The Foundation of Orthodoxy and the Canon

A bit of Church History

For more than a millennium the Church has be united by the central person of Jesus Christ, yet even in it’s earliest years the Christian community has dealt with divisions caused by divergent beliefs. At the onset of the Christian movement, aside from the Old Testament scripture, there was no established Christian canon. Many gospels and epistles were in circulation, but the lack of canonization left the door wide open for numerous teachings that would later be declared heresy. Central to much of the heresies in the early Church was the deity of Christ. In light of all the confusion, the need for established doctrine was necessary. The road to Christian orthodoxy was lengthy and even after many debates among scholars, presbyters, and bishops and official councils, despite all efforts of unification, the Church today is still divided on various issues. While the deity of Christ is a firm cornerstone of Christianity, members of the community differ in peripheral matters and some not so peripheral, such as soteriology. The purpose of this paper is to briefly highlight key events and movements that helped form Christian orthodoxy.

Even within scripture itself we find issues of division among the early Church. In his epistle to the church of Corinth Paul writes, “I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. (1 Corinthians 1:10)” Much of this division was a result of sects being establish around various church leaders. Paul’s appeal is that the church be built upon only one person, Jesus Christ. Saint Paul would also write to the Galatians to challenge the teachings and traditions of Judaizers among their community. It should be noted that most of the division that has occurred throughout Church history has been the result of individuals honestly seeking Truth. With that in mind, the divisions that happened after the events of the New Testament should be understood as a journey of seeking truth.

Much like the divisions in Corinth the divergence in Christian teachings revolved around key individuals, such that the movements bear their names. Yet, one of the first challenges to the Christian faith was a pseudo-Christian movement known as Gnosticism. “Gnosticism was a serious threat to Christianity throughout the second century,” González continues, “The main leaders of the church tenaciously opposed it, for they saw in it a denial of several crucial Christian doctrines, such as creation, incarnation, the death of Jesus through crucifixion, and resurrection” (González, 2010, pg.72). The Gnostics were part of a “fragmented and disunited” (Tiessen, 2007, pg.33) movement that “considered themselves members of the larger Christian community” (Tiessen, 2007, pg.34). The main tenants of Gnosticism were at odds with the Judeo-Christian understanding of Yahweh and the relationship between spiritual and material realities. One of the main apologist that took on the Gnostic heresies was Irenaeus of Lyons. According to Tiessen, “in the first two books of Against the Heresies Irenaeus made extensive use of the technique of demonstrating the opponent’s self-contradictions, contending that the gnostic system harmonizes neither with what exists, nor with right reason, neither with human experience, nor with common sense (Tiessen, 2007, pg.36)” Among other methods of refuting the teachings of the Gnostics was Irenaeus’ “exposition of the truth which had faithfully been held by the church, and taught by the Scriptures, the Lord, the apostles, and those who had remained true to the tradition handed down by the apostles. (Tiessen, 2007, pg.39)” While the best source for Christian apologetics is the Bible, “appeals to Scripture were difficult [for Irenaeus] because of the lack of an established canon and standards for interpretation” (Tiessen, pg. 37). This lack of canonization opened the door for the movement lead by Marcion.

Similar to gnostic belief, Marcion believed that “the God and Father of Jesus is not the same as Yahweh, (González, 2010, pg.73)” possessing a “[dualistic] disjunction between the Old and New Testament the god revealed in the Old Testament was an inferior creator demiurge and not the true and wholly good God, who was completely unknown until he was uniquely revealed by Jesus Christ” (Carter, pg. 552). This understanding of history “led Marcion to set the Hebrew scriptures aside.” (González, pg. 73) believing that, “the New Testament had been contaminated by the teachings by the followers of the creator god, and he set himself the task of purging the text from their accretions” (Carter, 2010, pg.552). Marcion driven by his convictions, “compiled a list of books that he considered true Christian scriptures” (González, 2010, pg.73) Tiessen states that, Ireneaus, the great apologist against the Gnostics “came to the realization that Marcion was right at least in one thing, the necessity of a canon of authoritative New Testament writings” (Tiessen, 2007, pg.40).

It is a misunderstanding of Church history to assume that the The New Testament canon was established “in a formal manner, through a council or special meeting” (González, 2010, pg.74). González states that, “what actually happened was that a consensus developed gradually. While very soon there was general agreement as to the basic books to be included in the canon of the New Testament, it took a long time to come to an absolute consensus on every minor detail” (González, 2010, pg.74). Another consideration for canonization of New Testament books was “partly on the grounds that they reflected the apostolic tradition” (Gavrilyuk, 2013, pg.29) Apostolic tradition was vital to refuting Marcion’s biblical canon since the rejection “could not be based solely on scriptural considerations, for Marcion would have denied the validity of such a premise” (Gavrilyuk, 2013, pg.29). After Marcionism circa 144AD, another movement would arise that would move the Church to establish an official teaching on the deity of Christ, this movement would be known as Arianism.

By this time state sponsored persecution had ceased due to the conversion of Constantine. With Christianity now supported by the Roman Empire, theological debates became in some sense a matter of the state. “As a result,” according to Gonzalez, “many of those involved in controversy, rather than seeking to convince their opponents or the rest of the church, sought to convince the emperors. Eventually, theological debate was eclipsed by political intrigue” (González, 2010, pg.181) The most well-known of these debates was between Arius, a Christian presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt and Alexander bishop of Alexandria in regard to the deity of Jesus. Gonzalez explains the core of the controversy:

“Alexander held that the Word existed eternally with the Father; Arius argued that the Word was not coeternal with the Father. Although this may seem a very fine point, what was ultimately at stake was the divinity of the Word. Arius claimed that, strictly speaking, the Word was not God, but the first of all creatures. It is important to understand at this point that Arius did not deny that the Word existed before the incarnation. On the preexistence of the Word, all were in agreement” (González, 2010, pg. 183).

Gonzalez affirms, “The roots of the Arian controversy are to be found in theological developments that took place long before the time of Constantine” (González, 2010, pg.181). Due to the work of early church fathers as Justin, Clement of Alexandria and Origen the Arian understanding of the nature of God was rooted in a mix of Christian thought and pagan philosophical understanding. The controversy caught the attention of the state. After a failed attempt by the Bishop Hosius of Cordoba to mediate a resolution between the feuding parties, “Constantine decided […] he would call a great assembly or council of Christian bishops from all parts of the empire. Besides dealing with a number of issues that required the establishment of standard policies, this great council — to meet in Nicea, […] would resolve the controversy that had broken out in Alexandria” (González, 2010, pg.185). The Council of Nicea took place in 325AD and another such council would be called for in 381AD in Constantinople. Robbins asserts that “A major result of the discussions and debates about ‘orthodox’ beliefs in the context of the Church Councils at Nicaea (325 C.E.) and Constantinople (381 C.E.) was the formulation of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed” (Robbins, 2011, pg.335). Since Arius was not allowed to sit in the council because he was not a bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia was the Arian spokesperson. At the onset of the council most present were not concerned with the controversy, however after the speech by Eusebius of Nicomedia made in defense of Arianism, the bishops saw clearly the issue at hand and vigorously rejected the claims of Arius and his disciples. Other key figures that arose out this controversy were Ambrose the Bishop of Milan and Athanasius. Athanasius stood on the side of Alexander for him, “the Arian controversy was not a matter of theological subtleties with little or no relevance. In it, the very core of the Christian message was at stake” (González,2010, pg.200). Gavrilyuk further elucidates Athanasius’ convictions, “Athanasius saw with extraordinary clarity and argued tirelessly that the Son, although he was generated, belonged to the sphere of the uncreated Godhead” (Gavrilyuk, 2013, pg.32). Ambrose too sided with Alexander’s position as Cornell notes, “One of Ambrose’s main contentions with the Arian theology is that it too closely related the humanity and divinity of Christ and effectively denied the divinity of Christ.” (Connell, 1998, pg.128).

While the orthodoxy had been established at the Council of Nicaea and was supported by the state, “the theological achievement […] was contested for the next fifty years. […] some of the arguments against the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son were made on the grounds that the term “consubstantial” was nowhere mentioned in the Bible,” Gavriyuk explains that, “Athanasius and his supporters argued that the term, while not biblical, nevertheless expressed the equality of the Father and the Son, which expressed the overall purpose of biblical revelation” (Gavriyuk, 2013, pg.32). The doctrine established at Nicaea “was eventually ratified at the Second Ecumenical Council, gathered in Constantinople in 381ce” (González, 2010, pg.206). At Constantinople the divinity of Jesus Christ was reaffirmed as was the Holy Spirit, “thus, it was this council that definitively proclaimed the doctrine of the Trinity” (González, 2010, pg.216).

As seen through out the history of the Church the Christian journey for a better understanding of the nature of God, our relation to Him and interpretation of his revealed word, the Bible, is not without it’s controversies. As mentioned earlier, though Christianity now benefits from the outcome of those early frictions within the Church we to this day have our own issues to work through. Whatever the outcome we can rest assured that God’s will be done and revealed.

Essay originally submitted for coursework on April 23, 2018 for History of the Christian Church

REFERENCES

González, Justo L. 2010. “The Story Of Christianity, Volume I: The Early Church To The Reformation.” HarperCollins Publishers. New York, NY. (accessed April 22, 2018).

Tiessen, Terrance L. 2007. “Gnosticism as heresy: the response of Irenaeus.” Didaskalia (Otterburne, Man.) 18, no. 1: 31–48. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed April 22, 2018).

Carter, T L. (Timothy Leonard). 2010.”Marcion’s Christology and its possible influence on Codex Bezae.” The Journal Of Theological Studies 61, no. 2 (October 2010): 550–582. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed April 23, 2018).

Gavrilyuk, Paul. 2013. “Creation in early Christian polemical literature: Irenaeus against the Gnostics and Athanasius against the Arians.” Modern Theology 29, no. 2: 22–32. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed April 23, 2018).

Robbins, Vernon K. (Vernon Kay). 2011. “Precreation discourse and the Nicene Creed: Christianity finds its voice in the Roman Empire.” Religion & Theology 18, no. 3–4: 334–350. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed April 23, 2018).

Connell, Martin F. 1998. “Heresy and Heortology in the Early Church: Arianism and the Emergence of the Triduum.” Worship 72, no. 2: 117–140. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed April 23, 2018).

All Biblical References are citing from the English Standard Version.