The Orthodox Councils

When people ask why we "High Church" Presbyterians, (like Anglicans and Lutherans) agree with the "old" churches on the seven ecumenical councils, I would first and foremost say that because they are orthodox. Not in the sense of being eastern orthodox, but truly orthodox. To be truly orthodox and catholic is to hold something that all Christians everywhere and always have believed and which we must believe out of the good and necessary consequence of our scriptural profession regarding God, Christ, Sin, Salvation, the Church, and the Law.

This section here presents a list of the councils we formally affirm as binding but will then go on to give an introductory explanation and defense followed by a brief summary of the councils’ teachings.

I. The Councils We Publicly Affirm.

The Inspired Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15); AD 48?

The Seven Universal (Ecumenical) Councils.

1. The Universal Council of Nicaea, AD 325

2. The Universal Council of Constantinople, AD 381

3. The Universal Council of Ephesus, AD 431.

4. The Universal Council of Chalcedon, AD 451.

5. The Universal Council of Constantinople II, AD 553.

6. The Universal Council of Constantinople III, AD 680-681.

7 The Universal Council of Nicaea II, AD 787.

The Council of Orange (Which Defines Western Theology), AD 529.

II. An Introduction, Defense, and Explanation of Our Conciliarism in Brief.

1. We elevate here only one council as utterly inspired, true Word of God, the council of Jerusalem. This council was held in the first century by the Apostles and Elders of the churches as recorded in the Book of Acts, penned by St. Luke himself, the Fifteenth Chapter.

2. We also uphold the chief canons of the seven councils called ecumenical (universal) which pertain to those points of true doctrine in terms of the Trinity, the Person of Christ, the way of salvation as it relates to the Gospel and of Christian ethics in terms of the Law of God. We recognize these councils as appropriately universal or ecumenical because these chief doctrines have historically been regarded universally by all Christians and are thus truly universal or Catholic in that they are to represent what ALL Christians (of our western Christian tradition) have believed everywhere and always.

3. [Important Qualifier]: Every decision or canon at every council should by no means be regarded as equally binding as those primary canons which they espoused in the cause of their assembling. Indeed, many such secondary canons, having to do with local matters of church governance, good order, procedure, and even of political or historical disputes of a highly contextual nature, are not binding or catholic inasmuch as they lack a real universal nature, but only a temporal and local nature specific to their own time and place. Indeed, many of these secondary matters have often fallen into universal disuse or have come to be ignored by even their most avid of supporters (of which examples could be given).

4. [Important Explanation]: Unlike the council of Jerusalem, these councils are not recorded in Holy Scripture and as in all matters their secondary canons and doctrines should only be regarded as binding, as if inspired themselves, inasmuch as they (quantenus) represent the Word of God. For instance, differences may exist on the subject of the perpetual virginity of Mary affirmed in a secondary canon at Constantinople II or on the ordination of Eunuchs condemned at Nicaea, or whether the Creed of 381 can be modified as prohibited at Ephesus, et al because these issues can be hotly contended from the text of Scripture itself and several of them seem to be entirely untenable exegetically; HOWEVER, we affirm that the primary canons of these seven universal councils are as authoritative and inspired AS (Quia) an accurate representation of Holy Scripture (such as with the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union etc).

5. Thus, regarding the chief canons and anathemas of the seven universal councils, we say that they are authoritative as if Scripture itself were speaking, hence a denial of the Trinity as outlined in the Nicene creed would be regarded by us as a heresy and excommunicable because of it being tantamount to a plain denial of Holy Scripture itself. Hence, these councils authoritative defined certain definite heresies and so too we condemn them also in maintaining the true orthodox and catholic faith. (These condemnations shall be summarized below with the dates of each council listed).

6. The last council we mention is that the Council or Synod of Orange (with which we give an honorary mention of the Third Council of Toledo). Here is defended the Latin tradition specifically against what we must regard, even as it pains us, the real errors of the Eastern church as it regards the issues of semi-pelagianism (synergism) and their denial of the Filioque clause in the Nicene Creed.

III. The Inspired and Inerrant Council of Jerusalem (AD 48?).

Errors Condemned: Judaism and The Heresy of the Judaizers.

This council was held in Jerusalem in the first century and was attended by the Apostles and the Elders of the church. Here we can see that the Church system operated sufficiently without a system of Bishops and that the elders and the apostles were united together as having common rank. Indeed, the apostles Sts. Peter and Paul spoke in their turn, but it was the approval of St. James, who was not an apostle at all, but an elder, whose words determined the final outcome as the clear moderator and facilitator of the Council itself and has the “unspoken” head of the Jerusalem church.

At this council we have a series of firm declarations regarding the role of Law and Gospel:

(1) Christians are not obligated to be circumcised in order to be saved, nor as an ethical requirement.

(2) Christians are not obligated to keep the ceremonial and dietary laws in order to be saved, nor as an ethical requirement.

(3) Christians are obligated to the Moral Law, and as regards the controversies of the early church, are to be especially careful to avoid both idolatry and sexual immorality as these are prominent among pagans.

(4) Christians are not to eat meat strangled in blood, which unlike other ceremonial laws, was specifically commanded prior to the days of Moses.

(5) Those that teach otherwise are anathema. That is, both those that teach ascetic regulations in accord with second temple Judaism and those that teach idolatry (syncretism) and sexual immorality are in practice of excommunicable offenses.

Unlike the other councils which are extra-biblical, all canons and points made by this council are equally authoritative and binding for they are Scripture, they are the Word of God. Thus, such as been providentially preserved by the Father, is the very Word (The Son), and is confirmed by the Holy Spirit. No other council has this level of authority. It is the crown of all councils. Regarding meat strangled in blood, this requirement has not been followed by Christians except those of the Ethiopian and Coptic churches (the Miaphysites). They follow strictly this requirement in accord with the council (even though they practice circumcision along with infant baptism, kosher for large parts of the year, and equally honor the Seventh and First Day as Sabbaths, as well as the interesting (and most pious) practice of not wearing shoes when approaching the altar to receive communion based on Moses interaction with the burning bush).

We believe that the church has erred in this regard and that Christians must honor this council and not eat blood or meat strangled in blood. No blood sausage, no blood pudding, no blood soup or other such dishes. Animals should not be eaten that are strangled to death, and all animals should be slaughtered humanely, quickly, and as painlessly as possible, with the blood drained out prior to butchering.

This council also demonstrates that Apostolic succession first continued in the presbyters (elders) and required no bishops and that bishops have their apostolic succession derived from their being presbyters and that in no way does the authority of presbyters (elders/pastors/priests) originate in the bishops ( a point which shall be defended more below).

VI. The Seven Universal Councils of Christendom.

1. The First Council of Nicaea AD 325

&

2. The First Council of Constantinople AD 381

Errors Condemned: Arianism, Novatianism (Donatism), Appolinarianism (Modalism), Sabellianism.

The Nicene Creed mentioned earlier was the 381’s council’s final revision from 325 and here condemns all of the Trinitarian and Christological errors here listed such as Arianism, Appolinarianism, Sabellianism, etc. This creed states the true Christian position against that of these early heresies and is the bedrock of basics of Trinitarian theology. It requires no more expounding than this and so I will not fill in what this creed, in conjunction with the Athanasian Creed, state so perfectly. However, Novatianism (proto-donatism) was also condemned. Since this is not covered by the Creed other than the phrase (“…I believe in one baptism for remission of sins..”), I will make clear the implications of this important point.

The Novatians, like the Donatists later-on, argued that those who denied Christ under persecution could not be forgiven without reconversion and rebaptism and that both bishops and presbyters who had denied Christ had no valid sacraments if administered after their restoration to office. The canons of this council which cover this, in conjunction with works, such as St. Augustine’s letters against the Donatists, all make plain that the true catholic doctrine is this:

“That the efficacy and validity of baptism is not dependent on either the one administering or receiving the sacrament, but on God and His Word.”

Thus, it is immaterial whether a minister is secretly an atheist or is actively in sin when he baptizes, preaches a sermon, or serves communion, for what makes those things holy and grace-conferring is the work of God through the sanctifying nature of the Word of God, and not the human agent. Thus, a baptism does not become non-baptism based on the minister’s apostasy nor does a person need to be re-baptized every time they sin, even if that sin is egregious. God’s Word is irrevocable and will not go back to Him void and therefore that Word will either be to one’s benefit or curse, but it is not to be redone because it cannot ever be undone. There may be a path of repentance or penance for a Christian, who has egregiously sinned, but there is no necessity for rebaptism, in fact such is a sacrilege against the plain teaching of Scripture and also the Creed.

3. The Council of Ephesus AD 425

Errors Condemned: Nestorianism and Pelagianism.

Nestorius denied the description of Mary as Mother of God (theotokos) because he believed that the human and divine natures of Christ were separate from each other in such a way that Mary could only be the mother of the humanity of Jesus and not His divinity.

The question naturally emerged then why this necessitated the Virgin birth at all, for Mary and Joseph could have had an ordinarily conceived child that then became “inhabited” by God (the heresy of adoptionism).

These implications and the issues that arise in attempting to discern which Jesus is speaking and acting throughout the Gospels (is He is acting in His human nature or his divine in this verse? Etc etc?) were rightly seen as unacceptable (and as the Reformation would find out, also had implications for the right view of the Supper in terms of the debate between Luther and Zwingli at the Colloquay of Marburg)

Thus, this council condemned Nestorius and instead argued for the unified nature of Christ as God and Man fully so that wherein Christ was present in His humanity, He was also present in His divinity.

At this time, it was sufficient to simply leave “theotokos” as a litmus test for orthodoxy and condemn Nestorius, but this was not specific enough and would necessitate further councils culminating in the Definition of Chalcedon.

The other error condemned at this council that does not get as much attention as it should, was the error of Pelagius. Pelagianism taught that man was born in a neutral state similar to that of Adam and Eve before the Fall and that man had to choose between good and evil all of his life and would only be saved based on his faith and good works being judged in the end.

The smaller local council of Carthage condemned this heresy and that council’s decision was ratified at this universal council of Ephesus. The best refutations of this heresy were made by St. Augustine who demonstrated that man was in fact not born neutral but was conceived in sin and was in need of God’s grace in order to be saved, having faith, and producing good works.

Some ambiguity was left in this so that a new error (semi-pelagianism) would emerge and necessitate another council (Orange) which would then confirm the strong Augustinian position forever in the Latin west.

4. The Council of Chalcedon AD 451

Errors Condemned: Eutychianism.

Eutyches was the mirror extreme of Nestorius arguing that the humanity of Jesus was but a drop in the ocean compared to His divinity so that he was hardly human at all.

Thus, this council sought to condemn Eutyches and further condemn any leftover Nestorian sentiment in one stroke.

However, political issues pertaining to the authority of the see of Alexandria corrupted much of this council and the Oriental Orthodox churches would splinter and be falsely called monophysites and associated with Eutyches (which is a terrible and false slander). Indeed, the Miaphysite position is very close to the Chalcedonian position and both sides used St. Cyril in defense of their causes. That debate however is outside the scope of this discussion and for now it is important to note that the definition of Chalcedon sufficiently condemns all Christological errors.

5. The Second Council of Constantinople AD 553

&

6. The Third Council of Constantinople AD 680-681

Errors Condemned: Monophysitism, Origenism, Monotheletism, Monoenergism, as well as Papal Infallibility and Ultra-Montanism (By way of Implication).

These councils more or less reiterated the Chalcedonian position and condemned Origenism. Origenism can basically be summed up as the reemergent popularity of the weird and wacky theology of the early church father, Origen, who held strange views on a myriad of subjects, but especially the idea of an eternal restoration of the damned, demons, and Satan, as well the idea of reincarnation, an eternal creation, and subordinationism (radical monarchism) regarding the Trinity. His views would come to be considered the root cause of behind many of the Christological heresies of the day, though association with his ideas became an obvious political pretense to persecute rivals in the most corrupt and shameless ways that even led to the death of the great St. John Chrysostom among others .Indeed, this was one the most politically charged and corrupt of the councils, and even though it stated actual truth in its chief canons, it is stained by the conduct of its members and its anathema against those who would critique the perpetual virginity of Mary is excessive and ridiculous. Likewise, we deny this council anathematized Origen, but rather it condemned his errors as propagated at the time of the council. Monotheletism was also condemned at this council (the sixth), which is the belief that there was but only one will and energy (monoenergism) in Christ (arguing for only the existence of the Divine aspect) instead of a divine and human will.

This view seems obtuse to some, but we must not forget the essential adage of Christological orthodoxy; “that whatever is not assumed by Christ, is not redeemed.”

This is why this stuff is so important, if you say that God did not assume a real human will in the incarnation, then you must necessarily deny that God redeemed the human will. This is why this is a heresy and why, like all Christological heresies, it is important. The Holy Spirit intended for this error to be defined and condemned and we accept it as such. Important to also recognize was that this council, even though recognizing the bishop of Rome as uniquely special as a non-coercive spiritual authority, nonetheless anathematized Pope Honorius I as well as several previous patriarchs of Constantinople. Thus we have a demonstration here that although the Bishop of Rome was “first among equals” (a quote from eastern patriarchs), his office is nonetheless inferior to both the truth of God’s Word and the will of the broader church (over-and-against any claims made by ultra-montanists and proponents of papal infallibility).

7. The Second Council of Nicaea AD 787.

Errors Condemned: Iconoclasm

The subject of icons, even the word itself, unnecessarily poisons the well in this discussion and causes us to miss the real teaching which the vast majority of Christians, even of those that would consider themselves opposed to icons, would admit.

Namely, that it does not make one a heretic or an idolater and sinner to have a picture of Jesus, watch a movie about Jesus, have a bible coloring book, pictures of the apostles, church plays, nativity sets, pics of church fathers, or reformers such as Luther or Calvin, or of angels, crosses, crucifixes. These are not idols and the vast majority of Christians recognize this.

This council condemns those that would destroy such, ban them by act of government law, and punish Christians who used them in their homes and churches.

St. John of Damascus made suitable biblical arguments for this, namely that in the same book where God commanded that no graven image be made, also commanded that Cherubim (angels) be constructed on the Ark. Regarding Christ, that He is called the image of God and that anyone who saw Him saw the Father seems likewise to give ample justification to the idea that He was meant to be seen and that a picture of Jesus therefore cannot be said to be some idolatrous representation of the invisible God on par with the golden calf.

Obviously, icons can be abused to the point of idolatry, but that should go without saying, we should not pray to them or worship them, and in our practice, we do not place them at or above the altar. Rather, like nearly all Christians recognize (whether they be Baptists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, etc) we should view the images of Mary, the saints and angels and Christ himself as reminders to us and as calls to holy living by holy example as real heroes to us.

If a weaker brother feels that the presence of such tempts him to sin in actual idolatry, his abstaining from their use is not a sin, but indeed in such a case the opposite would be a sin.

Hence, the forcible requirement that they be used, or must be used, universally and in every Christian home is both excessive and speaks to someone who may in fact already be viewing such images with an actually idolatrous spirit.

V. The Council of Orange AD 529.

Errors Condemned: Semi-Pelagianism (Arminianism by implication), Hyper-Calvinism

The council of Orange met together to rule a final verdict on the doctrines and teachings of St. Augustine. During this time, controversy arose, even after Pelagianism itself was condemned, over the nature of predestination, baptismal grace, reprobation, etc.

The view of semi-pelagianism condemned here is very similar to more modern doctrinal beliefs such as Arminianism. What was clarified was quite clear, that God predestines unto salvation, that baptism communicates real grace, regeneration is monergistic, and apostasy is a real thing.

What is condemned in the semi-pelagian view that there is anything good in us or that we can do for salvation that is not first unaided by grace. In particular, the idea that we can choose God of our own free will is condemned, for the Council argues, using Scripture, that even saving faith itself is a gift of God’s grace. Interestingly, the council also condemned the opposite extreme position, the view that God is the author of sin or evil. What is less clear is whether double-predestination is entirely condemned or only a hard-supralapsarian equal ultimacy position which is more common among the hyper Calvinists which the Reformed would gladly reject as heretics. We tend to be of the view that double-predestination is not condemned in general, inasmuch as the omnipotence of God could be questioned, but only those forms of double-predestination that required God to be author and originator of sin.

Another point that is less clear is whether the Wesleyan view in which saving faith is not perfectly free but caused by a universal prevenient grace acting on all human beings enabling their wills to choose God, is compatible with this council. Though the Wesleyan view could likely be shown, quite easily, to be a dangerous innovation (non-historic) and eisegetical (unbiblical), this council does not condemn it as a heresy per se and thus this council CANNOT be used to argue that Wesleyans are heretics and therefore unsaved.

In conclusion, we should take time to consider that these orthodox councils represent the biblical faith as well as the historical faith. You should not too easily dismiss such councils because of their antiquity, but rather respect them for it as the long-standing heritage of Spirit-filled Christian belief and testimony.

-Joshua Johnson