How early were scriptural works considered scripture?

[guanophore]

I was hoping to find something a bit earlier, close to being contemporary of the apostles (if that’s possible), or as close to that as we can get. Still, it would seem clear that this was fairly well established in the church before these councils met.

I think the best we can do on that point is the quotations from the writings taken from the second generation Fathers (100 AD +)

I like to see the original sources, not simply accept claims that “this is how it was”. It’s nothing personal.

Thank you. No, I was not taking it personally. I understand that you are trying to be careful in your scholarship. That is why I was responding to what seemed like a closed attitude toward hypotheses.

But every article presented on Arianism leaves me with the distinct impression that it was only a small thing within the church. Further reading seems to indicate that the reason for a lot of these councils may have been political in nature (especially Nicea), fearing some kind of disunity that very well may have never spread much wider than it was. Useful for attempting to crush heresy, perhaps, though it’s obvious that these bishops who were heretical didn’t accept the “rulings” of these groups.

This is true, but Nicea is recognized by all as the first Ecumenical council, which means that bishops from all over know Christendom were present, and worked out some documents and statements that would provide clarity for the whole Church. There probably were areas that never heard of Arius, but the vast majority were eager to promulgate the Apostles’ creed.

My question remains this – if the councils had not happened, what would it have changed? The vast majority of the church was already in favor of the Nicene creed, and apparently of the canon, well before these councils.

I understand that only historical evidence will pursuade you that the majority of bishops had fallen into Arianism. I am not sure that this can be done, since the documents were destroyed. However, I will keep looking for something you would accept as authoritative.

This means that the council was a sort of formality more than anything.

But what essential formality! We can say that the Council of Jerusalem was also a formality. It was still necessary.

I’m a skeptic to many things – this doesn’t mean that I won’t accept them if reasonable evidence is presented. I cannot, however, adopt the position that all claims made are true until disproved.

I understand.

I try to form my views of history based on the evidence, not my views of evidence based on my desire of history.

This is a preferred approach.

To clarify (or perhaps to present my opinion more correctly) – I am not willing to accept as fact that Arianism was a huge thing unless evidence to that effect can be presented. It’s not that I reject any possibility – I just am not open to accepting it given the current information available to me.

It was not the conclusion that I was expecting you to accept, but any evidence that might be garnered.

While that’s certainly possible (it seems plausible to me, though I have no sources at hand to confirm this), it doesn’t do much to help us determine if any non-canonical works were considered scripture by more than a small minority.

I agree.

The filioque and the additions from Constantinople (381) are useless in terms of clarifying the underlying theology

Now you are sounding like an Orthodox!

Thanks for providing the source, by the way. Here we have, what, fourteen names?

These are those in and around Alexandria at the time. Since the bishops are being trained in the schools, and the bishops’ first charge is to teach the flock, all bishops coming out of those schools would have been exposed to Arian theology. Once the bishop falls into heresy, the flock is not far to follow (as is easily observable just prior to Reformation.) Nicea enabled the Church to get a grip in this stack of dominoes before it was too late.

They spoke out at schools in Alexandria, and thus got Constantine’s attention – but is there reason to believe the church on its own would have considered it a substantial threat?

I think this is most evident in the writings of Athanasius, and the exhiles and excommunications that were rampant at the time, his one of the longest.

But to think that there were early Christians who, as a majority, accepted heretical works as scripture, but having all evidence of that eventually destroyed with nothing left to indicate to us that this ever happened – it seems unlikely.

Yes. I did not say that they were necessarily considered scripture, though I do understand that some of the gnostic gospels were. There were plenty of gnostic writings that were used to interpret the scriptural works so as to change the flavor. This is still done today, as we see the JW interpreting scripture in an Arian manner.

 

[guanophore]

You make a valid point, but I’ll again point out that the motivations for this council were political in nature. I somehow doubt Constantine actually cared which way the discussion went, so long as there was agreement. After all, he wasn’t reported to be a Christian at this time.

I am sure that Constantine’s motives were, but not the bishops. The bishops could care less about politics at the time, as they were not involved in them, by and large. That came later. Constantine leaned toward Arianism, but I agree, he just wanted agreement. However, he lived as a Christian since he saw the vision, but like many in his day, delayed baptism until just prior to death, believeing that it would wash away all sins, and the punishments of sins, eternal and temporal. Many people would risk dying before baptism so that their sins would be washed away. At that time, confession was not in use for post-baptismal sin as it is today.

 

[Teflon93]

PCM, given how many links and related evidence you’ve already been provided in this thread, when may we look forward to links and evidence YOU provide in support of your position?

Looking back over your posts, “it seems to me” and “my interpretation” crop up frequently. Since you lack office and authority, I’m afraid you’ll need to provide evidence. Your interpretation doesn’t sway anybody but yourself.

Links.

Evidence.

Go!

 

[CentralFLJames]

CentrealFLJames:

His refusal to tolerate the Arian heresy was the cause of many trials and persecutions for St. Athanasius. He spent seventeen of the forty-six years of his episcopate in exile.

Got a link handy?

A small issue among bishops in one region does not qualify as something that “nearly split the [whole] church”.

I am not doing all your homework for you.
Here is a link to St. Athanasius: newadvent.org/cathen/02035a.htm

And here is the reference for the info:
Ref Material for St. Athanasius:

All the essential materials for the Saint’s biography are to be found in his writings, especially in those written after the year 350, when the Apologia contra Arianos was composed. Supplementary information will be found in ST. EPIPHANIUS, Hoer., loc. cit.; in ST. GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS, Orat., xxi; also RUFINUS, SOCRATES, SOZMEN, and THEODORET. The Historia Acephala, or Maffeian Fragment (discovered by Maffei in 1738, and inserted by GALLANDI in Bibliotheca Patrum, 1769), and the Chronicon Athanasianum, or Index to the Festal Letters, give us data for the chronological problem. All the foregoing sources are included in MIGNE, P. G. and P. L. The great PAPEBROCH’S Life is in the Acta SS., May, I. The most important authorities in English are: NEWMAN, Arians of the Fourth Century, and Saint Athanasius; BRIGHT, Dictionary of Christian Biography; ROBERTSON, Life, in the Prolegomena to the Select Writings and Letters of Saint Athanasius (re-edited in Library of the Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers, New York, 1903); GWATKIN, Studies of Arianism (2d ed., Cambridge, 1900); MOHLER, Athanasius der Grosse; HERGENROTHER and HEFELE.

I really don’t even understand your fixation on how widespread Arianism is relative to the OP. Why is this important. All this history is just more evidence that scripture came out of the ecclesiastical authority of the Church and did not just spontaneously present itself from the “bottom up” by the laity or personal acceptance.

If The Catholic Church (the only Christian Church in existence) felt the need to rush in a change to the Creed (The Filioque Clause) to combat Arianism you can rest assured that Arianism was seen as a serious problem and threat. Ironically that panic rush to change the Creed directly later leads to the east-west split. Arianism itself was bad enough but its worst effect is that internally the protocols were dealing with this sort of thing evolved on the fly so to speak and really stressed The Church leadership. Note too however, that this heresy and the defensive actions and split also leads to the unassailable primacy of Rome and the papacy that we have today.

James

 

[PC_Master]

I think the best we can do on that point is the quotations from the writings taken from the second generation Fathers (100 AD +)

This is very likely true. It’s this generation that I was really wanting to focus on anyway – the ones just after the apostolic era.

Thank you. No, I was not taking it personally. I understand that you are trying to be careful in your scholarship. That is why I was responding to what seemed like a closed attitude toward hypotheses.

Yeah – on that I think I just wasn’t clear enough in communicating my views. I’m glad we’ve got that cleared up though.

This is true, but Nicea is recognized by all as the first Ecumenical council, which means that bishops from all over know Christendom were present, and worked out some documents and statements that would provide clarity for the whole Church. There probably were areas that never heard of Arius, but the vast majority were eager to promulgate the Apostles’ creed.

Probably true – but my question would be whether or not such heresy was serious enough to have warranted the council had Constantine not set it up. If the vast majority were indeed eager to promulgate the creed, and more importantly, the theology it represented, would they have considered the issue serious enough to call a council over it? I suppose this is rather off-topic, however, since we’re not really dealing with any evidence as to the use of heretical works.

I understand that only historical evidence will pursuade you that the majority of bishops had fallen into Arianism. I am not sure that this can be done, since the documents were destroyed. However, I will keep looking for something you would accept as authoritative.

Thanks – I really do appreciate that. However, I’m confused – you really think that the majority of bishops had fallen into Arianism prior to Nicea, despite that only three wouldn’t sign the creed? Can I ask what information you have that leads you to this opinion?

But what essential formality! We can say that the Council of Jerusalem was also a formality. It was still necessary.

Was it necessary as a council for the whole church? I’m not really sure – I’m not saying that it was harmful in such a case – in fact, it may have been quite beneficial – but necessary?

(Again, we’re getting off-topic with this.)

It was not the conclusion that I was expecting you to accept, but any evidence that might be garnered.

Ah – I don’t think I’ve ever been closed to evidence. What I will admit that I have been closed to is articles written by Apologists who don’t cite sources. Such articles, though I usually will read them if linked, usually omit supporting data so that you’re really just forced to take the author of the article as your source. And who knows if he/she is right?

I apply the same criteria to Protestant apologists – while some articles are simply geared at explaining the theology, it bothers me when we see “we know from history” or “it’s a fact that” in an article without a source cited. While conjecture is sometimes necessary to fill in the gaps, it shouldn’t be the primary tool.

Now you are sounding like an Orthodox!

On this particular issue, I suppose so.

These are those in and around Alexandria at the time. Since the bishops are being trained in the schools, and the bishops’ first charge is to teach the flock, all bishops coming out of those schools would have been exposed to Arian theology. Once the bishop falls into heresy, the flock is not far to follow (as is easily observable just prior to Reformation.) Nicea enabled the Church to get a grip in this stack of dominoes before it was too late.

You make a good point. However I would point out that even if the Arians were all concentrated in Alexandria, they were not a majority there – the synod of Alexandria (which I have no original source info for yet) apparently denounced Arius. Is it really reasonable to think that Arians represented a majority of the teachers in the schools in Alexandria?

I think this is most evident in the writings of Athanasius, and the exhiles and excommunications that were rampant at the time, his one of the longest.

I’ll have to add that to my reading list.

Yes. I did not say that they were necessarily considered scripture, though I do understand that some of the gnostic gospels were.

It’s “commonly known” that gnostic gospels were held as scripture, but what evidence do we have to that end?

There were plenty of gnostic writings that were used to interpret the scriptural works so as to change the flavor. This is still done today, as we see the JW interpreting scripture in an Arian manner.

So codified theologial opinions of scripture that differed with mainstream Christianity? Yeah, probably. Do we have record of what works these were, and what kind of usage these works had?

I am sure that Constantine’s motives were, but not the bishops. The bishops could care less about politics at the time, as they were not involved in them, by and large. That came later.

I don’t know about that – religious leaders even back to Judaism had political aspirations. Regardless, I’m just not sure the bishops would have convened this council by their own will, had Constantine not done it.

Many people would risk dying before baptism so that their sins would be washed away. At that time, confession was not in use for post-baptismal sin as it is today.

This is very interesting, but I guess I’ll not go into it as we really need to stay somewhat on-topic.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

PCM, given how many links and related evidence you’ve already been provided in this thread, when may we look forward to links and evidence YOU provide in support of your position?

Is there a particular claim (one relating to the antiquity of scriptural acceptance, not relating to canonization, please) that you’re not convinced of the evidence for? You keep saying “provide evidence”…but for what? (Don’t say “for everything you’ve said” either – give specifics and I’ll do the best I can to support them.)

But mostly, my position has been that I cannot and will not accept claims that are given without substantiation. While I suppose that’s a claim in itself, I haven’t really messed with evidence because it’s way off-topic most of the time.

You guys have claimed that gnostic works were in use – but I asked where, and got no response. You seem to think that I’m claiming they weren’t in use, when my position is that I see no reason to believe they were in use.

But again, if there’s something specific you want more information on, please provide a quote or something for me.

Looking back over your posts, “it seems to me” and “my interpretation” crop up frequently.

Yes – I try not to assert opinions as fact. I show that they are opinions. Is there a problem with that?

Since you lack office and authority, I’m afraid you’ll need to provide evidence.

For the few on-topic points which I agree with, evidence has been provided, either by myself or by another, but again, if you’re in question about something on-topic, post it and I’ll do my best.

Your interpretation doesn’t sway anybody but yourself.

It wasn’t meant to. I only started this thread for the purpose of gathering information in an attempt to understand the historical context of things. It’s designed to provide historical data until I’m satisfied that I have an accurate (at least – as much as possible) picture of things.

I am not doing all your homework for you.

Either give specifics that support your claims, or don’t, but it’s not my job to find the supporting evidence for your claims (though I certainly have looked for such), especially when they don’t assist the topic at hand.

Let’s make this simple – is there any point, prior to the definition of the canon of scripture, at which Arian works were in widespread use as scripture? If so, how early was this the case,

Here is a link to St. Athanasius: newadvent.org/cathen/02035a.htm

That link provides nothing in the way of the size of Arianism, nor in the use of Arian writings as scripture (or otherwise).

I really don’t even understand your fixation on how widespread Arianism is relative to the OP. Why is this important.

It pertains only because (if you’ll read back through the thread), Arian works were claimed to have been understood as scripture – I held, and do hold, that this was never more than a small minority in the church. That’s all that’s relevant to the OP. You guys are the ones saying it nearly tore the church apart and such.

If The Catholic Church (the only Christian Church in existence)…

As before, your use of Christian in this context is…well, useless. You might as well just say Roman Catholic Church instead.

…felt the need to rush in a change to the Creed (The Filioque Clause) to combat Arianism you can rest assured that Arianism was seen as a serious problem and threat.

Eh, hadn’t Arianism pretty much died out by the time the Filioque came into play? As for the other changes – remember that the council in 381 was again the work of politics, arranged by an emperor. You simply cannot put it forth as though the bishops decided of their own will that Arianism was a serious issue. It was the emperor who apparantly thought so.

(Wikipedia provides a nice overview of this…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I#Nicene_Christianity_becomes_the_state_religion )

 

[Philthy]

Are you sure about that? Perhaps it wasn’t explicitly defined as inerrant (not infallible), but it seems to have been treated as such. For instance, Peter’s comments of Paul’s writings seems to indicate that people believed them to be true, including Peter himself. This is over 300 years prior to the supposed canonization by Rome.

Just for the record, we dont know if we have all of the letters of Paul and we dont know which letters Peter was referring to when he used the term “Paul’s letters”. That means we dont know if the letters Peter refers to are what the early Church canonized.

 

[mercygate]

Just for the record, we dont know if we have all of the letters of Paul and we dont know which letters Peter was referring to when he used the term “Paul’s letters”. That means we dont know if the letters Peter refers to are what the early Church canonized.

We DO know that not all of Paul’s letters have survived because Paul mentions an earlier letter in I Corinthians.

And with respect to the extent of Arianism, I am staggered that this thread has gone this far on that subject. The history is widely known and well documented. PC is a smart guy and can do his own homework; no need to take our word.

And YES a council might well have been called without the intervention of Constantine.

It has been said of Athanasius that at one point he was the only non-Arian in the East.

Here’s a chronology of Arianism. And a map of the extent of Arianism in the year 325.

 

[Teflon93]

Is there a particular claim (one relating to the antiquity of scriptural acceptance, not relating to canonization, please) that you’re not convinced of the evidence for? You keep saying “provide evidence”…but for what? (Don’t say “for everything you’ve said” either – give specifics and I’ll do the best I can to support them.)

But mostly, my position has been that I cannot and will not accept claims that are given without substantiation. While I suppose that’s a claim in itself, I haven’t really messed with evidence because it’s way off-topic most of the time.

PCM- live up to your own standard.

Here’s a for-instance:

You claimed above that Arianism was no big deal. Provide the evidence for it—there is plenty to the contrary that it was in fact an enormous deal, not least of which because in the Roman Empire the legions were the root of all power, and that was where this heresy, named for Arius, took root. Indeed, whenever you watch The Discovery Channel during Holy Week, you’ll see plenty of Arianism evident—this is the root of the notion that Jesus was not divine, but simply a good man. It is a persistent falsehood and the longest-lived heresy.

So present your evidence in support of your contention that it was no big deal.

 

[Teflon93]

We DO know that not all of Paul’s letters have survived because Paul mentions an earlier letter in I Corinthians.

And with respect to the extent of Arianism, I am staggered that this thread has gone this far on that subject. The history is widely known and well documented. PC is a smart guy and can do his own homework; no need to take our word.

And YES a council might well have been called without the intervention of Constantine.

It has been said of Athanasius that at one point he was the only non-Arian in the East.

Here’s a chronology of Arianism. And a map of the extent of Arianism in the year 325.

And, as usual, mercygate beats me to the punch!

 

[guanophore]

I am not doing all your homework for you.
Here is a link to St. Athanasius: newadvent.org/cathen/02035a.htm

And here is the reference for the info:

I really don’t even understand your fixation on how widespread Arianism is relative to the OP. Why is this important. All this history is just more evidence that scripture came out of the ecclesiastical authority of the Church and did not just spontaneously present itself from the “bottom up” by the laity or personal acceptance.

If The Catholic Church (the only Christian Church in existence) felt the need to rush in a change to the Creed (The Filioque Clause) to combat Arianism you can rest assured that Arianism was seen as a serious problem and threat. Ironically that panic rush to change the Creed directly later leads to the east-west split. Arianism itself was bad enough but its worst effect is that internally the protocols were dealing with this sort of thing evolved on the fly so to speak and really stressed The Church leadership. Note too however, that this heresy and the defensive actions and split also leads to the unassailable primacy of Rome and the papacy that we have today.

James

Thanks for all the great references James. This should give PCM a springboard. I am afraid that I am the one at fault for the sidebar on Arianism. I asserted (in the form of a baseless speculation, according to PCM) that the main reason for the Councils was to combat heresies, and that it was difficult for people to tell the difference between heretical documents and valid ones. Althought the Arian heresy was flagrant a full century before the canon was closed, we see in the writings of Athanasius evidence of many documents and ideas that were deposed and rejected by the Church. The Church proceeded to destroy as many as could be found, just as had been done with the gnostic writings. Now, the only evidence we have of these is the references in official church documents. PCM is looking for original, earliest documents, including those used at Divine Liturgy, but not included in the canon.

 

[guanophore]

Probably true – but my question would be whether or not such heresy was serious enough to have warranted the council had Constantine not set it up. If the vast majority were indeed eager to promulgate the creed, and more importantly, the theology it represented, would they have considered the issue serious enough to call a council over it? I suppose this is rather off-topic, however, since we’re not really dealing with any evidence as to the use of heretical works.

I am not even certain that such a concept had ever been considered. The imperial decree occurred just 12 short years after the Edict of Milan. The Church had spent 300 years hiding and being martyred. The idea of meeting openly at the permission of the emperor was probably amazing to all of them. The summons guaranteed all bishops safe passage and imperial protection. I would not doubt that many of them thought it was a ruse to slaughter them all summarily!

Thanks – I really do appreciate that. However, I’m confused – you really think that the majority of bishops had fallen into Arianism prior to Nicea, despite that only three wouldn’t sign the creed? Can I ask what information you have that leads you to this opinion?

I do, but being separated by travel from primary source material, I must grudgingly ask for your patience. Most of the Arian bishops refused to attend, because the controversy had been brewing for decades, and they did not WANT it settled. Heresy is insidious, an works best a little at a time. (a little leaven will leaven the whole lump). It is like putting a lobster in a lukewarm pan, and heating it slowly.

Was it necessary as a council for the whole church? I’m not really sure – I’m not saying that it was harmful in such a case – in fact, it may have been quite beneficial – but necessary?

Obviously the bishops felt it was. If not, they would have tried to appease Constantine, and not really tried to develop or define doctrine. Although Constantine initiatied the council, he did not take an active part in it. In fact, he vacationed while the bishops “deliberated” (argued).

You make a good point. However I would point out that even if the Arians were all concentrated in Alexandria, they were not a majority there – the synod of Alexandria (which I have no original source info for yet) apparently denounced Arius. Is it really reasonable to think that Arians represented a majority of the teachers in the schools in Alexandria?

I think so, and common sense dicatates that, since this was the most prestigious school (even more prolific it attendance and export) than Rome, the Arians had spread across Christendom. This is why a local council was insufficient to address the problem.

It’s “commonly known” that gnostic gospels were held as scripture, but what evidence do we have to that end?

This being a heresy rampant 150 ears and more earlier, the best evidence (since the Church burned the other documents) are the writings of the Apologists, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus “Against Heresies”. Actually, the Gospel of John and the Revelation are both quite anti-Gnostic. The opening passage of the Gospel of John is one of the most succint Gnostic refutations ever written.

So codified theologial opinions of scripture that differed with mainstream Christianity? Yeah, probably. Do we have record of what works these were, and what kind of usage these works had?

To my knowledge, only in the refutations. However, I confess that my study has not been of secular documents of the period, but religious. It is possible there are references in non-religious sources. For example Josephus gives us a great deal of historical commentary, some of which embodies the religious point of view, but not all.

I don’t know about that – religious leaders even back to Judaism had political aspirations. Regardless, I’m just not sure the bishops would have convened this council by their own will, had Constantine not done it.

Yes, of course there were many Christians involved in politics. However, up until Christianity was de-crimminalized in 313, such involvement would have had to be cautious. Someone convicted of being a Christian was put to death, no matter what their political status. I don’t think that the bishops, most of whom had lived under the bitterness of Diocletians rule, would have the wherewithal to call their own council.

This is very interesting, but I guess I’ll not go into it as we really need to stay somewhat on-topic.

Continued…

Perhaps we can deal with the historical development of sacraments later?

 

[qui_est_ce]

I don’t think we can “put aside” the notion of sacred liturgy. The reason I say that is because it was the use of these writings during Divine Liturgy from the earliest days that was one of the main factors in determining the Scripture. This section of Divine Liturgy, which has not changed since the first century, is called the Liturgy of the Word.

" And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things." (Justin Martyr 1st Apology)

I agree that any scripture is such as a result of divine inspiration. However, the recognition of that fact by the earthly body was necessary. It is still necessary, as people are still producing books that claim to be from God, or an angel of God.

Ancient records indicate that the Epistle of Barnabas, or parts of it were read during Divine Liturgy.
newadvent.org/cathen/02299a.htm

Yes, I agree. I think the question of what was considered canonical was an ongoing issue from the time the documents were penned. Why do you say “supposedly decided”? Do you think they did not decide? I mean, do you reject the pronoucement of the canon?

Because Sacred Scripture and early Christian liturgy cannot be separated, I started a new thread on this topic.

 

[PC_Master]

Just for the record…we dont know which letters Peter was referring to when he used the term “Paul’s letters”. That means we dont know if the letters Peter refers to are what the early Church canonized.

This is true – however, that he did not clarify any specific writing would tend to indicate that either (a) there was a common set of letters being read to which Peter was obviously referring or (b) Peter held that anything written by Paul was to fit the statement. If there were known works of Paul which Peter did not consider scripture, it makes sense that he would have specified these in some way, doesn’t it?

We DO know that not all of Paul’s letters have survived because Paul mentions an earlier letter in I Corinthians.

Agreed. I would actually be curious to know why any such letters were lost.

And with respect to the extent of Arianism, I am staggered that this thread has gone this far on that subject. The history is widely known and well documented. PC is a smart guy and can do his own homework; no need to take our word.

Hang on there – I have been doing the homework (as much as time allows). The problem is that I haven’t found much in the way of actual sources – just a lot of “common knowledge” that could very well be wrong. That’s why I’ve asked for sources.

Also, saying that I don’t have to take your own word, with you not providing any source material for me to consider, is like saying “we’re right, and you’re going to have to disprove it by finding evidence to the contrary”. Have you ever tried to prove a negative? It’s hard, especially since what one might expect if the negative were true is a lack of evidence. If I searched through everything I could find, and couldn’t find a single source that confirmed the claim that Arianism was so widespread, it might simply be said that I hadn’t read enough sources. Thus, there’d be no way to prove (especially in a debate) that no source material to support the claim exists.

On the other hand, it’s far, far easier to support an affirmative claim. All you have to do is find early sources that support the claim, and verify their authenticity (as much as is possible given the nature of ancient history, of course). This is what I was asking you to do.

If you truly believe that this information is so readily available, please help me – I have sincerely tried to find an early source (an ECF or one of their contemporaries) that makes the claim that Arianism was so huge.

And YES a council might well have been called without the intervention of Constantine.

On what do you base this?

It has been said of Athanasius that at one point he was the only non-Arian in the East.

It sounds like hyperbole to me. Great for stories, but with little supporting fact.

Here’s a chronology of Arianism. And a map of the extent of Arianism in the year 325.

A very nice resource, though this leaves me with the impression that the issue seemingly resolved itself mostly between 325 and 381, meaning neither council seems to have stopped the spread of Arianism. Anyway, I think we’ve very clearly established that this doesn’t impact the beliefs of first and second century Christians in any way.

PCM- live up to your own standard.

Here’s a for-instance:

You claimed above that Arianism was no big deal. Provide the evidence for it—

Have you ever actually tried to prove a negative?

So present your evidence in support of your contention that it was no big deal.

So, if I claim that [insert heresy that you’ve never heard of here] was a huge deal, and you say it wasn’t, I should expect you show how it wasn’t before I show how it was? This is just sloppy debating.

Thanks for all the great references James. This should give PCM a springboard. I am afraid that I am the one at fault for the sidebar on Arianism. I asserted (in the form of a baseless speculation, according to PCM) that the main reason for the Councils was to combat heresies, and that it was difficult for people to tell the difference between heretical documents and valid ones. Althought the Arian heresy was flagrant a full century before the canon was closed, we see in the writings of Athanasius evidence of many documents and ideas that were deposed and rejected by the Church. The Church proceeded to destroy as many as could be found, just as had been done with the gnostic writings. Now, the only evidence we have of these is the references in official church documents. PCM is looking for original, earliest documents, including those used at Divine Liturgy, but not included in the canon.

Exactly – though I’m also looking for stuff about the canonical works too.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

I am not even certain that such a concept had ever been considered.

You’re probably right – it would have been almost unthinkable, then, for them to call a council on their own.

I do, but being separated by travel from primary source material, I must grudgingly ask for your patience.

That’s fine. “I don’t have the answer right now” is perfectly acceptable. I can be patient.

Most of the Arian bishops refused to attend, because the controversy had been brewing for decades, and they did not WANT it settled. Heresy is insidious, an works best a little at a time. (a little leaven will leaven the whole lump). It is like putting a lobster in a lukewarm pan, and heating it slowly.

While I understand the angle, I’m not sure how factual it is. We know very little about which bishops attended and which didn’t.

Obviously the bishops felt it was. If not, they would have tried to appease Constantine, and not really tried to develop or define doctrine. Although Constantine initiatied the council, he did not take an active part in it. In fact, he vacationed while the bishops “deliberated” (argued).

There’s a difference between “okay, we’re here, supposedly to deal with Arianism…and it is a problem, so why not deal with it” and “oh my gosh Arianism’s going to overrun the whole church if we don’t do something about it – we need a council!”.

I think so, and common sense dicatates that, since this was the most prestigious school (even more prolific it attendance and export) than Rome, the Arians had spread across Christendom. This is why a local council was insufficient to address the problem.

It’s possible, but again, it isn’t as though the bishops insisted on holding this council because they felt the heresy was so dangerous. Regionally, they did deal with things, but on a worldwide scale?

Yes, of course there were many Christians involved in politics.

I was actually referring to religious politicking.

Perhaps we can deal with the historical development of sacraments later?

Good idea.

Because Sacred Scripture and early Christian liturgy cannot be separated, I started a new thread on this topic.

There’s a difference between not being separable and not wanting to separate them. As I said – the liturgy would be evidence to support works being used, but the earliest liturgy you can provide seems to not reference specific works as canonical.

 

[mercygate]

Agreed. I would actually be curious to know why any such [Pauline] letters were lost.

Well, if you read the letters to the Corinthians, you might not wonder why others of the same kind might have been “lost” – more likely burned!

One morning at Mass a few years ago, I nearly choked to death laughing when the Priest commented in his homily: "Well, we have these two letters to the Corinthians. But we don’t have the letters they wrote BACK!