Foundation of Orthodoxy and Formation of the Canon

In fact, the presence and identification of errors within the texts of Scripture do not serve to weaken the doctrine of preservation; rather it serves to strengthen preservation by the recognition and elimination of textual error. DEVELOPING THE NEED FOR A CANON

The process by which Scripture has been preserved and compiled is one whose history is worth noting. The early church had many opportunities to share the Good News of Christ via word of mouth, but from the time of Christ’s resurrection until the mid-second century, there had not been a single culmination of writings considered to be essential for the purposes of

Bruce offers a solid explanation of the formation of the canon chronologically starting with the Hebrew scriptures (p. 21) until the 4th century where church councils started to present the first spoken finished canon (p. 97). Bruce shows the importance of the Old Testament scriptures, but writes most about the New Testament. He not only shows how the New Testament came to be a canon but offers a deep analysis of non-canonical scripture called the Apocrypha (pp. 48, 90-93).

Over the centuries, Christianity has organised its beliefs into a systematic theology that draws from its sacred writing and tradition. While the main beliefs of Christianity are shared by all Christian variants, there are degrees of different in the interpretation of these beliefs and how they are lived out in everyday life. This can be seen in the important of sacred text, principle belief of the concept of salvation in John 3:16, principle belief of divine and humanity in ‘John 1:14’, principle belief of resurrection in ‘Mark 16:1-8’, principle belief of revelation in ‘1 corinthians14:6’, and beliefs through the Trinity in ‘2 Corinthians 13:14’. This essay will explain the important of the sacred text and the principal beliefs of Christianity.

It only seemed natural for the Orthodox East and the Catholic West to have a series of elements differentiating them from each-other. However, it is actually surprising that most of these differences emerged as a result of cultural practices influencing each branch of Christianity. Individuals in the East developed innovative methods of putting across Christian thinking and managed to create a cult that largely differed from the one in the West. In spite of the fact that the Byzantine Empire shrank across time, it managed to induce intense feelings in communities neighboring it. Some of these influences can be

McGiffert, A. (1909). The Influence of Christianity upon the Roman Empire. The Harvard Theological Review, 2(1), 28-49. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1507353

When we look back at Christianity over the years, there are several people who are remembered for their impact on the religion. The first most important figure was Jesus Christ. However, if we travel forward a bit, into the 4th Century we come across Constantine. Historians agree that Constantine served as an important component in the spread of Christianity. Although he spread the religion in a massive way, others wonder if his methods were more harmful then anything. In this paper I will be discussing Constantine in his rise to power and his impact on Christianity. Constantine provided a mean for the word of God to be spread, which is a major benefit. However, He also used violence and hate as

Paul’s letter to the Romans is of his greatest theological works, passed down for thousands of years and still as relevant today as it was in Paul’s time. How exactly is it relevant the modern Christian may ask? What with its harsh language that includes statements such as “the wages of sin is death” (6:23) and “the wrath of God” (1:18), one may say that current times have changed. Some may say that the issues Paul addresses are acceptable in today’s society. What exactly is the Christian to think? The purpose of this short essay is to examine how the Book of Romans relates to the Christian in the twenty-first century and how it helps to shape his worldview.

The Patristic Era saw various controversies arising over the nature of Jesus Christ, which consequently lead to the establishment of the creed as an attempt to reject the heretical views held by proponents. An example of a heretical advocate is Arius, who suggested Christ was inferior to God, but still above other creatures (McGrath, 2001, p.358). However, early orthodox theologians disputed this idea due to the soteriological complications that accompanied it (Young, 2010, p.55). The central advocator of this dispute was Athanasius, who questioned how Arius’ belief allowed for salvation through Jesus Christ, which is a key orthodox belief identified within the Bible. Accordingly, this essay will critically evaluate the heretical opinion of Arius and determine how this Arian understanding was discarded by Athanasius and the Nicene Creed. It is important to note that the Arian thought that will be assessed is primarily presented to us by Athanasius, which will emphasise the conflicting orthodoxy/heretical opinion that was held. In addition to this, the essay will determine how the establishment of the creed at the Council of Nicaea, which was greatly influenced by Athanasius (McGrath 2001, p,12), was a failed attempt to expel all aspects of Arian heresy but a success in uniting Christians.

The purpose of the paper is to differentiate between Christ of faith and Jesus of history. New Testament biblical scholars from the 19th Century have been preoccupied by the notion of Christ of faith versus Jesus of History. Jesus of history can be described as the quest for historical Jesus, while the Christ of Faith is the Christ of Christian belief either through the Church or historically. Some traditions even went ahead to argue that the Jesus of History could never be found and therefore the Christ of faith is the only way forward for Christians. On the other hand, those who have been promoting the Jesus of History have often assumed that the historical Jesus is much superior as compared to the Christ of Faith. Despite the key differences between Christ of faith and the historical Jesus, both these aspect have an implication for Western Christianity.

His loss of hopes during the war led him to return to Scripture for his theological work (pg. 460). From this, he wrote the Commentary on Romans published in 1919 (pg. 460). Despite his own views of this work, the ideas that he wrote about in this writing gained the praise of many people. His most influential work titled Church Dogmatics became known as one of the most talented masterpieces of theological work in the 20th century (pg. 462). In this work, he states that in the bible, God supplied his people with both the questions and answers that they needed (pg. 461). His approach to theology as he was writing gave him the ability to stay consistent throughout all of his writings and never disconnected him with God’s Word and teachings (pg. 462). From these three people, one can see the dramatic changes that have taken place within the Roman Catholic Church during the 20th century. From each persons’ views in theology to their work in the issues surrounding Catholicism, one can see the breathtaking changes and influences they had within the Roman Catholic Church. These changes are some that gave Catholicism the ability to further expand into places beyond Europe during the 20th

Canon- are the books Christians regard as divinely inspired and constituting a Christian Bible. Books included in the Christian biblical canons of both the Old and New Testament were decided by the 5th century[citation needed] for the ancient undivided Church (which includes both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions) and was reaffirmed by the Catholic Church in the wake of the Protestant Reformation at the Council of Trent (1546). The canons of the Church of England and English Calvinists were decided definitively by the Thirty-Nine Articles (1563) and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), respectively. The Synod of Jerusalem (1672) established additional canons that are widely accepted throughout the Orthodox Church. The Old and New Testament canons did not develop independently of each other and most primary sources for the canon specify both Old and New Testament books. A comprehensive table of biblical scripture for both Testaments, with regard to canonical acceptance in Christendom's various major traditions, can be found here.

John 14: 26 states but the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you (). This verse is an explanation from Christ about the role of the Holy Spirit in teaching and recalling events that took place during his time on earth. It is through the witness of the Spirit that man can determine the “wheat from the chaff.”() The early church had the writing of the Old Testament but did not have a formal set of canonized books regarding the Messiah to draw their inspiration from. Though they had letters from Apostles there were many heretical writings that were circulating throughout the lands that were teaching doctrine different from those who knew Christ personally. Josephus stated that no one had been bold enough to add, take away, or change the wording in the Old Testament scripture (), this was what the Church was looking for in forming a canon that related to the teaching of Christ; a type of written text that would be foundational therefore no one would want to take away or add to it.

This paper will provide an understanding the theories of theology of the history of the church, the celebration of the atonement; Jesus Christ being the vicarious substitutionary lamb slain for the sins of mankind.

Perhaps the greatest achievement to come from early church history is the establishment of a universal New Testament Canon. While we may not put much thought into it today, which books should be included or excluded from the New Testament was once the center of much controversy. It took the church many years to settle upon the current collection of books as being the proper Canon, making it more of a process than an event. Ironically enough, the need for a universal Canon was only realized after many disputes over the version suggest by the Christian heretic Marcion. Marcion’s collection of books were revised by Athanasius and later endorsed by the church through councils. Once the New Testament Canon was established, all other suggested books became part of a collection known as the Apocrypha and their use dismissed by the church.