J
jpek
Guest
Hello everyone. I have a question about Christian doctrine that comes out of the ecumenical councils, such as the Nicaean council. I’ve been reading a lot of theologians who rely heavily on the teachings that emerge from these councils and who argue that the consensus achieved there was the result of genuine spiritual insight, and maybe even inspiration. But something has always bothered me about that.
These theologians seem to assume that the councils were conducted in the spirit of pure inquiry, unpolluted by personal prejudices and loyalties, political ambitions, power plays and other very human distortions, but reading the accounts of the councils it’s easy to see that these factors were very present among the participants. It seems clear that the participants of the councils weren’t just there to discern the spiritual truth but were also trying to to consolidate power, prevent conflict, overturn the rival faction, etc.
So how can we sure which parts of the doctrines formulated at these councils (for example the doctrines concerning the Trinity) were reliable and which were distortions based more on politics than authentic spiritual insight?
These theologians seem to assume that the councils were conducted in the spirit of pure inquiry, unpolluted by personal prejudices and loyalties, political ambitions, power plays and other very human distortions, but reading the accounts of the councils it’s easy to see that these factors were very present among the participants. It seems clear that the participants of the councils weren’t just there to discern the spiritual truth but were also trying to to consolidate power, prevent conflict, overturn the rival faction, etc.
So how can we sure which parts of the doctrines formulated at these councils (for example the doctrines concerning the Trinity) were reliable and which were distortions based more on politics than authentic spiritual insight?
Last edited: