Church History Case Study

[Bookmeister]

For my church history I (apostolic era to pre-reformation) I have to do a case study. For example Augustine vs. Pelagius. I am looking for some ideas and resources of some lesser known issues, something not so much ink has been spilt over. Any ideas?

 

[Wayne]

If Jacques Lefebvre d'Estaples [sp?] qualifies as pre-ref, he would certainly be interesting, esp. his views on worship, which prefigured Calvin's development of the regulative principle.

Does it have to be a comparison of two individuals?

 

[Christusregnat]

For my church history I (apostolic era to pre-reformation) I have to do a case study. For example Augustine vs. Pelagius. I am looking for some ideas and resources of some lesser known issues, something not so much ink has been spilt over. Any ideas?

Alan,

Bernard of Clairvaux vs. Peter Abelard
Origen vs. Celsus
Irenaeus vs. Doceti
Justin Martyr vs. All Comers
Gregory's papal doctrine vs. his successors
Constantine vs. Maximian

Just a few thoughts.

Cheers,

 

[A.J.]

For my church history I (apostolic era to pre-reformation) I have to do a case study. For example Augustine vs. Pelagius. I am looking for some ideas and resources of some lesser known issues, something not so much ink has been spilt over. Any ideas?

How about the schism between Rome and Constantinople? I've read somewhere that though the split officially occured in 1054, it took some time for the members of the two groups to actually realize that the two groups had already split. I don't remember the book though.

 

[JTB]

There is a lesser known text by Augustine called "De Magistro" or "On the Teacher," which is important in Augustine's arguments against skepticism, his theory of knowledge, of language, and of signs and symbols. Ronald Nash deals with this dialogue of Augustine in his book on Augustine's epistemology entitled, "The Light of the Mind."

 

[DTK]

Cyprian vs. Pope Stephen would be a good one, especially the way in which the two of them use and interpret Matthew 16 with respect to Peter. This controversy provides us with the very first instance wherein a bishop of Rome invokes Matthew 16 in the context of attempting to claim that scriptural pericope to support universal primacy of jurisdiction.

DTK

 

[sastark]

I'm doing a paper on Dabney on evolution, so in that vein, you could do a paper on Dabney vs. Woodrow and we could compare notes afterwards!

 

[py3ak]

The adoptionist controversy involving Bishop Felix of Urgel is probably one of the lesser-referenced Christological controversies.

 

[timmopussycat]

For my church history I (apostolic era to pre-reformation) I have to do a case study. For example Augustine vs. Pelagius. I am looking for some ideas and resources of some lesser known issues, something not so much ink has been spilt over. Any ideas?

Did Nestorius actually teach Nestorianism? a controversy that has relevance to the history of the OPC - i.e. the dispute over the orthodoxy of Gordon Clark.

 

[Bookmeister]

I'm doing a paper on Dabney on evolution, so in that vein, you could do a paper on Dabney vs. Woodrow and we could compare notes afterwards!

My paper must be pre-reformation so Dabney is not an option.

Thanks everyone, and keep em coming, I will probably take a couple more weeks in making up my mind.

 

[johnbugay]

I would second the comments about Nestorius. Very little has been written. But current scholarship has determined that Nestorius did not believe the things for which he was anathematized at the council of Ephesus in 431. His recently discovered "Book of Heraclides" cites Cyril (who led the council and whose theology won the day) as having enlisted the help of armed gangs of thugs to basically force his point of view across on the council. (And, his charges against Nestorius were false; nevertheless, they were ratified by the council).

Moffett, writing in "A History of Christianity in Asia" cites theologians who say that Nestorius's Christology was "weak" but in no way heretical.

The outworkings of this council caused the most egregious schisms in Christian history, and yet they are little understood. And as it turns out, the Rome/Constantinople church complex was hugely in the wrong during this whole ordeal.

 

[Irish Presbyterian]

It would be a fascinating study to look at Thomas Bradwardine (Archbishop of Canterbury (1290-1349).

His great theological work, to modern eyes, is a treatise against the Pelagians, entitled De causa Dei contra Pelagium et de virtute causarum.

 

[py3ak]

I would second the comments about Nestorius. Very little has been written. But current scholarship has determined that Nestorius did not believe the things for which he was anathematized at the council of Ephesus in 431. His recently discovered "Book of Heraclides" cites Cyril (who led the council and whose theology won the day) as having enlisted the help of armed gangs of thugs to basically force his point of view across on the council. (And, his charges against Nestorius were false; nevertheless, they were ratified by the council).

Moffett, writing in "A History of Christianity in Asia" cites theologians who say that Nestorius's Christology was "weak" but in no way heretical.

The outworkings of this council caused the most egregious schisms in Christian history, and yet they are little understood. And as it turns out, the Rome/Constantinople church complex was hugely in the wrong during this whole ordeal.

John, I don't want to take this thread off track, but a few points bear mentioning.

"Recently discovered" is not quite accurate by today's standard of recent. A Syriac version of the Book of Heraclides was published in 1910, so it has been accessible for almost 100 years. In that time, more than a little ink has been spilt.

Second, accusations of wrongdoing are very widespread, and are not all to be taken at face value: in addition, theological violence does seem to have been more widespread in earlier times. Augustine writes of narrowly avoiding some armed Donatists, Athanasius was accused of murder, and "decently and in order" is not the first thing that leaps to mind when reading about what happened at councils.

Third, scholars can be found to say almost anything about almost anybody. If a contention is not demonstrated by a contextual and sympathetic reading of the primary sources, the fact that a scholar says it is almost evidence against it.

Perhaps we should take this up on another thread, but I am wondering what you mean by "wrong". Wrong in substance? Wrong in manner?

Theodoret provides some interesting light, as a friend of Nestorius. He was understandably reluctant to pronounce an anathema, and did not think that Nestorius was guilty as charged. He did at last, however, pronounce a conditional condemnation, along the lines of, "If he believes that, then he is wrong." Which exemplifies that though the question of whether Nestorius was a Nestorian may be a little vague, the fact that Nestorian Christology is wrong is pretty clear.

 

[cih1355]

There were different models of the Trinity. Maybe you could compare and contrast what two Christian thinkers believed about the different models of the Trinity.