it
found itself a new challenge; this time the challenge came
not from outside, but it came from within the church. It
was a theological interpretation issue. Church had to sort
out among many loosely interpreted sayings to church’s
orthodox teaching on the nature of Christ the Son of God.
The time has come for a church to deal and formulate the
orthodox doctrine for the many generations to adhere to.
Soon after apostles wrote the gospels and letters, people
began to interpret them and had various understandings.
One of the issues was on what Christ said about himself
and who he really was. And different churches and
traditions had different beliefs, interpretations and
understandings on the Bible and its interpretations. As a
result, all the ancient seven councils dealt with the
interpretation of nature and status of Christ and his preexistent
relationship with the Father, and the use of icons
in the church.
Background
The cause of the Arian controversy, which brought about
the council of 325, stemmed on Arius’ teaching on nature
and relationship of the Son and the Father.
The start of the Arian debate was probably occurred in
the city of Baucalis, where he was a presiding priest in
318. (Kelly, 231)
He was trying to preserve a monotheistic understanding
of the God in the Old Testament in light of the Anti-Arian’s
view of the Son as being the co-equal and co-existence
with the Father. Issue of the day was not whether the
Father was God, but how is that the Son is God? This
question has been asking by many long before the
council of Nicaea, 325. Paul of Samosata of Antioch
taught that God adopted the Son, which is called
adoptionism (dynamic moarchianism). He wanted to
defend uniqueness of the God. Philo of Alexandria, who
was a famous Jewish exegete, influenced Arius. Origen
also taught adoptionism of the Son, but unlike Arius
Origen taught the Son had no beginning and was not
created being. For many early Christians, who were
mainly from Judaism background, the question was a
problem for the understanding of the monotheistic system
of the Jewish religion and new belief in the Son of God.
Many wanted to safeguard the unique characteristics of
the Father as the only God.
Various Beliefs in the Empire
And there were other challenges that also faced the early
believers. It came from the pagan religions of the Roman
Empire. The Roman Empire already had an official state
religion, it was directed to the emperor himself. Further, it
had a tolerant policy toward other beliefs and religions as
well. According to Davis, “religious belief within this farflung
ranged from a lofty but nebulous pantheism to
primitive animism.” (Davis. 17) Roman’s pantheon is a
good example. Pantheon means “every god”. It tolerated
as many religions and beliefs as long as they did not
cause disturbances within the empire. Arius and his
followers wanted to focus on theology of Paul of
Samosata’s monarchial understanding of the Father God.
They simply wanted to adhere to the teaching of God as
uncreated while the Logos/the Son created being.
In the midst of various views of the Son’s nature and
status, the time for defining the orthodox Christology was
ready. This important issue was to deal by the newly
crowned Constantine came to the throne.
Constantine the Great (c. 274-337)
After Constantine became the sole ruler of the Roman
Empire in 324, he wanted to rule peacefully. But there
was a disturbance brewing in the North African churches.
Constantine received an appeal to intervene in the affair
of a schismatical movement called the Donatists
controversy. After successful resolution, he was ready to
tackle another more important theological controversy.
This was called “The Council of Nicaea, I, 325.”
When the Arian controversy was broke out, Constantine
wanted to get involve right away. Because it threatened
the tranquility of the realm, which he was ruling. And also
it caused a schism among the churches. Williams, “Arius
mistake was to emphasize the numerical strength of his
support, especially in Libya. Constantine assumed that
Arius was threatening a schism, the one thing which all
the imperial efforts were designed to avoid.” (Williams, 77)
Calling him, “Ares”, a god of war. (77)
Evidently the emperor did not like his realm turned into
another battleground. So he called a council to smooth
things out while still there is a chance of reconciliation.
In 325, Constantine the Great himself convened and
presided the council at Nicaea near Bithynia. He wanted
to settle growing Arian dispute, after failing of a
settlement among the church leaders. This he tried by
sending his advisor Hosius of Cordova in 324 in Antioch.
Constantine felt that he was obligated to see the
controversy settled quickly and bring the unity both in
church and society.
Council of 324 was a rehearsal for the Nicaea council. The
Number of delegates was 318 and they were mostly from
the East. The key figures were Alexander, bishop of
Alexandria, and Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria. Eastern
Leaders of Anti-Arian side were Athanasius of Alexandria,
Eustathius of Antioch, Marcellus of Ancyra (Modern
Turkish Ankara) and Macarius of Jerusalem.
Arian side was Eusebius of Palestinian Caesarea,
Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of
Chalcedon and Secundus the Libyan and Theognas the
Libyans.
Arius (c. 256-336)
Who was Arius? He was born in Libya about 256, and
was educated under Lucian of Antioch, who was martyred
in 312. Later he became an elderly priest in Alexandria.
He was also influenced by Philo of Alexandria (c. died 50)
and this may explain his insistence on monotheism.
(Davis, 51)
When the controversy had broke out, Arius was already
an old man. According to Rowan Williams, “ If
Epiphannius is to be relied on as regards Arius’ place of
birth, , is he also to be trusted when he describes Arius an
‘old man’ (geron) at the time of the outbreak of the
controversy?”(Williams, 31) It fits his skilled rhetorical
skills and vast knowledge of his subjects. He also had
many followers and devotees.
The key Issues of the controversy were nature and status
of Christ in relationship with the Father. Arius taught that
Jesus was created being that given the special status
“Son of God” by the Father. Williams notes, “Taken as a
whole, these citations had apparently been used by Arius
an his followers to establish three basic theological
points: (i) The Son is a creature, that is, a product of God’s
will; (ii) ‘Son’ is therefore a metaphor for the second
hypostasis, and must be understood in the light of
comparable, metaphorical usage in Scripture; (iii) The
Son’s status, like his very existence, depends upon God’s
will.”(Williams, 109) For Arius’ teaching was based on his
desire to safeguard the Fatherhood as the only God. So
he had to formulate such that the Logos/Son is a
creature.
Arius teachings were one of the many loosely
interpretations of Christ’s nature at that time. But what he
brought to the church was a new teaching that Christ was
a creature and had a beginning. Many of his thoughts and
remaining writings were found in the Thalia, (or so called,
banquet) which is a loosely collected writings of Arius.
However, all of his works were neither destroyed nor lost.
The Council
The council received an overture of Arian party. Davis
notes, “It seems that Eusebius of Nicomedia was first off
the mark and offered a creedal statement favorable to
Arian views.” (Davis, 59) And the council rejected and
excommunicated Arius. Walker notes, “The action of the
council, as well as the texts of its creed and canons, are
known only form unofficial, and sometimes much later,
report. Soon after it opened, the assembly showed the
direction it was going to take by rejecting a confession of
faith present by the Arian.” (Walker, 134) After the council
Arius felt that he was unsafe to stay in Palestine and
moved to Dacia.
Outline of the Council
The main issue that the council dealt with the Logos. And
the Logos was applied to the Son. How the Logos/Son
was begotten? It was the understanding and
interpretation of the Greek word gennetos, which is
translated “begotten.” The It can be interpreted as “came
to be” “derivative” or “generated.” Early believers applied
it to mean that only the Father is the sole “unregenrated”
hence to express monotheistic status. Everything else
that existed was “generated” including the Logs/Son.
The Logos/Son was subordinate to God and had other
common with the creatures that something the Father did
not.
This seems to look subordinate on the part of the Son’s
status. But Greek philosophical tradition and
understanding provide deeper insight. And the council
explained it fully. Something created does not mean
“identity of status”, but it could also differentiated. The
Logos/Son was generated like other creatures but it can
also mean, “born from God” and thus in a secondary but
real sense it is God or divine. (Walker, 133)
Arians accepted the phrase “ begotten from the Father”
and “only begotten” as to mean God the Father created
from nothing. But they rejected a phrase “from the
substance of the Father.”
The council added a phrase to safeguard the Son’s divine
being by added “True God from true God.” This phrase
made the Son is God. (Davis, 60) Son is true God in the
notion that “the Father was never other than Father;
therefore Son and Father must have existed from all
eternity, the Father eternally begetting the Son.
The word “of one substance (homoousios) was applied
with the Father in relationship to the Son. One substance
(homoousius) saying that the Son shares the same being
with the Father, and fully divine. (Davis, 61)
Ironically Paul of Samosata of Antioch was one who used
the homoousius to describe the Logos’ eternal power of
the divine wisdom. Even though he used it to explain how
Jesus became the Son of God by inhabited by the Word
(Logos). (McGucin, 255)
Even though many were not satisfied with the
terminology, it set settled the controversy and began to
draft the Nicean creed, which would not be completed till
another ecumenical council called the Council of
Constantinople, 381.
Conclusion
The council declared, “The Son and the Father are
coequal and coeternal and “that Christ is one being
(homoousios) with the Father”. The council’s others
decisions were included an initial formulation of the
Nicene Creed, adoption of twenty articles of church
policies, the Melethian schism at Alexandria, and set the
date of Easter be celebrated on the first Sunday after the
full moon following the vernal equinox. If Easter and the
Passover were on the same day, Ester is move to the next
Sunday.
The First Council of Nicaea was the first ecumenical
council of the Christian church. (Ecumenical here does
not mean that is used in the 20th century as a movement
toward the unity among churches.) And the council was
the beginning of formation of the orthodox doctrine on the
Trinity and Christology, which is implied in the Gospels
and the writings of the fathers. This paper hopes that this
teaching to be passed on many to years to come.
Reference
Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Council
(325-787): Their History and Theology. Collegeville,
Minnesota: A Michael Glazier Book, 1990.
Evans, G. R. (Ed.) The First Christian Theologians: An
Introduction to Theology in the Early Church. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
“Journal of Theological Studies”, N.S., Vol. XXIX, Pt. 1,
April 1978.
Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Creeds. Third Edition. New
York: Continnum, 2006.
McGukin, John A. A-Z of Patristic Theology. London:
SCM Press, 2005.
Peterson, Susan Lynn. Timeline Charts of the Western
Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House,
1999.
Young, Frances. The Making of the Creeds. London: SCM
Press, 1991.
Walker Williston and Richard A. Norris, David W. Lotz,
Robert T. Handy. A History of the Christian Church. 4th
Edition. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1985.
The Council of Ephesus, 431
Introduction
This article describes a brief outlines of the Council of
Ephesus 431. I hope that this outline will cause the
readers to go beyond the outline described here and read
further of the whole council in order to appreciate
Christological controversy and triumph of the orthodoxy
in the 5th century.
Political Background
• Roman empire was a under siege.
• It was threatened by several frontiers.
• Huns tribe came from the east.
• Vandals and Sueves from West
• After the Council of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople
(381), Roman Empire was under siege.
• After the death of Theodosius the great in 395, the
kingdom split into two of his sons: Arcadius in the
East and Honorius in the West.
• Visigoths sacked Rome in 410.
• Vandal king Stilicho married emperor’s niece, and
Emperor Honorius to marry Vandal’s daughters.
• Augustine wrote his masterpiece, The City of God to
defend Christianity.
• The Roman Empire was unstable.
• In the West, the Germans were raising new kingdom
with Arian Christian faith.
• Empire was involved with another theological turmoil.
Ecclesiastical Rivalries
• Theodosius II, grandson of Theodosius the great,
became the Roman emperor in 408.
• By this time, Constantinople became a primacy of
honor over the other eastern bishoprics, namely,
Antioch and Alexandria.
• See of Constantinople was vacated.
• Nectarius, the bishop of Constantinople had died in
397.
• Theophilus of Alexandria wished to put one of his
supporters.
• Emperor chose John of Antioch in 398.
• In 425, Atticus, the patriarch of Constantinople died.
• In 428, Bishops chose Nestorius, eloquent and austere
superior of monastery in Antioch.
• At first, Nestorius promised to emperor that he would
launch attacks on all heretics.
• “With me, sire, overthrow the heretics; with you I will
overthrow the Persians” (Leo Davis, First Seven
Ecumenical Councils)
• Nestorius overthrew Arians from the churches.
• Morally Nestorius was following Novatians purist forms,
and attracted the imperial audience.
• However, he himself was about to be accused of
heresy.
Theological Controversy
• In 428, Antiochene clergy whom Nestorius had brought
began to preach against “Theotokos”, the title of
Mother of God as applied to Mary.
• He said, “Let no one call Mary Theotokos, for Mary was
only a human being and it is impossible that God
should be born of a human being.” (Leo, 140)
• Theotokos had been used since Origen, Athanasius,
Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of
Naziansius, and host other leaders of churches.
• Theotokos was used since 3rd century and was a part
of a church tradition of Constantinople.
• Nestorius attacked the title “Theotokos” in every
opportunity.
• People of Constantinople began to defend the title and
accuse Nestorius that he denied Jesus is God.
• In the West Pope Celestine was rooting out heresy
along with Augustine.
• Nestorius sent his sermon to Celestine and was not
accepted.
• Now issue became too large to be ignored.
• West understood that Nestorius was saying that Mary
could no be called Theotokos but Christotokos,
because Jesus was not fully divine but only a man
adopted by the Divine Word.
• West relied upon Latin translation of Nestorius Greek
writings.
• At Alexandria, the patriarch Cyril was ready to do battle
with Nestorius.
• Cyril had a tradition of Alexandria, the wealth of Egypt
and armies of monks who filled its deserts.
• In 429, Cyril wrote letters to the monks of Egypt about
errors of Nestorius.
• Nestorius accused of Cyril and sent refutation to Cyril.
• Theologically, what was the battle all about?
1 It began over the title “Theotokos”.
2 It involved differing Christologies.
3 Nestorius represented Antiochene tradition.
4 Cyril, the Alexandrian Philosophical Attempt
• Antiochene, basically Aristotelian, beginning with Jesus
of the Synoptic Gospels and attempting to explain
how this man is also God. (From below)
• Alexandrian, basically Platonist, beginning with the
Word of John’s Prolgogus and attempting to
understand implications of the Logos taking flesh.
(From above)
Antiochene Theology
• It followed Eustanthius of Antioch’s (fl. 325) the Word-
Man Christology (2 natures).
• It rejected Apollinarians (c. 315-392) and insisted that
the Lord’s humanity included an animating principle
and normal human mind.
• (2 natures)
• Diodorus of Tarsus (d. 394) was condemned as a
heretic. He taught Christ was Two Sons: the Son of
God (the Logos) and the Son of Man (Jesus) He tried
to rescue Apollinarius’ Jesus by defending the full
divinity and humanity of Christ.
• Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428) was a teacher of
Nestorius. He also defended humanity of Christ.
Theology of Nestorius (c. 386-431)
• Nestorius was a part of Antiochene tradition.
• He was a Patriarch of Constantinople.
• He followed Syrian Christology, Diodore of Tarsus,
Theodore of Mopsuestia and Paul of Samosata, who
said a man Jesus who had been possessed by the
divinity.
• For Nestorius his understanding of diversity of Jesus
Christ was the key.
• He had difficulty in explaining the unity of Christ.
• For Nestorius, Theotokos was saying about
Apollinarius, who taught Jesus was the divine.
• He preferred Christotokos, because the manhood of
Jesus was completed by the presence of the Word.
• Christotokos was accurate for Mary bore Christ, a man
who was at the same time a divine.
• Nestorius was an Adoptionist, splitting the God-man
onto two distinct persons artificially linked together in
a moral union by the exercise of mutual good will.
• In Christ, there are tow natures (persons). Nature means
concrete character of being. Two individual beings.
• Nestorius wanted to avoid any confusion and mixing the
natures.
Council of Ephesus 431
• It was called by Theodosius II.
• 160 bishops gathered.
• Venue was changed to Ephesus and this greatly
inconvenienced all of Nestorius’ supporters from
Syria.
• Council was held without Nestorius’ presence.
• The council decided that “Unorthodoxy of Nestorius”
was pronounced.
• His weakness of argument was he could not bring
within the framework of a single, clearly conceived
personality the two natures of Christ.
Results of the Council of Ephesus
• Orthodox doctrine of Ephesus 431:
• A single person existing “in two nature”.
• “Union of two natures has been accomplished” (JND
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 329)
• And Nestorius’ doctrine of ‘two Sons” was no more.
(Ibid, 330)
• Cyril’s teaching of Jesus was wholly and completely
divine, thus only one single person, and that person
God.
• Everything Jesus did, whether it was a human act or a
powerful act, was equally a work of the single divine
Lord, now embodied within history.
• Thus Christ is the pattern of the world’s salvation.
• A major resistance on the way from Rome and Syria.
• The council brought great bitterness and reactions for
many years.
Reference:
Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils
(325-787): Their History and Theology. Collegeville,
Minnesota: Michael Glazier Book, 1983.
Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Creeds. 3rd edition. New
York: Continuum, 1972.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. Credo: Historical and Theological Guide
TO Creeds And Confessions of Faith in the Christian
Tradition. New Haven and London: Yale University Press,
2003.
Young, Frances. The Making of the Creeds. London: SCM
Press, 1991.
The Council of Chalcedon, 451
Introduction
• It was held aftermath of the Council of Ephesus 431.
• Politically, empress Pulcheria (399-453), who was a
sister of emperor Theodosius II, and a wife of
emperor Marcion was theologically involved.
• Pulcheria, even though she was marry to the emperor,
remained as a nun.
• She was a throughout orthodox in her position.
• She helped to organized the Council of Chalcedon with
her husband Marcion.
Eutyches (c. 380-456)
• In 448, Eutyches was seventy years old monk from
Constantinople area.
• He was a strong supporter of Cyrillian theology (one
person of Christ).
• He was well connected in the monastic world in the
eastern empire.
• Eutyches opposed Nestorianism (two person of Christ).
• In principle, he was immersed in Apollinarianism (Christ
was without human soul, just one divine nature).
• He repudiated two natures of Christ.
• He was accused of embracing Apollinarianism of
teaching of one nature of Christ.
• Apollinarius was a bishop of Laodicea and was identified
with Cyrillianism.
• He was condemned as a Docetist.
Political Background
• Nestorians continue to attack Cyrillian camp.
• Eutyches appealed to Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem and
Thessalonica.
• Antioch opposed Eutyches.
• In defense, Eutyches, Dioscurus and Chrysaphius
formed a group to oppose attack.
• Dioscurus was a patriarch of Alexandria.
• He was condemned as a heretic, but is a saint in Coptic,
and Syriac church.
• Chrysaphius was an eunuch who advice emperor
Theodosius II.
• Leo I (400-461) was a pope who stood in line of
orthodoxy.
• He condemned Eutyches as a heretic.
• Leo said, “Eutyches deserved a verdict of
condemnation.” (Davis, p. 176.)
Robber Council Background, 449
It was held on August 8, 449 with Dioscurus as the
president of the council. And participant included pope
legate Julius of Puteoli.
And there were 170 bishops who favored Dioscurus.
• The Robber council restored Eutyches and isolated
Julius of Puteoli who did not understand Greek.
• By vote of 111 out 130, Eutyches was declared orthodox
and restored his office of priest and archimandrite.
• Dioscurus deposed Eutyches’ accusers Flavian and
Eusebius.
• Dioscurus tried to stop all who opposed him. He
removed them from offices.
• Flavian of patriarch of Constantinople appealed to
emperor Theodosius II and his sister Pulcheria.
• He demanded a new trial or council.
• But Flavian died while in exile.
• Leo called the Council of Ephesus 449 as a latocinium,
which means robber.
• Theodosius II died in July 450.
• Pulcheria took power and married a general Marcion and
worked behind him to crush Dioscurus party.
• Empress Pulcheria was sided with Pope Leo I, who
angry with the Robber council and Dioscurus.
• Eutyches was sent to exile by the Marcion.
• Council was called on 451 by emperor.
• Place was in Chalcedon, across the Bosporus.
The Council of Chalcedon 451
• It was at Chalcedon on October 8, 451.
• 500 bishops attended the council.
• Council demanded the exclusion of Dioscurus for Pope
Leo I labeled him as a heretic.
• However, Dioscurus was remained.
• Second session began on October 10.
• The council issued a document.
• Third session began on October 13.
• They deal with the issue of Dioscurus.
• Dioscurus’ was charged with receiving heretic Eutyches.
• Eutyches was condemned as a heretic by the pope.
• The council approved the decision of the Pope.
• Fourth session began on October 22.
• Vote was cast between pope Leo and Dioscurus.
• Decision came down to Leo.
• Dioscurus was condemned.
• Eutyches’ condemnation was stayed.
• Leo tome was received as an orthodox along with
writings of Cyril and Confession of Flavian.
Theological conclusion
• “Unity of person in Christ with two natures”
• The Divine of the same substance as the Father
(homoousios to patri), the human of the same
substance as us (homoousos emin), which are united
unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably.
• It affirmed the definitions of Nicaea and Constantinople.
• It declared the errors of Nestorius and Eutyches.
• It condemned:
5Those who deny the title Theotokos (‘Mother of God’) to
the Virgin Mary thereby implying that the humanity of
Christ is separable from His Divine person;
6 Those who confuse the Divine and human nature in
one, and therefore hold that the Divine nature is by
this confusion passible
7Those who hold that the two natures existed before the
union but became one at the Incarnation.
Aftermath of Chalcedon
• After death of emperor Marcion, Zeno the Isaurian
became the new emperor.
• He wanted to appease both Eutychean and Leo I.
• He issued the “Henotikon” in 482.
Contents of Henotikon
• The condemnations of Eutyches and Nestorius made at
Chalcedon.
• An explicit approval of the twelve anathemas of Cyril of
Alexandria
• Avoiding any statement whether Christ had one or two
natures, in an attempt to appease both Non-
Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian Orthodox
Christians.
• But appeasement did not work out.
Reference
Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils
(325-787): Their History and Theology. Collegeville,
Minnesota: Michael Glazier Book, 1983.
MaGuckin, John. A. St. Cyril of Alexandria and the
Christological Controversy. Crestwood, New York: St.
Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2004.
Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Creeds. 3rd edition. New
York: Continuum, 1972.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. Credo: Historical and Theological Guide
TO Creeds And Confessions of Faith in the Christian
Tradition. New Haven and London: Yale University Press,
2003.
Young, Frances. The Making of the Creeds. London: SCM
Press, 1991.
The Development of Episcopal Ministry for the Purpose
of Canon and Creed
In this article, I would like to look at life and work of
Irenaeus of Lyon and his understanding of Episcopal
ministry for the purpose of canon and creed.
It is very important to know and understand how and why
Irenaeus insisted on apostolic authority and it tradition.
And it is also important to know his background in order
to understand his insistence on tradition of church and its
teaching based on apostolic teachings. Now, I would like
to take a look at life of Irenaeus of Lyons.
Life of Irenaeus
Irenaeus is considered the first catholic theologian, a
teacher and a saint in the church. He was born around A.
D. 130 in Smyrna near Turkey and died of martyrdom
around A. D. 202 (there are still debate about his death).
His name means “peaceful or peaceful one”, and a legend
notes that while he was young, he listened a sermon of
Polycarp, who was a disciple of Apostle John. He moved
and went to Rome to study and later became a presbyter
of Lyons in France. According to Williston Walker,
Irenaeus was a bishop emigrated to the West from Asia
Minor. He is first known to history as a presbyter of the
church at Lyons.(Walker 78, 1985) With his Eastern
background and Western training, he became a bridge
between West and East. In dealing with heresy, he was
once sympathetic with Montanist movement, a 2-century
heretical movement that arose in the region of Phrygia
and Mysia. The movement began within the church by
Montanus. It was called “the New Prophecy” by the
follower of Montanus, who converted to Christianity. A
legend notes that Irenaeus even asked Pope Eleutherius
to allow Montanist to remain, yet his association with the
sect is not evident.(Livingstone 847, 1997) Here we can
see Irenaeus’ tolerance and his sympathy of the sect. He
wanted to bring a bridge between East and West, for the
former church was engulfed in Quartodeciman
Controversy. On the other hand, his dealing with Gnostics
is rather harsh. Because it was a direct threat to church.
His exposure of Gnosticism is well known and
documented. Irenaeus’ writing is different than of
apologist, who wrote usually against heretics and
gentiles. Instead his writing is addressed to Christians.
Evans notes that, “The major work of Irenaeus, bishop of
Lugdunum (Lyons) form A. D. 178, is a polemic against
Gnostic heresies, elaborated with extensive treatment of
orthodox Christian teaching… It is a work of different
literary genre from that of the apologists, and expects
different kind of readership, i. e. a Christian one.”
(O'Donovan 15, 1999) Unlike the other apologist who had
much interaction with Gnostics and their writings,
Irenaeus did not dealt directly with them. Instead he wrote
to the Christians to do away with them. He was more of a
pastor/bishop who protected and nurtured the flocks of
Christ than deal head on with the heretics.
Irenaeus’ main literary works are Demonstration of the
Apostolic Preaching, and An Indictment and Overthrow
of the Falsely named ‘Knowledge’. The latter work is
commonly called Against Heresies (Adersus omnes
Haereses). The work was probably completed around A.
D. 185. The Against Heresites survives in fragments, but a
Latin translation from about 380 is complete. It is
stimulated but not determined by opposition to
Gnosticism, a form of theosophy that today attracts
interest and sympathy. Now I would like to focus more on
contents of Against Heresies.
Against Heresies
In Irenaeus view, the first and most urgent threat was
Marcion and the Gnostics that arose out their denial that
the true God and the World-Creator are one and the
same.
In his reply, Irenaeus insisted that the rule of faith and
Scripture alike know only one God, the Creator, who
‘contains all things’ while being himself contained limited
by nothing.”(Irenaeus 359-360, 1987 (Reprinted))
Irenaeus saw God as not some remote being or
distanced, but He himself is intimately present in His
creation. Here we already see that his theology is very
pastoral and relational. Unlike the teaching of Gnostics,
which taught impersonal god, dualistic views of world as
good and evil, and highly alienated understanding of
knowledge (gnosis). For many Gnostics, knowledge is not
for everyone, but for those few and enlightened ones. In
this kind of heretical teachings, Irenaeus had no room for
discussion nor being apologectical with them. He was
not interested in arguing with Gnostics. Rather, Irenaeus
saw himself as above all a preserver and interpreter of
tradition, and he was integrating themes from Pauline and
Jeannine thought, and weaved into his anti-Gnostic
synthesis theme. (Walker 78, 1985)
Irenaeus saw the importance of emphasizing the
traditional elements in the church, especially the
Episcopate, Scripture and religious and theological
tradition. (Livingstone, 847, 1997) He stressed that the
continuity in the apostolic tradition was the continuity of
the apostles with one another as the faithful messenger of
Christ. Thus, it was important for him to acknowledge the
apostolic succession. For Irenaeus, “Peter was an apostle
of the very same God as Paul was.” (Irenaeus, 436, 1987)
They were the pillars of the church and stood the tradition
of apostolic. Walker noted that “Peter and Rapul both
died at Rome, and the luster of their name was
associated with the church there (Rome) from an early
date, even though neither was actually its founder”
(Walker, 75, 1985).
Marcionism and Montanism brought worldliness and
compromised church’s teaching. In order to combat
these, Irenaeus stressed the apostolic continuity. Pelikan
notes that, “Apostolic foundation and the apostolic
succession were another criterion of apostolic continuity”
(Pelikan, 118, 1971). Irenaeus notes that, “It is within the
power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to
see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the
apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and
were are in a position to reckon up those who were by the
apostle instituted bishops in the Churches and [to
demonstrate the succession of these men to our own
times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like
what these [heretics] rave about.”(Irenaeus, 415, 1987)
Irenaeus clearly supports the perpetual succession of
bishops. Stuart G. Hall argues that “By A. D. 180,
Irenaeus argued that everywhere bishops were appointed
by apostles, and that the pedigree of the bishops of his
time could be traced back to the apostolic founders of
churches” (Stuart, 34, 1991). The role of the Apostles as
the teachers of the Church is now evident throughout
Irenaues’ teaching. Now let us look at Irenaeus’
understanding of canonicity of Scripture and Creeds.
In dealing with Gnostics, he saw the importance of
authority of Scripture, both the Old and the New
Testament and Episcopal ministry based on apostolic
tradition. He believed the apostolic teaching and tradition.
Irenaeus emphasized on the canonicity of Scripture. He is
the first Catholic theologian to limit to first four gospels in
the New Testament: Book of Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John. He is the first Catholic theologian to incorporate
into canon of Scripture as the divinely inspired. Pelikan
notes that “ For Irenaeus, Christ is the treasure which was
hidden in the field, that is, in the Old Testament
Scripture.”(Pelikan 1971) He acknowledged all of the
New Testament books except, the epistle of Hebrews and
Jude. Irenaeus notes that Heretics do not follow neither
Scripture nor tradition. He notes that, “When however,
they are confuted from the Scripture, they turn around
and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not
correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are
ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from
them by those who are ignorant of tradition.”(Irenaeus,
415, 1987 (Reprinted)) Here we see Irenaeus using of
both tradition and Scripture as a norm of Christendom.
He held up a high view of Scripture and tradition. Walker
notes that, “The great weigh of argument, however, was
borne by an appeal to the prophetic and apostolic
Scriptures, which, he was convinced, would themselves
confute heretical teaching directly if attention were paid to
their plain sense and if their obscure passage were
understood in the light of those whose meaning was
obvious.”(Walker 78, 1985)
In dealing with creeds, Irenaeus saw the creed as the Law
of Truth. Pelikan saw that “the evolution of Christian
creeds is an essential and unavoidable part of the history
of early Christian doctrine; almost equally unavoidable is
the temptation to document the inclusion of particular
articles from the creeds.”(Pelikan 116, 1971) Irenaeus
spoke of the faith, which the church had received from the
apostles and from their disciples, and preceded to quote
a creed. Irenaeus says, “the church, though dispersed
throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth,
has received from the apostles’ and their disciples this
faith: [she] believes in one God, the Father…and in one
Christ Jesus, the Son of God… and in the Holy Spirit, who
proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of
God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the
passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the
ascension into heaven and His [future] manifestation from
heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in
one, and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human
race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and
Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible
Father, ‘every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and
things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every
tongue should confess’ to Him, and that he should
execute just judgment towards all; that He may send
‘spiritual wickedness, and the angels who transgressed
and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and
unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into
everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace,
confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those
who have kept His commandments, and have persevered
in His love, some form the beginning [of their Christian
course], and others form [the date of] their repentance,
and may surround them with everlasting glory.”(Irenaeus
330-331, 1987 (Reprinted)) Irenaeus used earlier version
of the Apostles’ Creed to encourage the righteous to
steadfast, and urged the wicked to come repentance.
Later the Creed brought unity and a criterion of apostolic
continuity. According to Kelly, “Christians have been
accustomed to understand by the word creed a fixed
formula summarizing the essential articles of their religion
and enjoying the sanction of ecclesiastical authority.”
(Kelly, 1, 1972)
References:
Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1987 (Reprinted).
Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Creeds. London, Longmans,
Green and Co., 1972
Livingstone, E. A. & F. L. Cross, Editors. The Oxford
Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford University
Press, 1997.
O' Donovan, Oliver & Joan Lockwood O' Donovan,
Editors. From Irenaeus to Grotius: A Sourcebook in
Christian Political Thoughts. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1999.
Pelikan, J. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition
(100-600). Chicago and London, The University of
Chicago Press, 1971.
Walker, William & Richard A. Norris & David W. Lotz, and
Robert T. Handy. (1985) .A History of the Christian Church.
New York, Scribner.1985.
The Question of Authorities in Forming Doctrine
Introduction
What is Christian doctrine? And where does the
authorities in forming doctrine come from? This is a thesis
of this paper. To answer the first question, I would like to
quote late Church historian Jaroslav Pelikan’s book
called The Christian Tradition: A History of the
Development of Doctrine, vol. 1: The Emergence of the
Catholic Tradition (100-600), Pelikan notes that “What the
church of Jesus Christ believes, teaches, and confesses
on the basis of the word of God: this is Christian
doctrine.”(Pelikan, 1, 1971) Christian doctrine has its
foundation on the teaching of the church. And a church
would not be church without Christian doctrine, which is
teaching of Jesus Christ.
Why is it important to study the question of authorities in
forming doctrine in Christianity? There are many ways and
elements that can help answer the questions. First, a
study of this nature can help to confirm an origin and
necessity of the Canon of Scripture; apocryphal sources,
pseudepigraphal writings, Episcopal ministry in apostolic
succession; 3 Ecumenical Creeds and numerous
ecumenical councils. Second, a study of this nature can
trace the development of false doctrines (commonly
called heresies). Church history can also help show us
how false doctrines originated and spread within
Christendom. Third benefit of studying is learning about
the past in order to understand present-day teaching of
doctrines in the church today. We need to read more
about the past or study the origin of doctrine in order to
understand present day Christianity. Without a grasp of
the question of authorities in forming doctrine, we will fall
into a false teaching or might have defective view of
Christianity.
In this article, I would like to survey numerous concepts of
authorities in forming doctrine by looking into the
Canonicity of Scripture, apocryphal sources, three
Ecumenical creeds, church councils and a development
of Episcopal ministry in apostolic succession.
If Christianity is a fact and impresses a doctrine on
believers mind, it must have some origins or a source of
origin. And then what gives doctrine authority and
mandate? Christian doctrine had already undergone a
long period of development by the time that the latest
books in the canon of the New Testament had been
written, and most of the known work of the ‘Apostolic
Fathers’ had been written, such as Didache. According to
Lampe, “Didache is very early indeed, perhaps dating
from well within what is generally thought of as the New
Testament period.”(Lampe, 23, 1978)
Now, with these backgrounds, I would like to take a look
at the Canonicity of Scripture as the foundational
authority in forming Christian doctrine.
Canonicity of Scripture
The question, however it is addressed, should be raised
as to why the Scripture should be made the primary
source and criterion for forming Christian doctrine? It is
because like anything else there must be some sort of
authority in any situation, in this case, its in forming
doctrine.
Henry Newman notes that, “If Christianity be an universal
religion, suited not simply to one locality or period but to
all times and places, it cannot but vary in its relations and
dealings towards the world around it, that is, it will
develop… Hence all bodies of Christians, orthodox or not,
develop the doctrine of Scripture.” (Newman, 79, 1960)
Christianity is about a movement or belief, which follow
Jesus Christ. Thus, it is logical to turn and look into his
teaching and what he had said and did. On the
assumpsion that Gospels are reliable source of historical
information, and what Jesus endorsed must also be
regarded as further source of authority in forming
doctrine.
In choosing which books (or writings) to be considered a
canon in Christian tradition is much more complex. There
were many books of the Bible (Old Testament called
Jewish Writings, Septuagint, Apocrypha, Gnostic writings,
pseudepigraphal, Didache, and other New Testament
manuscripts) were available in early period of Christianity.
The development of the canon is a fascinating and
important area of importance in Christian doctrine and
teaching of apostles. Thus studying the origin of
canonicity of Scripture is actually studying apostles’
teachings as well. For Jesus did not write anything.
Pelikan agrees with John Knox who believed that
“Canonicity and apostolicity became almost synonymous
terms”(Pelikan, 114, 1971). The list of canonical or
apostolic books continued to fluctuate for many
centuries. But what did not fluctuate was the Christian
doctrine, i. e. orthodox formulated doctrines that had
originated from councils and later became known as
Ecumenical creeds. (There are three recognized
Ecumenical creeds, the Apostle’ Creed, the Nicene Creed
and the Athanasian Creed.)
Controversies surrounding the canonicity of Scripture
range from Jewish bible, apocrypha, pseudepigraphal
writings and many New Testament fragment and
manuscripts. And there were also believers who were not
sure of them on determining orthodox position in the
church. Bernard David noted that, “Only fraction of the
writings from early times still exist, and it is difficult to say
how representative the remnant is. If a writer was a wellknown
bishop, pastor, or other church leader, we have
some reason to believe he represented a significant view
in the church. If a writer is unknown or had no significant
position in the church, it is quite possible that he was not
truly representative of the church of his time.”(Bernard,
104,1999) This was one way to establish an authority in
canonicity of Scripture. Authority rested on the writer of
bible’s position and influence.
Apostolic Fathers viewed the Scripture and the baptism
formula to be regarded as presenting norm of Christian
faith.(Reinhold, 82, 1935) According to Reinhold there
were two sources for sources of authority. He noted that,
“Jesus Himself describes and employs the Old Testament
as an infallible authority (i. e. Matt. 5. 17. Lk. 24. 44), and
the apostles also use it as such (e. g. Rom. 1. 2. Gal. 3. 8,
22; 4. 30, etc. But the Lord says of his own words also,
that they shall outlast heaven and earth, and asserts the
same of the principles to be proclaimed by his apostles
(Matt. 10. 40; 16:19).”(Reinhold, 82, 1935)
On Apocrypha
In dealing with Apocrypha, many did question its
authority. Yet there were many who identified the writings
to be regarded with equal status, writings such as
Hermas, Barnabas, the Didache, 1 and 2 Clement, the
Apocalypse of Peter, etc. Some writers in the early
Christendom, notably Tertullian and Augustine, gave full
or partial approval to some of the Apocrypha. Bernard
notes that, “Under the influence of Augustine, regional
councils in North Africa in the late fourth and early fifth
centuries endorsed the Apocrypha. Other writers, such as
Origen and Athanasius, did not regard them as Scripture.
Some did not deem them canonical but used them for
study and preaching. Jerome, translator of the Vulgate
(Latin Bible), insisted that they were not the Word of God.”
(Bernard, 104, 1999) Thus the books were neither
received as the Word of God or not as the Word of God as
it is today.
On Creeds
In dealing with Creeds (here we are dealing with the three
Ecumenical creeds, which all branches of Christianity
recognized as the creeds of the church.), it played an
important role in ancient doctrinal controversies,
especially those on the Godhead. Bernard notes that,
“The earliest ‘rule of faith’ (fundamental doctrines or
statements that were accepted generally) focused on faith
in the one God… It is the basis of the Apostles’ Creed
used today.”(Bernard, 137, 1999) The Apostles’ Creed
was not written by the apostles, but it contained their
teaching and beliefs based on Jesus Christ. The creed
was a respond to new doctrinal challenges, yet it did not
contain some of important doctrinal issues that face the
contemporary church. (Bernard, 137, 1999)
The Nicene Creed was the creed that was developed
during the Council of Nicea in 325. The creed was a
direct result of the council that reacted against teaching of
Arius, who was a deacon in Alexandrian church, held a
view that the Son or the Logos was created and adopted
by the Father to be divine. And he taught that there was a
time, which the Logos did not, existed and later created
to be a divine. The Arian doctrine of Christ as creature
collides with the tradition of describing him as God.
Pelikan notes that, “But, the Arian use of the titles Logos
and Son of God, which together had come to summarize
the central meaning of that tradition…For while the
tradition of describing Christ as God was indeed the basic
doctrinal and liturgical issue at stake in the controversy fro
the beginning.”(Pelikan, 200, 1971) The Nicene Creed
reaffirmed the basic belief in Christ as divine
and Homoousios (same essence as the Father). The
Athanasian Creed was clear exposition after the Nicene
Creed, of Trinitarian controversy and the Incarnation of
the Son. It stated and restated the twofold nature in the
one divine person of Jesus Christ. Three ecumenical
creeds were the authority of the councils and creeds that
originated the formation of early Christian doctrine.
Both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox view the
ancient creeds and councils as authoritative source of
doctrine. Protestantism affirms the sole authority of
Scripture, but in practice most protestant churches also
appeal to the creeds as definitive and normative.(Bernard,
137, 1999)
On Apostolic Ministry
In dealing with development of apostolic ministry, it is
necessary to look at Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258). He was
a student of Tertullian and considered one who
emphasized the importance of church. He even said that
church is salvation or there is no salvation outside the
church. His reason for such belief is based on widespread
of persecution during his time (It was Decian
persecution). Williston Walker notes that, “As he (Cyprian)
saw it, the church was found ultimately upon the apostles
whom Christ commissioned. It was therefore the apostles
as single college (collegium: a body of colleagues),
severally exercising a single undivided authority, who
were the foundation of the church and hence in Cyprian’s
view (and not his alone) devolved upon the bishops, the
successors of the apostles, who severally exercised the
authority of a single collective ministry.”(Walker, 1985)
For Cyprian, authority of Episcopal ministry in apostolic
succession based on God, and Christ. For him, there is
one God, and Christ is one, and there is one chair
(episcopate) founded upon the rock by the word of the
Lord. To denying the authority of the apostolic succession
ministry is to denying church. This view led to the system
of synodical government by bishops and they had
authority of apostolic tradition.
Conclusion
The question of authorities in forming doctrine was long
and combative at times. The canonicity of Scripture,
development of the Ecumenical Creeds and numerous
councils and rise of Episcopal ministry in apostolic
succession had to do with both church history and
development of Christian doctrine and dogma. Sole
authority of Christian doctrine is based on the authority of
Scripture. And from the Scripture everything begins and
ends. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy do include
apocrypha writings in their Bible along with both the Old
Testament (commonly called Hebrew Bible) and New
Testament, whereas Protestantism recognize only Old and
the New Testament. In dealing with three Creeds, all
branches recognized as a norm and authoritative.
References:
• Archer, S. (1993). "Hooker on Apostolic Succession: The
Two Voices." Sixteenth Century Journal 24(1): 67-74.
• Elwell, Walter A. (Editor) (1984). Evangelical Dictionary
of Theology. Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
• Evans, G. R. (Editor). (2004). The First Christian
Theologians: An Introduction to Theology in the Early
Church. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing
• Bernard, D. K. (1999). A History of Christian Doctrine.
Hazelwood, MO, Word Atlane Press.
• Brakke, D. (1994). "Canon Formation and Social Conflict
in Fourth-Century Egypt: Athanasius of Aleandria's
Thirty-Ninth "Festal Letter"." The Harvard Theological
Review 87(4): 395-419.
• Bray, G. L. (1984). Creeds, Councils and Christ. Downers
Grove, Il, Inter-Varsity Press.
• Erickson, M. J. (1985). Christian Theology. Grand
Rapids, Baker Book House.
• Irenaeus (1987 (Reprinted). Against Heresies. Grand
Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Kelly, J. N. D. (1972). Early Christian Creeds. London,
Longmans, Green and Co.
• Lampe, G. W. H. (1978). A History of Christian Doctrine.
Edinburgh, T & T Clark.
• Leith, J. H. (1982). Creeds of the Churches: A Reader in
Christian Doctrine from the Bible to the Present, John
Knox Press.
• Matter, E. A. (1991). "The Bible in All Ages?" The Journal
of Religion: 79-90.
• Meyendorff, J. (1960). The Orthodox Church: Its Past
and Its Role in the World Today. New York, Pantheon
Books.
• Newman, J. H. (1960). An Essay on the Development of
Christian Doctrine. Garden City, Image Books.
• O'Donovan, Oliverr and Joan Lockwood O'Donovan,
Editors (1999). From Irenaeus to Grotius: A
Sourcebook in Christian Political Thoughts. Grand
Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Pelikan, J. (1971). The Emergence of the Catholic
Tradition (100-600). Chicago and London, The
University of Chicago Press.
• Pelikan, J. (1974). The Spirit of Eastern Christiandom
(600- 1700). Chicago and London, The University of
Chicago Press.
• Reinhold, S. (1935). Textbook of the History of Doctrine.
Eugene, OR, Wipf and Stock Publishers.
• Reiser, W. E. (1978). What Are They Saying About
Dogma? New York, Paulist Press.
• Walker, Williston and Richard A. Norris, David W. Lotz,
Roert T. Handy (1985). A History of the Christian
Church. New York, Scribner.
• Willis, J. R., S.J. (2002). The Teachings of the Church
Fathers. San Francisco, Ignatius Press.