Regarding councils, the Article states, "they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture" How does this sit with the binding acceptance of creeds and council definitions? How can we tell if something 'be taken out of holy scripture' without falling into circularity?
This is true, but the Catholic Church insists on certain conditions to apply before this step is taken, A.It must be a free council, uncontrolled except by free assent, free discussion and with the approbation of Catholic Bishops. B. There must be free discussion of an agreed agenda and a free vote.(Arch.Bishop Laud. GOOGLE bOOKS..) The findings must be according to scripture and universally accepted by the church everywhere through the synods of the church universal and according to the principles of the Lerins injunction. i.e. according to catholic revelation .accepted by all everywhere.and at all times.(Rough trans.) This as far as it goes is the traditional belief of the Anglican Church from her beginning. According to both Roman & Orthodox sources as well as English scholars the Church in Britain was present at both General Councils and Ecumenical ones , in essence she was in at the start and it is a system she helped pioneer the accepted system. .
A) were these 'rules' in place both before the Article was written, and before the councils themselves? B) how can it be decided that they were in accord with scripture if the creeds and councils set the boundaries of scriptural interpretation? This surely ends up circular with history written by the winners? C) obviously nothing is accepted by everyone at all times - many heresies had quite large followings for large periods of time, Arianism being a case in point. How then can this be accepted? D) it can be disputed that there is genuine continuity of thought, doctrine and practice between the Angles present at the early councils and the post-English Reformation Church of England E) at the point of writing it must have obviously been the intent to say that some things within some councils, including those accepted within the articles itself, could (hypothetically at least) be out of accord with the word of God. This seems both contradictory with those enjoinders to adopt council definitions, and problematic in that how is one to determine what is or isn't contrary to the scriptures?
Pog! The Articles are ,'not articles of faith'. ( Moss. P.465, Ch 76. 39 Art. Christian Faith. ) ' 'They declare the official teaching of the C.of E., ' They were simply there as boundary markers. . It can indeed and various people do deny, quite a number on this board do so But never the less these people are indulging in wishful thinking. The Saxon War Lords held a major council every 10 years or so and first Item on the agenda was the affirmation of the Ecumenical Councils. During the years after the Norman Conquest the Church in England attend the several Latin Councils that sought to control the dreams of the Roman Bishop, Henry VIII believed in 8 Councils, but the Church in its convocation claimed four and such others as are agreed: that was four Christological, two explanatory and one a question of Manners. During the Reformation in England the Synods, or Convocation affirmed the Councils in 1536,/ 42 and affirmed by Parliament in the first Elizabethan sitting. In 1572 at the height of the controversy with the Calvinists . In his book, The,' Church,' Dean Field boldly named seven councils & they were again acknowledged during the Stuart era, both the State and Church emphasised the place of the Seven Councils in the English Church. [ See Archbishop Barlow's works on this board.] In modern times we find nothing has changed, I'm told that every time the Church in England meet the Orthodox in Council, they affirm the agreement on Ecumenical Councils. I repeat, this doesn't mean that every Anglican agrees with the idea, but it is the policy of the Church.What we have today is not Anglican belief, but Neo Anglicanism.
If by "binding acceptance" you mean a church body must uncritically accept them because the ecclesiastics said so, such binding acceptance does not exist in the Anglican tradition in light of what you quoted from Article XXI. The doctrines of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon are binding in the Anglican Church because they are taken from the Scriptures. How did the shepherds of the Anglican Church know they are? To be direct about it, I don't think it's rocket science. Why should we accept the doctrines of the early general Councils? Scripture is not a systematic theology and you won't find in it a summary of our faith. The Creeds and Councils present to us what the Scriptures teach regarding theology and our faith, and this is important if the faith is to be passed down from generation to generation. As people hear (or read) Scripture they do not hear propositions contrary to the Creedal and Conciliar faith they were taught, hence the laity do not leave in droves for Mormonism or the Christadelphians.
I'm not sure people have quite understood where I am coming from, but no matter - I probably haven't explained myself very well. Thanks for the replies folks!
I read that to mean, that just because a council 'may' err does not not mean it has. I mean we all can err, as a human race, and yet we take scholars and experts as our guides in all areas of human life. So, Councils as a category can err, but Nicea, Chalcedon and such haven't erred. we take them as our guides in the areas of divinity.
I would compare them to: Scripture, reason, tradition and experience. I concur that creeds and councils must influence our interpretation of scripture, but I'm not sure they can be considered binding without circularity, unless one simply asserts that they are utterly correct and are infallible boundary stones and guideposts to biblical interpretation. But in that case, one cannot agree with what article xxi says. It's catch-22 and something has to go: the creeds, the articles, or that particular binding authority.
What if we don't use the creeds to interpret scripture, but just to summarize it? then it just goes one way only
Sure. But that's not how they are actually used, though. For example, if a church interprets scripture so as to come into conflict with the Nicene creed, do we say that they have a valid interpretation, or do we say that their interpretation must be invalid because it goes against the creed? After all, it's not difficult to make the bible mean almost anything.
In your hypothetical though, it's two interpretations from the church: a later one, and the Nicene one. We can pick the Nicene over the later using all kinds of instruments, such as, its antiquity, so that it prevails over the later.
You mean prefer the Nicene over the Articles? Or prefer the Nicene over a current interpretation of the bible? If you mean Nicene vs modern interpretation, then what if the interpretation is old (like Unitarianism)? And does age count for so much - isn't that de facto meaning that all interpretation must confirm to the Nicene creed? What if there are fantastic exegetical reasons to prefer it, based on a stack load of new historical evidence coming to light? Seems to me that various things have to be held. In tension as mutually justifying elements: scripture, Christological focus, tradition, apostolic doctrine etc etc, and that we can only ever say something is more or less likely rather than make definitive pronouncements.
Interesting discussion, thank you for stretching my mind with these pointed questions. What I see you doing is asking questions rather than driving at an answer, as you're genuinely trying to find an answer, as am I. Which is great. I juxtapose the Nicene to a modern interpretation, since those were the conditions of your hypothetical, "if a church proposes an interpretation so as to come into conflict with the Nicene creed".. It cannot pull the card of antiquity by proposing Unitarianism. The reason I say that is while different views did exist prior to Nicea, none of them were codified in an ecumenical Council, and embedded in a universal formula to be imposed upon the whole of the faithful. Say for instance, that at the Council of Jerusalem they did define a unitarian Christology. Then an orthodox Christian today would have a real dilemma, whether to follow an earlier unitarian formula or a later trinitarian one. As that is not the case, however, and as unitarians were expelled and excommunicated from the Church (even prior to Nicea), unitarianism has no leg to stand on. Nicea is unequivocally the ancientest Church Creed on Christology. There are no competitors. I would add this. Since the Creeds do not sit atop of Scirpture, judging it, but are beneath it, summarizing it, even such a unitarian Creed, were one to exist, would have to be expelled by the clear words of Scripture. Remember, if you go deep into the Arian debates of the 4th century, that the Trinitarians won the debate on their strength of exegesis. In other words scripture alone was sufficient to declare The Trinity. They had no Nicene creed yet to fall back to as a shortcut. That's what the Creed is, a shortcut. It doesn't sit as a Magisterial Proclamation telling the christian sheep what the bible means.
Interesting points, but I'm a little unsure about trinitarianism winning simply because of better exegesis - I suspect far more being involved than that. But you raise an interesting hypothetical: what if history went the other way? If councils can err then that is a real possibility. So, if creeds can be wrong, invoking them to defeat a modern interpretation that goes contrary to them is pointless, or at least carries no great strength on its own. Again, it seems to me that creeds are great for summarising majority early church opinion and using them as a strong witness to one's position, but they are far from settling an issue. All other things being equal, an interpretation in concert with the creeds would carry the day (IMHO), but there might be a situation where, say, the better scriptural exegesis was against the creeds. Then it becomes much harder. Say, for example, interpretation A has the creeds on its side, but interpretation B has best exegesis, some historical opinion, the better use of philosophical reason, a greater Christological focus, leads to more moral behaviour, has more experience etc on its side. In that case I'd probably prefer B. A web of mutually supporting nodes: scripture, Christology, creeds and councils, reason, morality, experience, tradition. With some being more important, carrying more weight than others, and remembering that all authority is derivative from the sole source of all authority: God. This is why I favour minimalist definitions of what is a Christian, and favour breadth of doctrinal allowance within the church. Men of good conscience can reasonably hold differing views. Though, of course, sometimes lines must be drawn.
Dear Colleague, The Councils are not uncritically accepted, as I tried to explain, they have undergone intense scrutiny and discussion for some 1400 years. The first four are, as far as my studies tell, accepted by every main stream Protestant Sect. However, the Anglican Church is not a main line Sect, it is a Communion of Catholic Believers within the Body of Christ and the standard number of Councils that are held to is Seven. According to C.B.Moss, ( Christian Faith .pg 86 Ch.15. 1961 Ed.) "The .....Ecumenical Councils have always been accepted by the Church of England.; both before and since the Reformation ......on the grounds that these Councils did not err in their doctrinal teaching which has been universally accepted as necessary to the right interpretation of Holy Scripture." You ask why we should accept the doctrine of Early General Councils? Because the early Church accepted certain Councils as being guided by the Holy Ghost and this was regarded as being an extension of Christ's promise regarding the Comforter being with us after the Ascension. (Acts. 15.)Interestingly, for over a millenium this has been the doctrine of the Anglican Church, not of all members, but of the One Holy Catholic And Apostolic Church it has not been taught as of recent years because of neglect on behalf of the Fathers and indifference on the other hand of modern christianity. We should remember that we are not simply members of a Religious Society, or a Trade union. Nor can we abandon our membership, just as we abandon a taxi or omnibus, when we or the taxi driver considers the journey finalised. We Join Christ, we become His, not the other war around. (Again!.) We become Members of Christ and Children of God.
Is there not a contradiction between, 'accepted ... Because they did not err' and 'they may err and have sometimes erred'? Notice also the circularity: the creeds are accepted because they conform with scripture concerning the Holy Spirit; how do we know that is the right interpretation?; because it agrees with the early church ...
First of all what do you mean by ,'circularity'? Secondly! when you compare the Seven Councils with the 39 Articles, you are not comparing like with like! The Articles were the output of two small provinces of the Catholic Church in the West! England. WHILST the first Ecumenical Council was a product ,in theory, of the whole of the known Universal Church !( When I was at the state school, we were told that the Bishops of the Church in Britain attended and later ,'affirmed' the findings.) There are extant letters from both SS.Constantine and Athanasius , to this effect! For the 39 Articles, they were published at a time when the Church in England was under attack from two major sources. 1. The new Church of Trent, as the diarist John Evelyn refers to the Holy Roman Church in his diary for 1686 March. 2. The new sects that had arisen from the Protestant upheaval within Europe. They were to show the wildmen of both left and right, the limits of toleration.