1: Background Context Flashcards
Creed
Statements of beliefs that are held to be authoritative and binding for believers in a particular faith tradition.
Why are creeds produced?
In some cases, if one cannot accept some articles of belief, they cannot be considered “a member in good standing” of the faith community.
A Creed is usually a product of a problem in a community with a position that the majority deemed as “heretical.” Thus, it ia a repudiation of wrong beliefs.
A Creed is a response to a problem; it rejects heretical movements.
A Creed has Three Purposes:
- Explanation of the Faith.
Creeds are basic, memorable statements of faith. - Training of Believers.
Creeds help believers understand who they are, what they believe, and how they should act as Christians.
They are like posts that delimit the boundaries of what it means, to believe, and live as Christians. - Identification and Correction of False Teachings.
Even in the first century, false teachers abounded - teachers who claimed to follow Jesus but who promoted a message about Jesus that differed radically from the historical accounts proclaimed by apocalyptic eyewitnesses. Early Christian creeds helped believers to distinguish the truth about Jesus from the alternative perspectives presented by false teachers.
The immediate reason for the production of a Creed is a response to a problem rising in a community that is resulting in heretical beliefs.
The two most popular creeds in Christianity are:
- The Nicene Creed
The Nicene Creed should be more properly called “the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed” because although its original text was formulated at the Council of Nicea (325 CE), its final form was decided upon at the Council of Constantinople (381) in answer to further controversy after Nicea
One can say that the Nicene Creed is, generally speaking, an answer of orthodox Christianity to Arianism - The Apostles’ Creed
The Apostles Creed is the shorter version, used by Catholic Churches in Canada
The most important factors contained in the Nicene Creed are as highlighted. The Christian authorities who produced the Nicene Creed agreed on these points. Any opposition to one of these points is deemed heretic.
- God is One
- Incarnation
- Passion-Death-Resurrection
- Salvation
- Sacrifice
Nicene Creed: God is One.
God is One. There is only one God. Although Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also divine, that does not make God plural. There is no “higher” or “lower” God. The God that reveals Jesus is the same God from the Old Testament.
Nicene Creed: Incarnation
Jesus is not only fully divine/spirit, nor only fully human. Jesus is both fully and truly God, and fully and truly human. He is God incarnate.
Nicene Creed: Passion-Death-Resurrection
The passion, death and resurrection of Jesus carry supreme importance, not simply his life, ministry and teachings.
Nicene Creed: Salvation
Why? Because the death and resurrection of Christ are the factors that ultimately achieve salvation for humanity (not the teachings!). Without the death-resurrection, there is no salvation for humanity.
Nicene Creed: Sacrifice
Salvation does not consist only in knowing the “teachings” of Jesus but in being saved by Christ’s sacrifice. This is against the Gnostics, Gnostic (“knowing”).
The Christian Notion of “Incarnation” - Sacophobia / Sarcophilia
Sacrophilia: love of the flesh
(Orthodox Christianity)
human nature = good (while acknowledging the reality of sin) because God in Christ assumed it.
Sarcophobia: fear of the flesh
(Other Christianities, e.g. Gnosticism)
human nature = basically and totally corrupt, so much so that God, they thought, could never be incarnated in it
Sacrophilia:
“love of the flesh”
Orthodox Christianity is characterized by “Sacrophilia”
It fundamentally views human nature as good (while acknowledging the reality of sin) because God in Christ assumed it.
Sarcophobia:
“fear of the flesh”
Other Christianities (such as Gnosticism) were characterized by “Sarcophobia.”
They viewed human nature as basically and totally corrupt, so much so that God, they thought, could never be incarnated in it
What is the canon?
Canon (kanon): measuring stick/reed “meet the standard” (if someone meets the standard or not; the canon functioned like a measuring stick)
Canon of Scripture: the divinely inspired and authoritative books of the Bible
The Canon is a list of authoritative and sacred books (to “canonize” someone: to make someone a saint; the saints name is recognized in the official list).
Importance of the New Testament
Word of God: All Christian groups are virtually agreed on the immense importance of the New Testament as the Word of God
Rule of Faith: Another way Christians describe the NT is as the Rule of Faith
The NT is also the major basis for the Christian Tradition; everything should be rooted in the NT, it functions as a root/source of tradition and theology
Why were writings rejected or accepted into the Canon?
Suffering and Death. Martyrdom and Suffering of early Christians is an important context; books that presented Jesus’ suffering and death had an advantage.
Jesus. Jesus (in the story) had to lead by example. A Jesus that only teaches (as in the Gnostic gospels) was not attractive.
Authorship. The issue of authorship provided to be the most crucial issue (the earlier the better!). This notion of “apostolic” origin depended on how early Christianity were convinced about the pedigree of a particular work. We know that many things they believed about apostolic authorship are not historically true.
Politics. Politics were very important too.
Little Fragmentation. The Unity of the Empire demanded that fragmentation should be kept minimum Hence, standards of orthodoxy had been drawn up.
Orthodoxy
The word (adjective) “orthodox”: means “right teaching.” It refers to the notion that it is in line with the beliefs that have been officially sanctioned or approved by the majority in a group (especially its leadership).
It is seen as a faithful transmission of the revelation from Jesus through the apostles to the later generations. Heresy is its opposite. (Jesus → The Apostles & Disciples → later generations of Christianity)
Heresy
The word “heresy” means the opposite, namely, that a belief does not stand in line with the beliefs that have been officially sanctioned or approved by the majority in a group (especially its leadership).
It is the opposite of orthodox; when something is introduced that did not come from Jesus and/or the Apostles, or is opposed to their teachings
Heterodox: A synonym for “heretical” could be “heterodox” (literally “another teaching”)
What are the main theories to explain how orthodoxy came about? Please be prepared to state and defend your own position about this issue (important!**)
(1) Truth Preceded Error
(2) Heresy Preceded Truth
(3) Diversity in the Beginning: Decisions about Orthodoxy Come Later
(1) Truth Preceded Error
The traditional view.
Jesus and the Apostles had the truth, and transmitted it to their disciples, and it was transmitted over time.
Later on, enemies of the truth distorted these teachings by sewing their own beliefs into them.
The orthodox Christians had to carefully weed them out.
Apostolic Succession:
The apostles received the pure and true gospel (message of salvation) from Jesus
They appointed successors who carefully guarded and faithfully transmitted this holy tradition to the next generation
The bishops are the successors of the apostles. They continue to faithfully guard and transmit the tradition of truth.
Heresies sprang up later (after the truth was conveyed by Christ). They are corruptions of the truth transmitted by Christ through the apostles to the church and must therefore be rejected.
(2) Heresy Preceded Truth
A Heretical form of Christianity was the first to take route.
This is more selective; it is not universal.
This is only applicable to certain parts of the Christian world.
(3) Diversity in the Beginning: Decisions about Orthodoxy Come Later
This is the “New School” theory (put forth by W. Bauer)
We cannot say, “In the beginning, there was truth.” Instead, in the beginning there was diversity. The orthodox group was just one of many diverse groups in Christianity, that became powerful and dominant with the Roman Empire.
They were able to impose their beliefs and teachings on others, and suppress any views which go against theirs.
When orthodoxy was more clearly identified, there came to be a sharp distinction between “acceptable” and “non-acceptable” forms of Christianity, and “acceptable” and “non-acceptable” books. We use the “non-acceptable” books to understand the diversity in early Christianity.
Heretics and Orthodox are made by councils; by official decrees. The winners get to decide who is right and who is wrong. There were no such things as “heretics” until the Council of Nicea, and the victors get to write history.
The New School and its Claims
Even the New Testament shows an amazing diversity in the beliefs, convictions, and styles of faith present in the Christian communities that produced them in the 1st century.
The diversity increased with the passing of time It was influenced by the interaction of:
(1) the original message about Jesus, the Christ - and -
(2) the particular contexts in which communities found themselves (experiences, influences, cultures, ways of thinking).
Later on, when church leaders realised that too much diversity was not good for unity in the church and when Constantine wanted greater uniformity in the Christian churches in order to enhance the unity of the Roman Empire, they (bishops) had to define in a clearer way which beliefs were acceptable and which were not. In effect, they defined “orthodoxy.”
Most Importantly, when they came to decide which were the right and wrong factors of Christianity, politics played a great role. The New School has the tendency to claim that the development of so-called “orthodoxy” in Christianity is mainly (or even purely) a result of political factors
In short, it’s a question of control!
“The Victors (in a war) get to write history” (Winston Churchill)
They consider the early orthodox bishops as the victors in the struggles that characterized early Christian history.
Hence, these victorious bishops got to decide what was right and what was wrong.
The New School and What If? Reflections
Many of the representatives of the new school like to engage in creative imagination…
What if the “orthodox” party had not won? What if the Gnostics had won the battle in early Christianity?
In that case, maybe Christianity would be a lot different now – less exclusivist, less dogmatic, more open to the feminine, more open to other religions, etc., etc.
However, that did not happen. Orthodoxy won and so we are “stuck” with Christianity as we know it now.
What are the main points of contention that opponents of the New School (the traditional school) present against the New School?
Challengers of the “New School”: Darrell Bock and The New School’s Errors
- Downplays Proto-Orthodox Tradition
The New School downplays or even denies the existence of some kind of “proto-orthodox” sense (also known as “the tradition”) already in the first century - Fails to Recognize Alternative Problematic Christianities
The New School fails to see that certain ideas that alternative Christianities in the second century championed were already problematic from the very beginning precisely because there was already a “general sense” for what should be considered “proper” (orthodox) Christianity early on - Wrong about Early Diversity
The New School is wrong when it says that in the beginning there was simply diversity without anyone controlling anything else. No! There was already some kind of sense of “orthodoxy.”
Orthodoxy and Survival
Because Orthodoxy suppressed some documents, it was able to survive. A stricter standard of Orthodoxy could very well have been necessary for Early Christianity. A too radical diversity could have made Christianity weaker and not able to withstand the various forces that went against it in history.
In the words of NT scholar James Dunn, there is one point of consensus among all Christians by the late first century and first half of the second century:
“Jesus, the teacher from Nazareth, had ministered, died and been raised from the dead to bring God and humans finally together.”
PERIOD.
If you claim more than this, some New Testament books will not agree with you anymore, thus, no more consensus.
What were the main points of consensus for Christians by the end of the New Testament era? What are some main points that became points of contention later on?
Monotheism (Belief in only one God)
Christology (Christ’s role in the grand scheme of things)
Soteriology (the ‘salvation’ dimension)
Community/Ecclesiology (Church Component)
Universal Church
Ethics
What were the main points of consensus for Christians by the end of the New Testament era? What are some main points that became points of contention later on?
MONOTHEISM
Belief in only one God
Consensus:
There is only one God. This is the same God who gave the covenant to Israel and whom Jesus called “Abba” (Father). There is a vital link between Christianity and Israel
Contention:
Is there really one God?
Why does the Old Testament God seem to be so cruel in opposition to Jesus’ God?
What is the source of evil in this world?
How can God be one yet also three?
What were the main points of consensus for Christians by the end of the New Testament era? What are some main points that became points of contention later on?
CHRISTOLOGY
Christ’s role in the grand scheme of things
Consensus:
Jesus of Nazareth alone achieved the salvation of humanity particularly through the cross and resurrection. He was the messiah. He truly lived, suffered and died. (LATER ON) He was both human and divine.
Contention:
How can the human Jesus really be divine as well?
How can God be incarnated in human nature which is fundamentally evil?
Consensus / Contention
SOTERIOLOGY
The ‘salvation’ dimension
Consensus:
In spite of human failure, humans can trust to be saved by God who has accomplished salvation through Jesus Christ, particularly, through his death and resurrection
Contention:
People began to question…
How is humanity really saved?
Are the passion, death and resurrection really important? (We are saved through “knowledge” (gnosis) anyways; this is the gnostic viewpoint)
Consensus / Contention
COMMUNITY/ECCLESIOLOGY
Consensus:
Church component; Christians are expected to live in communities (not just local like communities in Corinth and Galatia, but all of us are united). Those who trust in Jesus as revealer of God and saviour are expected to live in communities which take Jesus’ life and teaching as ideals.
Contention:
Consensus / Contention
UNIVERSAL CHURCH
Consensus:
Christians belong to a fellowship that is larger than that provided by the local community. It is actually a community present in the whole world. No real pope at this point, but certain bishops are important based on their location and whom they were founded by Catholicism means “universal.” It became an early conviction that Christianity is not just local, but universal (“Catholic”).
Contention:
Challenges to the idea of universal Church arose. On what is authority in the community based? (both local and universal)
It is based mainly on “tradition” (a process of handing on faithfully a body of truths from Jesus and the apostles). APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION”
Or is it based on “continual revelation” received by the community and its members through history (the best biblical support for this is Paul)?
Isn’t there a body of “secret truths” that the risen Jesus revealed to a secret few? There were gnostic sects who claimed these secret teachings, and to have special knowledge (e.g. that Mary Magdalene was a special recipient)
Apostolic Succession
the notion by which our bishops are supposed to be in a direct line of succession which can trace their lineage up to Jesus Christ himself (Bishops are successors of important figures (e.g. Matthew, one of the 12))
Consensus / Contention
ETHICS
Consensus:
The persons saved by God through Christ are expected to live in a righteous way, to care about, indeed love others and be worthy of their trust.
Contention:
No Major Contention
