Church Councils

Post Reply
User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 2277
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Church Councils

Post by darinhouston » Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:52 am

Just curious -- has there ever been a council that affirmed a controversial or supposedly heretical doctrine?

User avatar
Candlepower
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:26 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: Church Councils

Post by Candlepower » Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:00 am

darinhouston wrote:Just curious -- has there ever been a council that affirmed a controversial or supposedly heretical doctrine?
Probably all of the church councils affirmed controversial doctrines. The reason they met was to debate existing controversies and to hammer out (affirm) positions for the "church" to stand on. "Heresy" lost every time, and "orthodoxy" was never defeated. ;)

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 2277
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Church Councils

Post by darinhouston » Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:27 am

Candlepower wrote:
darinhouston wrote:Just curious -- has there ever been a council that affirmed a controversial or supposedly heretical doctrine?
Probably all of the church councils affirmed controversial doctrines. The reason they met was to debate existing controversies and to hammer out (affirm) positions for the "church" to stand on. "Heresy" lost every time, and "orthodoxy" was never defeated. ;)
Haha -- funny. I'm serious. They didn't come into the councils on equal footing. I suspect they never said "hey, on second thought -- this new theory causing such a stir makes sense. We've been wrong."

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2705
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Church Councils

Post by Homer » Mon Feb 18, 2013 10:18 am

Well, if the Pope counts (aren't they better than a council? ;) )there have been Popes who reversed what others have declared. One Pope even denied papal infallibilty.

User avatar
morbo3000
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 9:05 pm
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: Church Councils

Post by morbo3000 » Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:57 pm

History is written by the winners, and so is orthodoxy.

This is caused by at least two different areas.

First, the decisions of which books to allow into the canon weights certain doctrines in a particular direction. Imagine if John, Hebrews, James and The Revelation weren't included in the canon how many doctrinal positions would be handled differently.

Second, the interpretation of seeming contradictions. The reason we fight over orthodoxy is because we disagree about how to interpret passages that say one thing here and another thing there. Orthodoxy regarding the trinity, the divinity of Jesus, Eschatology, Salvation, Predestination, Atonement et al. is determined by whoever thinks they have scripture in their favor. Some of these positions were codified in the councils, and as such, disagreement of those is considered heresy. But had it gone in different directions, then the trinity might be considered heresy. Again, what if the early church decided that the gospel of John was spurious and thus didn't use it to debate the trinity? How might things be different.

Lost Christianities by Barth Ehrman is a good read on the subject. I'm certain he is considered a bad source here (that's a different discussion that I'd enjoy having), but the book provides exposure to a different viewpoint.
When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen

Post Reply

Return to “Church History”