coptichymns.net - Sharing the Joy of Coptic Hymns Around the World

Iqbal

posted on May 26, 2008 - 04:05 AM

I am very hesitant to believe for many reasons that the Biblical canon was based on "certain historical contingencies." I would like more in depth explanation!

Well this shouldn't be cause for concern in light of my earlier qualification that the canon does not define inspired Scripture; certainly, it gives a definitive list of inspired Scripture, but it was never intended to be a strictly exclusive list of inspired Scripture even if intended to exclude particular texts which were deemed heretical or pseudographical.

If the canon of the Scriptures was not the product of historical contingencies (or, in other words, if it was an essential element of Church life) then the Church would have had a canon from its inception. The Church never went out of its way to formulate a canon for the sake of formulating a canon--there is no evidence of this, rather it was prompted to do so in reaction to the complex range of conditioning factors that Gamble and many other scholars discuss at length. Ofcourse, from our perspective, we would acknowledge the Holy Spirit's role in all of this (an issue scholarship does not generally concern itself with), but the fact remains that the Holy Spirit would never have had a reason to inspire the Church to form a definitive canon in the first place were it not for the historical contingencies in question.

In XC
Iqbal

Joined: Nov 14, 2004 | Posts: 125

mikokiko

posted on May 26, 2008 - 04:41 AM

Truth.seeker, I would like to know what the difference between a Synod and a Council is.

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1002

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 26, 2008 - 12:12 PM

A Synod is local, a Council has bishops from a larger area.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 418

mikokiko

posted on May 26, 2008 - 03:36 PM

Why does locality cause it to be indeterminate, while the councils true for sure?

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1002

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 26, 2008 - 04:29 PM

The most obvious evidence is that decisions of Synods were reversed many times. The prime example I like to use (because it crystallizes many of my positions) is Sts. Theophilus and Cyril deposing St. John Chrysostom in a Synod. That decision was obviously wrong (the alternative would be all the Churches being wrong in saying John Chrysostom is a Saint). Therefore, Synods are not infallible.

The theoretical proposition would be that the whole of the Church cannot go wrong as promised by Christ to Peter. Therefore, when you have a Council that represents more or less the whole of the Church, it cannot make a mistake. This is opposed to a Synod, which only represents one local Church.

Of course, the more divisions that take place, the more the "local Church" starts representing the "whole Church," where "whole" means the body that has maintained the True doctrines.

That is why the Coptic Synod, today, would have much more weight than, for example, 1700 years ago. However, a decision of the Coptic Synod can probably be reversed by a decision of a Council of the Oriental Orthodox Churches as a whole. Where the former can be fallible and the latter cannot.

So, it's not really about geography, it's more about Sees. Of course the assumption is that within a See, there's one belief. E.g. within the Coptic Church, there's one belief regarding any issue. The Coptic Church not being the "whole Church" means there are other Sees that are doctrinally correct. This would be Ethiopian, Armenian, etc...

Of course the fun starts when various bodies declare other bodies non-Ecumenical (in essence, not representing the "whole Church" therefore being fallible). Chalcedonians call the 449 Second Council of Ephesus a "Robbers' Synod" (note that calling it a "Robbers Council" would be paradoxical). We say that the Council of Chalcedon got it wrong because it went against the Council of Ephesus (which must have been right since it was a Council).

With all that said, do you more fully understand why my response is usually, "so what?" when someone says, "so and so said so?" Not only have saints gotten it wrong many times, but they've gotten it wrong in Synods with respect to deposing other saints!

If the recent discussions between the Coptic and Chalcedonian Churches ever bring fruit (i.e. be ratified by the repsect Synods), then that in essence means ALL of us have had it wrong since 451 AD. We were wrong in condemning Dyophisitism and they were wrong in condemining Miaphysitism. Some say "oh no, we didn't get it wrong, it was all a misunderstanding." How comforting - all of the Bishops of Christianity were confused.

With so much fluidity, I cannot base my theology on a Pope's usage of one verse, or one man saying something about the Coptic language before the Arabs invaded Egypt.

As to the present topic, somebody needs to change the name of the thread, St. Athanasius cannot reject something that does not exist. There's no "Biblical Canon" unless something is canonized. St. Athanasius passed before any Synod or Council declared the Biblical Canon. Speaking of St. Athanasius and Synods, many Synods had him deposed on several occasions.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 418

Meghalo05

posted on May 26, 2008 - 10:55 PM

Truth Seeker,

Thats why I put a question mark at the end of the name of the thread. I was asking it in a question form, and I got an answer. I don't think the title is a big issue. But could you possibly please talk about these synods which deposed St. Athanasius. You have to excuse my lack of knowledge, but I have never heard of "many Synods" which deposed him on several occassions. Love to hear back.

Christ is Risen

Joined: Jan 18, 2005 | Posts: 304
Location: St. Mary and St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church of Indianapolis, IN

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 27, 2008 - 12:04 AM

I don't want someone who's not familiar with the issue to look at the title and thinks there's doubt as to whether St. Athanasius rejected Biblical Canon or not (especially since St. Athanasius was the first person to list the 27 books that we have in the NT and say those books and those books only should make up the NT). A man cannot reject something that doesn't exist.

Anyhow, Eusebius, a bishop at the time, was a ring-leader of Arius-partisans that swayed the Roman Emperor on several occasions to depose St. Athanasius. Some of those were through Synods organized by Eusebius accusing St. Athanasius of ridiculous things.

The "Council" of Tyre. A Synod in Antioch. The "Council" of Arles. The "Council" of Milan. Arius had a pretty strong following.

"Athanasius contra mundum" --> "Athanasius against the world" is a famous saying.

To get a fuller picture, you'd have to read a couple of his biographies.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 418

Publican

posted on May 27, 2008 - 12:36 AM

Meghalo,

As far as the original inquiry, Iqbal answered it excellently. This is the Orthodox response.

God Bless

_________________
"Fight the battle for your Heart" -- St. Antony the Great

"Sit in the presence of the Lord every moment of your life, as you think of him and recollect him in your heart." -- St. Isaac the Syrian

The greater the Knowledge of God, the greater the Love, and the greater the Love for God the greater the Knowledge, the greater the Love, the greater the Knowledge, the greater the Suffering.-- St. Silouan

Joined: Nov 18, 2005 | Posts: 101

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 27, 2008 - 12:55 AM

Two things need to be distinguished:

1) Why the Canon was formulated.
2) The accuracy of the Canon.

The Canon may have been formulated out of the contingencies that Iqbal mentioned, but that has nothing to do with the accuracy of the Canon.

Just like the Nicene Creed was declared because of Arianism, that doesn't mean that some other Creed would have been accurate if there were other circumstances.

So, St. Athanasius was simply wrong - the books he thought were not inspired were judged to be inspired by the Church. Does this mean he "rejected the Canon?" Of course not - the Church declared the correct Canon after he had passed.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 418

mikokiko

posted on May 27, 2008 - 04:17 AM

Again, I am not trying to argue here, but this is an honest question, who declared the correct canon, we know it must have been "the Church" but specifically who? This is nothing but an inquiry, I am not trying to "socratize" anything here...

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1002

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 27, 2008 - 10:08 AM

The Synod of Hippo in 393, the Council of Rome in 382 and the Council of Carthage in 397 (later approved by another Council of Carthage in 419).

These are not "Ecumenical Councils" because only Bishops from a limited number of Sees were present. However, all the Sees approve that Canon with minor differences (an addition of a book or two and/or a subtraction of a book or two from the Deuterocanon).

I should note that the Council of Constantinople (381), an Ecumenical Council, wasn't even known to the Pope of Rome until its completion. That's why above I said an Ecumenical Council has "more or less the whole of the Church."

In essence, the validity of a Synod or Council rests upon whether it's later ratified by another Council or not. That's why in evey Ecumenical Council, the Bishops mention the earlier Council and reiterate their approval of its Canons.

It's kind of interesting because the Bishops usually say something to the effect of, "We affirm the preceding Council and the present Council is right because it follows the preceding Council's doctrines." Kind of circular - the preceding Council has authority because it's affirmed, but the affirming Council gets its authority through following the preceding Council.

So, basically, as long as two or more Councils are in agreement, it's pretty good authority. Of course we reject the last four of the "Ecumenical Councils," because we don't think they were Ecumenical, since we hold the true doctrines and we didn't approve them.

So, in reality, it's not about what's Ecumenical or not, but about who is considering the Council. If someone's in agreement, they'll say it was Ecumenical, if someone's not in agreement, they'll say it wasn't. After the Canons of Ephesus were passed, John of Antioch (in disagreement with Cyrilian theology) held his own Synod and had all the Bishops that approved Ephesus excommunicated. At which point his Bishops were excommunicated as well. (In 433 they all agreed to lift it).

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 418

mikokiko

posted on May 27, 2008 - 05:09 PM

I don't really think those rules are consistent at all. They are all based on what we think is right now. But you still didn't answer my question who and in what council decide what was the right Canon? Like you said "the Church" decided the true Canon, who is "the Church" specifically? I just want names. Thanks.

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1002

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 27, 2008 - 11:08 PM

From Truth.Seeker:The Synod of Hippo in 393, the Council of Rome in 382 and the Council of Carthage in 397 (later approved by another Council of Carthage in 419).

These are not "Ecumenical Councils" because only Bishops from a limited number of Sees were present. However, all the Sees approve that Canon with minor differences (an addition of a book or two and/or a subtraction of a book or two from the Deuterocanon).

_________________
A. S.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 418