Here is a link to the Book of Concord online. The reference is to the Apology of the Augsburg Confession on Article IV On Justification. Keep in mind it is a defense not an exhaustive study.
That is why Sola Scriptura is so important. It is the Norming Norm. Or the norma normans, norma absoluta, norma primaria, norma decisionis as Mueller put it. Meaning Scripture gets to be the lens by which tradition is judged along with everything else not the other way around. So what lens do we get to interpret scripture? The lens of scripture. Scripture interprets scripture not tradition interpreting scripture. And again I will state that there is not a denial of history or tradition in the Lutheran church nor would we agree that there has been a reboot rather a recovering of what was covered over but not lost. If the Reformation was about a new set of assumptions as you write then why are the reformers (Lutheran and Reformed mostly) quoting the ECF back to their accusers in defense?
In what way? He certainly won't write like a second century christian because he isn't one. Could you be more specific?But looking at from the first- and second-century perspective, it seems like Luther was quite a toker himself.
How would you define the difference?
Where have they done this? And who is "they"? From what I've seen, all the "Traditions" they refer to, even some of the really weird stuff, is drawn from the tradition of the past. Who is "making their own Traditions"?
Well as I said above, the church I really admire is the ancient, pre-Great Schism Catholic Church... I'm looking for that today. Is that the same as the Church of Rome? Or the Orthodox Church? Or the Anglican Church? Or are we all "catholic" Christians? I'm still looking for the answer to that.
Thanks, I'll study it.
But I don't really see how this is possible or intellectually honest. As I said in the OP, there are a lot of gaps -- places where we have to interpolate, where a lens of "Scripture interpreting Scripture" isn't enough to inform us. The question is, where do we draw that interpolation from? From the earliest sources? From the musings of later theologians? From our own feeble consciences? It seems your tradition has a lot of answers, but how can it answer this?
If that were the case, then shouldn't I be able to find what was covered over but not lost in the tradition of the Early Church? If so, why haven't I found it? If not, where in the world did the Reformers unearth it?
I'll try to answer that after I read it.
In the way that so far, I haven't found a single trace of sola fide, sola scriptura, etc. in the writings of the Early Church -- in fact, I've found a lot to contradict it.
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?
what sort of "gaps" are you referring to and how do these early accounts navigate the way you interpret scripture?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?
This is clearly untrue. Some of the so-called traditions (Papal Infallibility or the Assumption of Mary, for example) are based on arbitrary selections from history, customs, legends, or ECFs, often separated by centuries in time, with no evidence of any continuity or universality. Often, there is also contrary evidence that is simply dismissed out of hand because it does not fit the desired narrative.
See the comment I made to Albion above. I think it's a real but important distinction.
I don't think they claim that doctrine has never changed. They do believe in the "development of doctrine," that an understanding can develop through generations of reflection and consideration. It's the revelation of Christ, the essential truths, that made up capital-T "Tradition," and that's what they say never changes.
The modern Catholic documents I've read (admittedly, I've only read a few) have been pretty similarly honest. No one is perfect, but I think they are trying.
) Tradition is decided by the Church hierarchy. After all, they're the ones who make saints. They're the ones who accept most of the writings of ECF that later turned out to be heretics, for example. Just ignore that one small part. That's fine for a sola Scriptura Protestant because we don't accept them as infallible tradition. But once you're accepting extra-Biblical teachings as infallible it opens up a whole can of worms.
But Scripture isn't at all clear whether some practices were practiced or are acceptable. For example, infant baptism. The New Testament is silent. Credo-Baptists like my folks make an argument from silence, they interpolate that infant baptism was not practiced the Apostles and was a later accretion. 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. So your idea of "measuring practices against Scripture" necessarily depends on interpolation by whatever traditional assumptions you are starting from. How do we get around this?
Frankly, yes, I think I'd rather have a church that resembled the Church in 2nd century Asia Minor (and yes, I'm well aware by that statement that I'm tipping a hat to Eastern Orthodoxy). "Cultural expression and liberty" sound an awful lot like "modernism" to me. Many Lutherans -- maybe yours? -- accept female clergy, for example. But that, to me, is not just "cultural expression and liberty," but patent contradiction to Scripture. Where do you draw the line?
You'll have to show me some examples of this. I know the Orthodox believe just as strongly in the "Dormition" of Mary, never formally defined as a dogma (the Orthodox don't really do that), but accepted as a continuous tradition since a very early time. In fact, I think the earliest testimonies to the Dormition or Assumption of Mary originate in the East. I know that in the West, the Assumption was only declared as a dogma after centuries of popular demand (by the sensus fidelium) -- it wasn't just pulled out a hat.
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.
Yes, I acknowledge that's basically the case, though I think they would consider the term "sola ecclesia" pejorative. It's not the "Church alone." It's the Church, through Christ's appointed teachers, as servants to Scripture and Tradition, the revelation that's been given to them to teach. So it comes down basically to whether we accept whether a Church has the authority to teach or not.
As I said above to Albion, I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church doesn't think that any one of the Church Fathers, theologians, etc. is infallible. They are not inspired writers. Because they are so inconsistent and problematic and contradicting themselves and each other. So do we just throw them all out? That seems to be the approach of many Protestants. Or might they have valuable things to say? It's the Catholic idea, isn't it, that the same teachers I mentioned above are needed to help sort through all the muddle?
What denomination are you now? A lot of Protestants here (Lutherans and Anglicans mostly) are insisting to me that "sola scriptura does not mean a rejection of tradition". Or is "infallible" the distinction you are making here?
