New Entry in Notable Series

For those who would like to see the historical facts surrounding the fourth- and fifth-century Christological controversies, including what contemporary patristic scholarship has to say about Nestorius and his views, I have posted my series on "Historical Theology" in the "Notable Series" section of this blog. Just scroll down and click the links on the right-hand column.

The series is relevant not only due to the recent woefully uninformed mob mentality at a certain Roman Catholic discussion forum, but also because it illustrates how and to what extent councils, even plenary ones, can and do err--which is why we must always hold their views at arm's length and evaluate the merits of their respective contributions independently, just as we would any scholarly contribution to a theological or exegetical issue. Their views carry no more or less weight than the views of any other scholarly opinion. There is nothing particularly "holy" or "binding" about their decisions, there was nothing "infallible" in those decisions, and we do well to remember that. They expected to be corrected by the weightier opinion of those who might have more insight than they, as indeed they assumed that their opinion was to be considered weightier than those who came before them (save, of course, the apostles themselves). I'm sorry if those who emphasize their traditions to the exclusion of Scripture (except as a pretense for claiming a modicum of support for their traditions) can't understand that.