Abstract
Abstract Whilst Bullinger’s CHP accepts the decisions of the first four ecumenical councils, no description has been produced concerning their criteria. Based on the common features of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon, the Apostles’ Council of Jerusalem would fit the pattern, with one exception: it had neither been convened nor supervised by secular rulers. Why did the strongly Bible-oriented Reformers fail to ‘renumber’ the ecumenical councils starting with the one in Jerusalem, as they did e.g. with the Decalogue or the sacraments? Apparently, they acquiesced in the already established state of affairs to appease the contemporary secular powers, whilst preserving Chalcedon’s Christological and soteriological heritage.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
