Church History
5/13/25
Schaff, Philip. (2014). "Chapter IX. Theological Controversies, and Development of the Ecumenical Orthodoxy." In History of the Christian Church. (The Complete Eight Volumes in One). Volume 3, Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity A.D. 311-600, from Constantine the Great to Gregory the Great. (pp. 2327-2561). (Original work published 1889). Amazon Kindle Edition. (Personal Library). (sections 117-160).
"§117. General Observations, Doctrinal Importance of the Period. Influence of the Ancient Philosophy." (pp. 2327-2332).
In the period after the council of Nicea, Schaff sees a time of churchly practice settling the concepts of orthodoxy, rather than developing new concepts (Schaff 2014, p. 2327). Doctrinal statements were formalized and tested, particularly in the Western church. The tests were in the form of theological controversies, some of which were very serious in nature (Schaff 2014, p. 2328). Schaff briefly describes the way people of different social classes would participate in the disputes. In the scope of controversy, he sees a parallel to the Lutheran Reformation (Schaff 2014, p. 2329).
During this period several ecumenical councils served to make clarifications of orthodox doctrine (Schaff 2014, p. 2329). Their decrees serve as the fruit of lengthy and intense discussions. In the East, Schaff finds the debates to be primarily in the realms of "Theology and Christology, while the Latin church devoted itself to Anthropology and Soteriology" (Schaff 2014, p. 2329). These fields fall in line with different cultural values of the Greek and Latin worlds. Both East and West show signs of Platonism in their theological conclusions (Schaff 2014, p. 2331). By the middle of the 6th century Schaff finds a greater influence of Aristotle on theological inquiry (Schaff 2014, p. 2332). Mysticism favored Platonic structures, while scholasticism favored those of Aristotle.
"§118. Sources of Theology. Scripture and Tradition." (pp. 2332-2344).
In this section Schaff updates the story of the source of theological authority. The New Testament is now completely identified, largely agreed upon, and widely circulated along with the Old Testament (Schaff 2014, p. 2333). Tradition now includes that which has commented on and reacted against heretical movements. A typical citation of tradition at this period, then, identifies traditionally accepted means of interpreting Scripture. The Apostles' Creed in the West and the Nicene Creed in the East were recognized and used as traditionally formulated summaries of Scripture (Schaff 2014, p. 2334). Schaff briefly compares and contrasts this period's understanding of Scripture and tradition to those typically held in his day. The fifth century saw broad agreement to a closed canon of Scripture as we have it today, ratified at a number of ecumenical councils (Schaff 2014, p. 2336).
Schaff observes the scholarly difficulties posed by biblical manuscripts of the fourth century and into this period. As of his writing, the earliest datable manuscripts were from the fourth century and had "errors and omissions of every kind" (Schaff 2014, p. 2337). The problem of identifying a clean and authoritative text history was substantial. He describes the various manuscripts in brief. Rather than making the pessimistic conclusion of a scholarly skeptic, Schaff takes a positive view. The genuine message and the historic Christian faith is not dependent on the letters of the manuscripts but rather on the message of the Gospel preserved in the Scripture as understood through historic tradition (Schaff 2014, p. 2338). In the final analysis, the authority lies in the Scripture as preserved by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit throughout history. The orthodox understanding of Scripture is the recognized tradition (Schaff 2014, p. 2339). This concept was solidified as time went on to an investigation of consensus over time, geography, and current opinion. If all three were in agreement, an idea may be considered orthodox (Schaff 2014, p. 2341).
Schaff considers tradition to have diverged from Scripture in some ways during the period, resulting in a more rigid dependence on orthodox tradition, which could be used to exclude otherwise biblical teachers (Schaff 2014, p. 2342).
5/13/25
Schaff, Philip. (2014). "Chapter IX. Theological Controversies, and Development of the Ecumenical Orthodoxy." In History of the Christian Church. (The Complete Eight Volumes in One). Volume 3, Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity A.D. 311-600, from Constantine the Great to Gregory the Great. (pp. 2327-2561). (Original work published 1889). Amazon Kindle Edition. (Personal Library). (sections 117-160).
"§117. General Observations, Doctrinal Importance of the Period. Influence of the Ancient Philosophy." (pp. 2327-2332).
In the period after the council of Nicea, Schaff sees a time of churchly practice settling the concepts of orthodoxy, rather than developing new concepts (Schaff 2014, p. 2327). Doctrinal statements were formalized and tested, particularly in the Western church. The tests were in the form of theological controversies, some of which were very serious in nature (Schaff 2014, p. 2328). Schaff briefly describes the way people of different social classes would participate in the disputes. In the scope of controversy, he sees a parallel to the Lutheran Reformation (Schaff 2014, p. 2329).
During this period several ecumenical councils served to make clarifications of orthodox doctrine (Schaff 2014, p. 2329). Their decrees serve as the fruit of lengthy and intense discussions. In the East, Schaff finds the debates to be primarily in the realms of "Theology and Christology, while the Latin church devoted itself to Anthropology and Soteriology" (Schaff 2014, p. 2329). These fields fall in line with different cultural values of the Greek and Latin worlds. Both East and West show signs of Platonism in their theological conclusions (Schaff 2014, p. 2331). By the middle of the 6th century Schaff finds a greater influence of Aristotle on theological inquiry (Schaff 2014, p. 2332). Mysticism favored Platonic structures, while scholasticism favored those of Aristotle.
"§118. Sources of Theology. Scripture and Tradition." (pp. 2332-2344).
In this section Schaff updates the story of the source of theological authority. The New Testament is now completely identified, largely agreed upon, and widely circulated along with the Old Testament (Schaff 2014, p. 2333). Tradition now includes that which has commented on and reacted against heretical movements. A typical citation of tradition at this period, then, identifies traditionally accepted means of interpreting Scripture. The Apostles' Creed in the West and the Nicene Creed in the East were recognized and used as traditionally formulated summaries of Scripture (Schaff 2014, p. 2334). Schaff briefly compares and contrasts this period's understanding of Scripture and tradition to those typically held in his day. The fifth century saw broad agreement to a closed canon of Scripture as we have it today, ratified at a number of ecumenical councils (Schaff 2014, p. 2336).
Schaff observes the scholarly difficulties posed by biblical manuscripts of the fourth century and into this period. As of his writing, the earliest datable manuscripts were from the fourth century and had "errors and omissions of every kind" (Schaff 2014, p. 2337). The problem of identifying a clean and authoritative text history was substantial. He describes the various manuscripts in brief. Rather than making the pessimistic conclusion of a scholarly skeptic, Schaff takes a positive view. The genuine message and the historic Christian faith is not dependent on the letters of the manuscripts but rather on the message of the Gospel preserved in the Scripture as understood through historic tradition (Schaff 2014, p. 2338). In the final analysis, the authority lies in the Scripture as preserved by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit throughout history. The orthodox understanding of Scripture is the recognized tradition (Schaff 2014, p. 2339). This concept was solidified as time went on to an investigation of consensus over time, geography, and current opinion. If all three were in agreement, an idea may be considered orthodox (Schaff 2014, p. 2341).
Schaff considers tradition to have diverged from Scripture in some ways during the period, resulting in a more rigid dependence on orthodox tradition, which could be used to exclude otherwise biblical teachers (Schaff 2014, p. 2342).
RSS Feed