Intellectual Honesty and the Early Church
There was a paper that I wrote almost 2 (maybe 3) years ago, and it was on the basis of “unbiased” academic research. I’ve always had my strong bias opinions; I’ve had my presuppositions as exists the habitual or inherent voice inside us all…but I have spent the majority of my life arguing my position to others to see what stands, what falls, and what comes out the other end.
If you want to BELIEVE something, shouldn’t you KNOW that your belief is true to some degree of confidence? shouldn’t you know where that belief originates? shouldn’t know you know why you believe it?
As a student at Moody, I was reading and writing on the Early Church quite frequently, but never a “whole text” but rather bits and pieces of these Early Church writings. The same goes for the Church History courses that I took, while we studied portions of the councils, we never read them in their entirety. This should immediately stand out as an obvious example of “poor practice” when it comes to education, yet this form of studying is everywhere.
You affirm the Trinity, but do you know why? or are you arrogant as I was and say, “well, it would have been obvious to me! it’s clear in Scripture” or is it clear in Scripture because you have the presupposition that it exists? If you had no concept of the trinity, would you know it existed in the Scriptures? Be honest.
If the Council of Nicaea never defended, articulated, and dogmatized this doctrine, would you believe it today? The entire reason this doctrine was vocalized and handed down was because it was defended by the bishops of their time against unorthodox ideas surrounding Jesus’ nature.
Councils like Nicaea (325 AD) and Chalcedon (451 AD) preserved the faith against heretical movements (e.g., Arianism, Nestorianism). Without these councils, core doctrines like the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ might not have survived. Now, on what basis were these things formed as heresy and in opposition - orthodoxy?
For something like the Trinity, that is not explicit in Scripture, did the early church rely on Scripture alone to articulate it and affirm it? Or did they rely on the authority of the bishops to rightly articulate the theology, draw it out of scripture, dogmatize and defend it?
The trinity not being explicit is important because it was not immediately apparent that the non-trinitarian view would be heresy, because it did not immediately or explicitly contradict Scripture. Therefore, the reliance upon the churches authority in the council is what made this belief set in stone and WHY you believe it today and WHY you believe anti-trinitarians are heretics.
Councils operated on the understanding that Scripture cannot be interpreted in isolation. They upheld the idea that the Church, as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15), was entrusted with interpreting Scripture rightly.
The Nicene Creed articulated that Christ is “of the same substance” (homoousios) with the Father, a term not explicitly found in Scripture. This decision was made by appealing to apostolic tradition and the Church’s authority, rather than Scripture alone.
Canon 6: “Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these; since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also.” (east/west)
This highlights the council’s understanding of hierarchical Church authority in governing doctrine and practice, reflecting the Church as a unified interpreter of Scripture.
Council of Constantinople (381 AD)
The council reaffirmed the Nicene Creed, expanding the Church’s understanding of the Holy Spirit’s divinity and personhood. The Creed declares the Spirit “proceeds from the Father,” interpreting John 15:26 and other passages not in isolation but within the context of Tradition and the Church’s authority.
Canon 1: The council declares adherence to “the faith of the 318 Fathers who met at Nicaea” and anathematizes heresies. This shows the role of councils in guarding the interpretation of Scripture and Tradition together.
Council of Carthage (397 AD)
Formalized the canon of Scripture: “Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in the Church under the name of divine Scriptures.”
The decision to define the canon reflects that Scripture could not exist as an authoritative text apart from the Church’s role in discerning its contents. This was not an individualistic endeavor but a communal act under the guidance of apostolic authority.
The decision at Carthage highlights a crucial truth: Scripture could not exist as an authoritative text apart from the Church’s role in discerning its contents. This was not a matter of each believer or community deciding for themselves what belonged in the Bible. Instead, it was a communal act rooted in:
Apostolic Tradition: The Church had preserved and handed down teachings from the apostles, including which writings were authoritative.
Guidance of the Holy Spirit: The bishops believed their work was under the divine guidance of the Spirit, fulfilling Christ’s promise that the Spirit would guide the Church into all truth (John 16:13).
Liturgical Use: The Church’s recognition of Scripture came in part from its regular use in the liturgy. For example, the Gospels and Pauline epistles were universally read and revered.
The canon was not “invented” at Carthage—it was recognized as part of a living tradition that the Church had stewarded since the time of the apostles.
Early Church Writers Affirm
In Against Heresies (Book 3, Chapter 4), Irenaeus affirms that Scripture is to be understood within the Church’s Tradition:
“For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and every kind of grace; but the Spirit is truth. Therefore, those who do not partake of this Spirit are neither nourished into life from the mother’s breasts nor do they enjoy the most limpid fountain that issues from the body of Christ.”
He argues that the Church, through the Spirit, is the context in which Scripture is rightly interpreted.
In On the Unity of the Church, Cyprian states:
“The Church is one… built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone. Whosoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress is separated from the promises of the Church. Nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ.”
Athanasius, in defending the Nicene Creed, writes (De Decretis, 4):
“But beyond these sayings [of Scripture], let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. Upon this the Church is founded, and he who falls away from it can neither be a Christian nor be saved.”
Now you might be wanting to ask: How do we know that they mean in the visible catholic church, not the believers church as taught today? (a question I literally asked) aside from the fact that Athanasius makes it clear…
To start, we can refer BACK to just mere years after Jesus with the Bishop of Antioch:
“Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8)
We see immediately an identifier of what “a church” is and it’s a bishop who has apostolic succession.
Irenaeus affirms,
“The tradition of the apostles, manifested throughout the world, can be clearly seen in every Church by those who wish to behold the truth, and we are able to enumerate those who were appointed bishops in the Churches by the apostles, and their successors.” (Against Heresies, 3.3.1)
Cyprian likens it to not being inside the Ark:
“He cannot have God for his Father who does not have the Church for his mother. If anyone could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church.” (Chapter 6)
Tertullian affirms the Antioch qualification of a church:
Tertullian (c. 200 AD):
“Let them [heretics] produce the origins of their churches; let them unroll the list of their bishops, through their succession coming down from the beginning in such a manner that their first bishop had for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men… For this is the manner in which the apostolic Churches transmit their registers.” (Prescription Against Heretics, 32)
and finally looping back to the council itself,
Council of Nicaea (325 AD):
The Nicene Creed describes the Church as “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.” This affirms the Church as a visible institution united in faith, holiness, universality, and apostolic governance.
Bishops at Nicaea operated as representatives of local, visible Churches, resolving issues like Arianism through a communal and authoritative process.
Let’s quickly recap so that we can be on the same page after a plethora of information was just bombarded upon us (my fault).
The Ecumenical Councils demonstrate that the defense of the faith has always been carried out by the collective authority of the Church, through its bishops, in unity with one another. These councils reveal a visible hierarchy, with key patriarchates like Rome and Alexandria playing leading roles in preserving orthodoxy. The councils affirm that a true Church is not a loose collection of believers but one that is governed by bishops with legitimate apostolic succession, ensuring continuity with the authority given by Christ to the apostles.
Moreover, the councils make it clear that Scripture alone is insufficient for the proper defense of doctrine, the articulation of dogma, or the protection of the Church against heresies. It is within the Church’s visible, apostolic structure—guided by the Holy Spirit—that doctrinal clarity is achieved. Councils such as Nicaea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon did not merely rely on isolated Scripture passages but drew on the collective wisdom of Tradition, apostolic teaching, and episcopal authority to resolve theological disputes and define the faith. Without this divinely instituted structure, the Church could not effectively safeguard the truth or maintain unity in the face of heretical challenges.
Thought-Provoking Questions for Protestants
1. On the Origin of Belief: If you affirm the Trinity or the divinity of Christ, do you know why? Is your belief rooted in your own interpretation of Scripture, or does it rely on the foundational work of the Early Church councils?
2. On the Role of Authority: How do you reconcile the fact that the canon of Scripture you trust was finalized by the Church councils you may deny? For example, why do you deny books affirmed by these councils, but affirm only books given to you by one man?
3. On Doctrinal Unity: Why did the Church need councils to settle disputes if Scripture alone was sufficient? What does the unity achieved by these councils say about the necessity of a visible, authoritative Church? Is doctrinal unity not commanded?
4. On Sola Scriptura: If Scripture alone were truly sufficient, why did so many early heresies persist until councils formally condemned them? Does this suggest that an interpretive authority outside of Scripture is necessary? Did isolated interpretation lead to these heresies?
5. On Denominational Fragmentation: If Protestantism’s foundation rests on personal interpretation of Scripture, how do you address the endless divisions and conflicting doctrines within Protestant denominations? Can this be reconciled with the unity Christ prayed for in John 17? and why is it okay to abandon such councils now and affirm Luther over such councils?