Heick, Otto William

English

Scholars Commons

Consensus
Volume 9
Issue 2 Worship Article 4
4-1-1983
Mode of Theological Decision Making at the Early
Ecumenical Councils
Otto William Heick
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus
Part of the Practical Theology Commons
This Book Reviews is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by an
authorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.
Recommended Citation
Heick, Otto William (1983) "Mode of Theological Decision Making at the Early Ecumenical Councils," Consensus: Vol. 9 : Iss. 2 ,
Article 4.
Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol9/iss2/4
BOOKS IN REVIEW
THE MODE OF THEOLOGICAL DECISION MAKING
AT THE EARLY ECUMENICAL COUNCILS: AN
INQUIRY INTO THE FUNCTION OF SCRIPTURE
AND TRADITION AT THE COUNCILS OF NICEA
AND EPHESUS
RALPH E. PERSON
Printed by Friedrich Reinhardt,
Basel, 1978, 245 pp.
The author is a Presbyterian minister. Born in Texas, he studied at Austin, Aber-
deen, and at Basel where the Lutheran scholars Cullmann and Ebeling were among
his teachers.
The study, he says, represents an effort to fill an important gap in the history of
doctrines. The historical focus is the formula of Scripture and tradition at the councils
of Nicea and Ephesus. The doctrinal focus is to be seen in the evaluation of the for-
mula to the ongoing ecumenical discussions (p.l).
The two ancient councils referred to did not make any pronouncements about the
relative authority of Scripture and tradition (p. 215). No sharp division was observed
at that age. At Nicea the faith of the Apostles was referred to as tradition and the faith
of the Fathers as Apostolic (p. 217). Both were viewed as authoritative. Scripture
was regarded as the first witness in the historical sense, tradition as secondary, inter-
preting the Scriptures and pushing the church back into the Scriptures, for in the pro-
cess of history Scripture needs some new formulations (p. 221). The word Trinity
may not be found in the Scriptures, yet was accepted as a valid interpretation of the
relation of Father, Son and Holy Spirit mentioned in Scripture. But this does mean
that whatever the church teaches in the future is reliable tradition. The first is a deci-
sion about the present situation in the light of the past while the second is a decision
about the future (p. 226).
As may be seen, the volume is of real importance for the study of church history as
well as for a proper evaluation of the ecumenical movement.
Otto W. Heick


Mode of Theological Decision Making at the Early Ecumenical Councils

Wilfrid Laurier University

ConsensusVolume 9Issue 2 Worship Article 44-1-1983Mode of Theological Decision Making at the EarlyEcumenical CouncilsOtto William HeickFollow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensusPart of the Practical Theology CommonsThis Book Reviews is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by anauthorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.Recommended CitationHeick, Otto William (1983) "Mode of Theological Decision Making at the Early Ecumenical Councils," Consensus: Vol. 9 : Iss. 2 ,Article 4.Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol9/iss2/4BOOKS IN REVIEWTHE MODE OF THEOLOGICAL DECISION MAKINGAT THE EARLY ECUMENICAL COUNCILS: ANINQUIRY INTO THE FUNCTION OF SCRIPTUREAND TRADITION AT THE COUNCILS OF NICEAAND EPHESUSRALPH E. PERSONPrinted by Friedrich Reinhardt,Basel, 1978, 245 pp.The author is a Presbyterian minister. Born in Texas, he studied at Austin, Aber-deen, and at Basel where the Lutheran scholars Cullmann and Ebeling were amonghis teachers.The study, he says, represents an effort to fill an important gap in the history ofdoctrines. The historical focus is the formula of Scripture and tradition at the councilsof Nicea and Ephesus. The doctrinal focus is to be seen in the evaluation of the for-mula to the ongoing ecumenical discussions (p.l).The two ancient councils referred to did not make any pronouncements about therelative authority of Scripture and tradition (p. 215). No sharp division was observedat that age. At Nicea the faith of the Apostles was referred to as tradition and the faithof the Fathers as Apostolic (p. 217). Both were viewed as authoritative. Scripturewas regarded as the first witness in the historical sense, tradition as secondary, inter-preting the Scriptures and pushing the church back into the Scriptures, for in the pro-cess of history Scripture needs some new formulations (p. 221). The word Trinitymay not be found in the Scriptures, yet was accepted as a valid interpretation of therelation of Father, Son and Holy Spirit mentioned in Scripture. But this does meanthat whatever the church teaches in the future is reliable tradition. The first is a deci-sion about the present situation in the light of the past while the second is a decisionabout the future (p. 226).As may be seen, the volume is of real importance for the study of church history aswell as for a proper evaluation of the ecumenical movement.Otto W. Heick

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2185&amp;context=consensus

Mode of Theological Decision Making at the Early Ecumenical Councils

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Scholars Commons

Wilfrid Laurier University