Still enjoying The Christian Tradition. I am learning a lot; I am un-learning a lot more. The gentleman who recommended the series to me (a philosophy professor in Dallas) described the 5 volumes as the substance. I think he meant that this gets me to the “nitty-gritty” as one might say. I hope so.
Chapter 2: Outside the Mainstream
This chapter has been the most boring thus far. More or less, Pelikan outlines the differences between heresy and schism. He also begins to identify the nuances of some of the first heresies that plagued the church and the reasons certain doctrines were established to combat those heresies.
I liked the section on heresy versus schism. Here are a few quotes:
Irenaeus: heresy is a deviation from the standard of sound doctrine
Augustine: heretics – in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; as opposed to schismatics – who in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity although they may believe just what we believe
Basil: heretics – men who were altogether broken off and alienated in matters relating to the actual faith; schismatics – men who had separated for some ecclesiastical reasons and questions capable of mutual solution
Another interesting paragraph or two was the idea of the “newness” of the gospel.
“The keynote of the teaching of Christ had been its newness. Luke 5:37 meant that the content and the form of that teaching had been different from the law of Moses. But if it was valid to use the Old Testament as a Christian book and to find the details of the life and teaching of Jesus prophesied there, one had to ask: “Then what was there new about what the Lord brought to us when he came?” This is why one could not express anything at all about the gospel, or even think about it, or compare it with anything else at all. The ineffable newness of the gospel would be fundamentally compromised if it were represented as having already been present in the Jewish Scriptures.” (italics mine)
Many of the prominent theologians of the day did not know what to do with the Old Testament. It was clearly Jewish, but could it be understood as Christian, as well? Did the OT testify of Christ? Yes. Did the OT communicate the gospel, or was it new with the coming of the Son? A very interesting question it is.
I personally want to say, “Yes, the gospel was communicated in the OT,” but I do believe it was misunderstood.
After that section, Pelikan introduces two of the most important heresies of the early church: Gnosticism and Montanism. Gnosticism is a huge mess and depending on what era of the church you survey, you will find a different manifestation of it. Therefore, I don’t really care to summarize it here (I don’t have the time).
Montanism was very interesting. It looked very similar to Christianity in all of its doctrine accept one – the Paraclete. Montanus more or less claimed that the coming of the Paraclete that Christ had promised had been fulfilled in himself. Another unique identifier of Montanism was the ecstatic and prophetic gifts of the “Paraclete” bestowed upon the montanists. Many members of the church were lead astray by these charismatic manifestations in the montanists; however, Pelikan mentions that “[m]ontanism was obsolete because the church had begun to find its most trustworthy guarantees of the presence and functioning of the Holy Spirit in the threefold apostolic authority taught by Irenaeus rather than in the ecstasy and prophecy that the Paraclete granted to the adherents of Montanism.” The threefold apostolic authority: the apostolic canon, the creation of the apostolic creed, and the establishment of the apostolic episcopate. The church validated its existence by this standard.
The rest of the chapter was basically about what apostolic continuity was. This chapter was very wordy, hence the reason it was pretty boring.
Chapters 3 and 4 to follow.
