Scripture vs. History

[Mary Meg]

The New Testament is NOT silent on the matter of infant baptism. It is merely that a case can be made for either POV, using the NT.

Can you show me what you mean? What explicit testimony does it give?

Nor is it correct to say that Lutherans (or most other Protestants, for that matter) base their baptizing of infants upon the practices current in the second century rather than on Scripture.

No, and I don't think I said that. I said that writings of the second century attest to the practice.

 

[HatGuy]

But to somebody with an academic mindset, this is really troubling.

I have an academic mindset, and I don't find it troubling at all.

In fact I find it kind of liberating.

The scriptures show us a pattern of doing things. But nobody wears a pattern. Rather, they make clothes out of the pattern. Clothes that match a context. Likewise, we take the pattern of scripture and we make it work in various contexts. That requires a lot more careful thought and consideration, and for someone with an academic mindset, that's pretty exciting.

 

[Albion]

You'll have to show me some examples of this.

Papal Supremacy
Papal Infallibility
Purgatory--not just some generalization but Purgatory specifically
The Immaculate Conception
Transubstantiation

 

[Mary Meg]

In Lutheranism, even the canon of the Scriptures is not considered infallible, since it itself relies on tradition. If somebody came along with a document that was undoubtedly apostolic, we'ld have to take it seriously. We aren't some kind of fundamentalists about the issue, necessarily, nor are we biblicists.

Wow... really? That's really troubling. It explains, I guess, why Luther wanted to toss out the Epistle of James as an "epistle of straw," and did toss out the apocrypha...

It also explains why many Lutherans today basically deny the authority of Scripture completely, and embrace such things as female clergy, support for abortion, even blesssing for same-sex unions, that patently contradict Scripture.

 

[Albion]

No, and I don't think I said that. I said that writings of the second century attest to the practice.

What you wrote was this:

Lots of other people (including, I think, Lutherans) say infant baptism is completely consistent with the faith of the Apostles as revealed in Scripture, and should be practiced, since it is attested to by the second century.

 

[_Dave_]

I view the writings of the early church fathers the same way I view the writings and utterings of today's church "fathers." That is, with skepticism until I am able to sift them through the filter of Scripture.

I start with the Acts churches and the epistles as the baseline (including Christ's epistles to the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3). Any writings or utterings that deviate from what the original body of believers was taught are not authoritative, and thus are not to be believed or accepted as doctrine.

Elsewhere on Christian Forums there can usually be found an ongoing debate about whether this or that early father wrote against the rapture, particularly the pre-trib rapture. Likewise, there is no end of writings and utterings today from those who deny some of the most basic doctrines that were taught to the Acts churches. Again, these teachings are to be ignored as false teaching because they go against the clear and plain teachings given to the Acts churches.

God gave Paul the doctrine of the pre-trib rapture, Paul taught it to his churches, and they believed his teachings about it. Period. Yet, there are those who follow the lead of early fathers and deny what is so plainly before them.

So, to answer the OP, what the early fathers wrote, especially in light of the context of the history when they wrote, should bears no significance to someone earnestly trying to understand doctrine.

It is no small coincidence that the false teachings of these early fathers ushered in a dark ages in church history that only came back to the light in the 19th century when some brave souls decided to throw off the yoke of false teachings by a false church and embrace the truthful teachings of the original Acts churches.

Sadly, I guess because of the proliferation of opinions being offered on the Internet, the church is again slipping into accepting false doctrines, and I fear approaching another dark ages in church history. But, didn't Jesus say that would happen? False teachers would proliferate and negatively influence the undiscerning.

 

[Mary Meg]

What you wrote was this:

Well I don't think I intended it as a causative since -- it's not the reason why they accept it, the reason is what I stated, that it was "completely consistent with the faith of the Apostles." More of an incidental since. "Since I'm already here, I might as well eat."

Can you show me what you meant by Scripture not being silent on the matter?

 

[FireDragon76]

Wow... really? That's really troubling. It explains, I guess, why Luther wanted to toss out the Epistle of James as an "epistle of straw," and did toss out the apocrypha...

It also explains why many Lutherans today basically deny the authority of Scripture completely, and embrace such things as female clergy, support for abortion, even blesssing for same-sex unions, that patently contradict Scripture.

Actually, Luther did not toss out the Apocrypha, he translated it into German later than the NT and OT, but he did include it in his Bible eventually. On All Saints Day, we actually read from the addition to Daniel. So we can read those books in our churches, it's just not the basis of dogma. But there is edifying and dignified material in there.

Luther's objection to James goes beyond just not liking the book, BTW. It's extremely Law-heavy in our estimation, and it's been known for a long time it likely wasn't written by an apostle. We make distinctions between books that are homolougomena (undoubtedly apostolic) and antilegomena (of dubious apostolicity), so tradition does have a place in our approach to the Bible, because we do consider what the early Church actually had to say about the books found in the Bible. So in some sense, we take tradition very seriously.

 

[Mary Meg]

The scriptures show us a pattern of doing things. But nobody wears a pattern. Rather, they make clothes out of the pattern. Clothes that match a context. Likewise, we take the pattern of scripture and we make it work in various contexts. That requires a lot more careful thought and consideration, and for someone with an academic mindset, that's pretty exciting.

The difference there is viewing Scripture as a pattern. I guess in the same way, people view the U.S. Constitution as a pattern, and think they can follow on that and interpolate on it and adapt it to new circumstances as the modern age applies. And then there are strict constructionists, who want to read the Constitution for exactly what the Framers intended, what they meant, what they thought. And to do that, they often consult other writings of the Framers to help them understand their mindsets.

Given the Protestant emphasis on sola scriptura, I'd have thought they'd be more "strict constructionists" of Scripture.

 

[archer75]

What you are describing is a critique of the Baptist, or perhaps Presbyterian approaches, but it's not universal to all Protestants.

Agreed. It is important to remember that both these extreme takes

• "the Bible, the Bible, and nothing but the Bible!" (edited for convenience)
• "well, Jesus Christ gave St. Peter (or all the Apostles) secret instructions about how to swing the censer, so everything we do is perfect and we don't have to answer to Scripture, the ECF, our own traditions, or anything else, because we're perfect"

are not really productive or founded on any kind of reality.

 

[FireDragon76]

It also explains why many Lutherans today basically deny the authority of Scripture completely, and embrace such things as female clergy, support for abortion, even blesssing for same-sex unions, that patently contradict Scripture.

That's really an unrelated issue. You will find confessionally committed Lutherans on both sides of those issues in the ELCA (except women's ordination, that's just a settled matter for us). It is wrong to say that our church has only one teaching on many of those admittedly controversial issues, it does not. Our social ethics is way more complicated than simply "We are Mother Church. Obey!" But if that's your approach, then you'll probably find Rome or Orthodoxy to your liking. However, I for one don't think Christ died to free me just to put me into slavery to another man's conscience.

 

[HatGuy]

Given the Protestant emphasis on sola scriptura, I'd have thought they'd be more "strict constructionists" of Scripture

I think this was always the idea of "reformed but always reforming". And I think it's a far better ideal than very strict Traditional churches.

 

[bekkilyn]

We Methodists have something we call the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral" which puts a degree of balance between scripture vs. history. We recognize scripture as the primary authority vs. only authority (primera scriptura vs. sola scriptura).

From our UMC "what we believe" statement concerning the quadrilateral:

"Scripture is considered the primary source and standard for Christian doctrine. Tradition is experience and the witness of development and growth of the faith through the past centuries and in many nations and cultures. Experience is the individual's understanding and appropriating of the faith in the light of his or her own life. Through reason the individual Christian brings to bear on the Christian faith discerning and cogent thought. These four elements taken together bring the individual Christian to a mature and fulfilling understanding of the Christian faith and the required response of worship and service."

Wesleyan Quadrilateral – The United Methodist Church

One of the things I like about Methodism (and I grew up Southern Baptist) is that it's not always an either/or sort of thing, but there are a lot of both/and's. We can have both scripture AND tradition/history and recognize both as authoritative in some way.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That appears to be where I'm at, for now.

Yes, but my concern is, what do I do when those scientific means suggest that the church I'm at doesn't really appear to agree with the Christianity of the Early Church? Is it acceptable to hold a faith that appears to have been "muddled out" sixteen centuries after the fact?

Personally, I divide out what I 'actually' believe from what the churches I attend 'specifically' believe, or supposedly 'claim' to officially believe. I think that some of this is ok to do on my part. Of course, it's one thing to go to Westboro Baptist Church and another thing to go to something like "Country Hills Greens [Southern] Baptist Church."

I know continuance in the Baptist tradition has been, or was, the case for scholar Kenton L. Sparks ... even though he isn't anyway near being an inerrantist.

 

[redleghunter]

So, here is my next question in the line of "questioning my Protestant heritage". Hopefully a slightly more focused question than before?

In my other thread, there has been a lot of talk about the Church Fathers, especially about accepting them as infallible authority ... Well I never said that I do accept them that way. But here's the thing:

The Church Fathers are, at the very least, historical testimony. They demonstrate what the Christian Church was like in a particular place and a particular time, what people believed and how they practiced.

There has been a lot of talk too, about following Scripture as closely as possible -- the traditional, Protestant, sola scriptura stance. Don't put stock in what the Church Fathers say, put stock in what Scripture says. And that's important.

But here's the thing: The New Testament isn't very clear on specifics. The NT says to "address one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" (Eph 5:19), but it doesn't say if they're having hymnbooks or Hillsongs. It says to "do [the Lord's Supper] in remembrance of [Jesus]" (1 Cor 11:24), "as often as" you do it (v. 26), but it doesn't say how often to do it (daily or monthly or quarterly or when the mood strikes), or who should be invited, or whether to have a seder or a potluck or a Mass. It says that a local church had elders (presbyters), apparently more than one of them (Acts 14:23), or sometimes they are called overseers (bishops), apparently referring to the same office (1 Tim 3, Titus 1:5, 7). But it's not really very clear about how that's supposed to be structured -- whether it's supposed to be congregational, or presbyterian, or hierarchical. So people talk about "following the New Testament," but unavoidably they are interpolating their own (or somebody else's) interpretation on these unclear situations.

So I finish my study of the New Testament, and I have a picture in my head of what the "New Testament Church" looks like. If I'm a Protestant, it's naturally going to somewhat resemble the church I know -- since I've filled in those unclear gaps with my prior Protestant assumptions. I read about elders and deacons and see my Baptist brethren. If I'm Catholic, it's naturally going to look like the Catholic Church that I know. I read about bishops and envision them in miters and chasubles. The New Testament leaves a lot of white space for connecting dots with our own assumptions.

For Protestants reading the New Testament with a sola scriptura mindset, reading Scripture on its own apart from anything else, this is okay and even good. They feel some creative license to implement the mandate of Scripture in their own way, and call it "following the New Testament church as closely as possible." But to somebody with an academic mindset, this is really troubling. Even though a Christian and a Protestant, I tried to read the New Testament as a historical document (and maybe that was my undoing), and when I got to those gaps, rather than feeling comfortable interpolating my own understanding, I looked for more information.

So I figured, if it's unclear what exactly these Christians were doing in 70 or 80 A.D., maybe I can look at what they were doing in 90 or 100 or 120 A.D. and the picture will be clearer. And it was clearer -- only it dissuaded me of my prior Protestant assumptions.

So, finally getting to my point (sorry it has taken so long) -- what is a Christian reader to do in this situation? Are we to believe that Scripture is opposed to history (as contained in these first- and second-century church documents), the way some people believe it's opposed to science? Do we go on interpreting (and interpolating) Scripture on its own? Or do we look to these additional sources of information, these puzzle pieces that appear to fit the gaps, to help us complete our picture of the Early Church? Does this approach deny sola scriptura? What do I do then, if the picture I end up with no longer resembles the church I'm in?

Would you agree the Scriptures are historical accounts?

 

[Mary Meg]

Would you agree the Scriptures are historical accounts?

The ones that were intended to be historical accounts certainly are.

 

[paul becke]

If you believe in Jesus Christ as your Savior, that is more or less sufficient for you to be saved. However, you may be wanting to look for a church that you feel called to personally, and that's all OK too (nobody should ignore God's calling, certainly). Perhaps you need a more liturgical church steeped in history. But that's different from arguing that one particular church is the only true church in some objective sense.

I believe the mainstream Protestant churches have helped at different times to restore balance, even sanity, to the witness of the Catholic church, though since we are all fallible human beings, it is likely to remain a 'work in progress' for the forseeable future.

It's a long way from perfect now, but I do also believe that it is the church instituted by God under the gidance of Peter and his successors, and that if we concentrate on the sacraments and a life of prayer, with a modicum of ascetism, we have the essentials to get closer to Christ, which essentials, themselves, are replete with the promise of a growing intimacy with Our Lord, (and if so disposed, his dear mother, father, relatives and friends ; not to speak of our own, either already in heaven or as Holy Souls.

One thing, more than anything else, that prevents me from worrying about a scholarly, biblical perspective on scripture, is that the Gospels are so full of incidents of the disciples and even Jesus, himself, displaying utterly, utterly human foibles, that I can't keep a straight face or a serious attitude for long, towards what I would, admittedly already familiar with.

I mean, for example, not wishing to LOL, I wait with some trepidation for Jesus to 'lower the boom' on his hate-filled 'Pharisaic' critics and eventual assassins, 'shooting them down in flames'. And when they start ranting among themselves about the 'rabble', the crowd, the Anawim, that's a high point for me.

And then there were the occasions when Jesus, in very human fashion, failed to grasp how much wiser and more knowledgeable he was than his disciples, rounding on them quite bitterly - and this, BEFORE Pentecost ! On one occasion, he seemed to reproach Philip and Thomas for not knowing that he was one person in a Triune God and was 'the Way, the Truth and the Life !' Not enough attention is paid, imho, to Jesus' humanity, to the humanity on display throughout the Gospels by the people involved.

 

[NeedyFollower]

The "gaps"in the new testament you mentioned are filled in by the traditions of the Church, as Paul said to the Thessalonians:

2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

The Thessalonians had been taught both by letter and in person by word of mouth. I can tell you that the traditions of the Church have varied little. And any changes in those traditions have been made only by necessity of the times and are well documented.

You're right to read the writings of the Church Fathers, and you are not wrong to disagree with them. The teachings of the Church Fathers are valid only in as much that they have been ratified by the Church. Any individual may have been wrong on any single point and later been overruled by a Synod or Council. If we take the Arian heresy for example. Arius was only wrong *after* the Council of Nicea determined that he was wrong. That's an odd way to put it I know, but it's just that.

There are also some outside sources we can use such as Pliny's letter to Trajan describing the habits of Christians in 112 AD:

"they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god"

Meeting before dawn was not a tradition of the Jewish sabbath, but meeting before dawn on Sunday was. So it confirms that Sunday worship was the norm for Christians as early as 112 AD. The hymn they would "sing responsively" was the Liturgy we still sing responsively today.

Studying the history of the Church -from all sources- will help flesh out the "traditions you have been taught". And you'll find that those traditions are still present in the original apostolic Churches today.

There are also some outside sources we can use such as Pliny's letter to Trajan describing the habits of Christians in 112 AD:

"they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god"

Meeting before dawn was not a tradition of the Jewish sabbath, but meeting before dawn on Sunday was. So it confirms that Sunday worship was the norm for Christians as early as 112 AD. The hymn they would "sing responsively" was the Liturgy we still sing responsively today.

I believe the letter sent by Pliny described a group of believers who's "day job " was slaves . If I am not mistaken , it was a deaconess in the early church who gave this confession . It was apparently puzzling to the Roman's that a "nobody" slave is highly regarded in the christian church . We of course do not know what they were signing other than songs and hymns as this information was not given by Pliny .
According to Paul's letter to the Corinthians , they also met after work at times ( with the salves and day laborers showing up last ) ...Paul chastised them for not waiting for their brothers and sisters .

Jesus tells us when and where . Wherever two or more are gathered in His name . Today is the day that the Lord has made .

 

[NeedyFollower]

So, here is my next question in the line of "questioning my Protestant heritage". Hopefully a slightly more focused question than before?

In my other thread, there has been a lot of talk about the Church Fathers, especially about accepting them as infallible authority ... Well I never said that I do accept them that way. But here's the thing:

The Church Fathers are, at the very least, historical testimony. They demonstrate what the Christian Church was like in a particular place and a particular time, what people believed and how they practiced.

There has been a lot of talk too, about following Scripture as closely as possible -- the traditional, Protestant, sola scriptura stance. Don't put stock in what the Church Fathers say, put stock in what Scripture says. And that's important.

But here's the thing: The New Testament isn't very clear on specifics. The NT says to "address one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" (Eph 5:19), but it doesn't say if they're having hymnbooks or Hillsongs. It says to "do [the Lord's Supper] in remembrance of [Jesus]" (1 Cor 11:24), "as often as" you do it (v. 26), but it doesn't say how often to do it (daily or monthly or quarterly or when the mood strikes), or who should be invited, or whether to have a seder or a potluck or a Mass. It says that a local church had elders (presbyters), apparently more than one of them (Acts 14:23), or sometimes they are called overseers (bishops), apparently referring to the same office (1 Tim 3, Titus 1:5, 7). But it's not really very clear about how that's supposed to be structured -- whether it's supposed to be congregational, or presbyterian, or hierarchical. So people talk about "following the New Testament," but unavoidably they are interpolating their own (or somebody else's) interpretation on these unclear situations.

So I finish my study of the New Testament, and I have a picture in my head of what the "New Testament Church" looks like. If I'm a Protestant, it's naturally going to somewhat resemble the church I know -- since I've filled in those unclear gaps with my prior Protestant assumptions. I read about elders and deacons and see my Baptist brethren. If I'm Catholic, it's naturally going to look like the Catholic Church that I know. I read about bishops and envision them in miters and chasubles. The New Testament leaves a lot of white space for connecting dots with our own assumptions.

For Protestants reading the New Testament with a sola scriptura mindset, reading Scripture on its own apart from anything else, this is okay and even good. They feel some creative license to implement the mandate of Scripture in their own way, and call it "following the New Testament church as closely as possible." But to somebody with an academic mindset, this is really troubling. Even though a Christian and a Protestant, I tried to read the New Testament as a historical document (and maybe that was my undoing), and when I got to those gaps, rather than feeling comfortable interpolating my own understanding, I looked for more information.

So I figured, if it's unclear what exactly these Christians were doing in 70 or 80 A.D., maybe I can look at what they were doing in 90 or 100 or 120 A.D. and the picture will be clearer. And it was clearer -- only it dissuaded me of my prior Protestant assumptions.

So, finally getting to my point (sorry it has taken so long) -- what is a Christian reader to do in this situation? Are we to believe that Scripture is opposed to history (as contained in these first- and second-century church documents), the way some people believe it's opposed to science? Do we go on interpreting (and interpolating) Scripture on its own? Or do we look to these additional sources of information, these puzzle pieces that appear to fit the gaps, to help us complete our picture of the Early Church? Does this approach deny sola scriptura? What do I do then, if the picture I end up with no longer resembles the church I'm in?

Sister ..If history is any indication ( and I believe scripture says it is when Paul says ...all these things happened to them for our sakes ), then you will notice what happened in Isaiah's day and Amos also spoke about these things . Jesus also encountered this same mind set . I see it today with some churches stressing Praise and Worship ...others , historical liturgies and correct forms of worship . Look at Amos 5:21-24 . In other words ...Jesus did not die so we could have a proper assembly but rather so we could be reconciled with our Father . One other brother of the greek orthodox persuasion mentioned Pliny's letter regarding when the early christians met . This was because they were slaves and had to be at work early . They encouraged one another not to lie , cheat or do things that would bring reproach to the name of Christ .
There is only one instance of instruction regarding gathering and it is in hebrews 10:25 and it is only one verse out of how many others . ( and I think it also mentions to meet all the more as we see that day approach . ) If the author is Paul , what about Paul's other instructions in 1st Corinthians 14:29 ? When Jesus said ye will with much tribulation enter the Kingdom of heaven , I believe he was indicating the difficulty of doing truth .
We are even instructed by the scriptures as how to dress . Be clothed in humility . In other words ...do not dress religiously . Our outward attire can only impress humans . Grace and peace in the name of Jesus ...the way the TRUTH and the life .

 

[Skittles]

Hi Mary Meg - I think it is important to keep in mind a few things:
- Sacred Scripture is the inerrant word of God
- Jesus left us a Church with authority - members of that Church wrote (through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) and compiled and canonized (again through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) Sacred Scripture. To accept the table of contents of the NT is to implicitly accept that Church’s authority - at least on the contents of the NT i.e the Bible doesn’t tell us which books and in which sequence - the Church decided that with guidance by the Holy Spirit. It also adds the chapters and verses we reference.
- if you haven’t already you may want to check out the Didache as a historical document since you have a hunger to understand the practices of the earliest Christians.

May God continue to bless you in your search and....Happy Easter!