Didache

[Daniel9v9]

Does anyone know of any Lutheran comments on the Didache?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache

I found a pdf version with some pretty interesting notes, though - in case you're interested:
http://www.tracts.ukgo.com/didache.pdf

 

[Mountainmike]

Does anyone know of any Lutheran comments on the Didache?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache

I found a pdf version with some pretty interesting notes, though - in case you're interested:
http://www.tracts.ukgo.com/didache.pdf

I cant speak directly for Lutherans, but I can speak for Luther himself, who rejected anything outside the canon, therefore Luhter rejected the didache. There is an entirely separate question as to the extent he accepted the doctrinal issues as opposed to the document itself. He did accept real presence.

It speaks volumes that Luther not only rejected all other documents on principle but he also rejected parts of the canon that all others accepted.

It is clear that Paul was quoting the septuagint version of the OT, which included Maccabees. Yet Luther preferred the Palestinian version. Luther also called the epistle of james an "epistle of straw".

It is hard to construe Luther's choice of Canon was other than for Doctrinal reasons, disliking the statements about "works" in james. Luther seemingly decided his doctrine first, then rejected canon that opposed his doctrine. A true cart in front of a horse..

So for luther
"Sola scriptura" actually meant "sola scriptura - but only the bits I like"

But there is a strange inconsistency with Luther. He accepted purgatory as a principle, despite admitting he could find no scriptural support. But by opposing maccabees (and therefore maccabees 2 - which says.
" It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins"
He thereby rejects scriptural support for purgatory, despite believing in it! He also seemingly accepted the principle of immaculate conception, from a number of things he said (as had many in history) , even though the dogma had yet to be given that name.


It seems to me Luther had some very real gripes . eg The "selling" of indulgencies by some in church hierarchy. The problem is, the wheels of RCC grind exceedingly slowly and it was a while before this practice was openly rejected by the pope at the council following luthers death. Had there been more dialogue and less open hostility and intransigence, I wonder whether the split would even have happened. Certainly Luther regretted the split in later days, and also the fact that all felt empowered after him to decide their own doctrine.

To many protestants his positions on such as real presence, sacraments Mary, and purgatory, make him far too catholic!
Where to catholics his refusal to accept succession preferring priesthood of all believers make him far too protestant.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I cant speak directly for Lutherans, but I can speak for Luther himself, who rejected anything outside the canon, therefore Luhter rejected the didache. There is an entirely separate question as to the extent he accepted the doctrinal issues as opposed to the document itself. He did accept real presence.

It speaks volumes that Luther not only rejected all other documents on principle but he also rejected parts of the canon that all others accepted.

It is clear that Paul was quoting the septuagint version of the OT, which included Maccabees. Yet Luther preferred the Palestinian version. Luther also called the epistle of james an "epistle of straw".

It is hard to construe Luther's choice of Canon was other than for Doctrinal reasons, disliking the statements about "works" in james. Luther seemingly decided his doctrine first, then rejected canon that opposed his doctrine. A true cart in front of a horse..

So for luther
"Sola scriptura" actually meant "sola scriptura - but only the bits I like"

But there is a strange inconsistency with Luther. He accepted purgatory as a principle, despite admitting he could find no scriptural support. But by opposing maccabees (and therefore maccabees 2 - which says.
" It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins"
He thereby rejects scriptural support for purgatory, despite believing in it! He also seemingly accepted the principle of immaculate conception, from a number of things he said (as had many in history) , even though the dogma had yet to be given that name.


It seems to me Luther had some very real gripes . eg The "selling" of indulgencies by some in church hierarchy. The problem is, the wheels of RCC grind exceedingly slowly and it was a while before this practice was openly rejected by the pope at the council following luthers death. Had there been more dialogue and less open hostility and intransigence, I wonder whether the split would even have happened. Certainly Luther regretted the split in later days, and also the fact that all felt empowered after him to decide their own doctrine.

To many protestants his positions on such as real presence, sacraments Mary, and purgatory, make him far too catholic!
Where to catholics his refusal to accept succession preferring priesthood of all believers make him far too protestant.

Well, the points you make here are nothing new to any of us. As you accused Luther of picking and choosing you likely should not be doing so yourself; rather looking to the reasons and mindset. My old, 150 year old translation of Luther's Bible has the Apocrypha where St. Jerome felt they should be located; between the OT and the NT. Even the Eastern Orthodox do not put these books on the same level as the 66 books of the O & NTs; they are used to give context to Scripture by, readings from these books are used in Graduals and Introits in the Liturgy (Advent in particular), and appear way more often than most would think in our Hymns.

When one reads our funeral services, it is pretty clear that we Lutherans continue to pray for the departed. Our confessions state that doing so is beneficial (they are silent as to how they are beneficial though).

You should study not just what Luther said once about the Epistle of James, but you should understand why he made that comment; while James does not counter salvation by faith, in an age of relative literary ignorance of the common people, he was considering the confusion that it's misinterpretation might cause, and the abuses to which it may lead; namely works based salvation.

Luther's position on the "Priesthood of all Believers" is not so different than the Catholic position. Ordination (of men only in our Confessional Churches), likewise, has been retained; but by a stricter definition that the CC uses, ordination is not considered a sacrament (but could certainly be considered a "sacramental act").

Certainly, not all modern day Lutherans might hold these views, deferring to reformed protestant influences, but historicaly, these postions were ratified in the unaltered 1580 edition of the Book of Concord.

Regarding Papal authority, we were not the first to "protest this", there was a minor incident some years before called "The Great Schism); the Eastern Orthodox beat us to it by about 1000 years; so that's nothing new or innovative either.

 

[Dave-W]

http://ffoz.org/discover/messianic-lifestyle/spiritual-lessons-from-the-didache-the-two-ways.html

 

[Mountainmike]

I have openly said, I have no gripe with Lutherans, we do not try to prosyletize, and I think all of us would be better joining to combat new atheism, than arguments amongst ourselves.

As regards the East - the fundamental dogmatic issue of "filioque" between eastern churches and catholicism is so arcane, that most would not understand the argument let alone the difference! and the two came close to uniting again at one point in history. Sad they did not. To me, the linkage to Davidic roots of the keys, demonstrate only a single person that can hold them in succession. So the idea of several patriarchs sharing the keys is a non starter, and if they accept Rome has primacy of honour, they also accept Roman pope has the keys..

For me- succession and authority is important to the validity of the eucharist, Which is an issue that hits at the heart of the OP.

Studying early documents to see what early christians did. Which means reading the very documents that Luther dismissed, such as didache, but also irenaus to the Smyrneans. Which then questions Luthers own authority by succession. I do not think anyone can understand the intention of scripture without reference to how early christians and fathers understood it, since they got it from the apostles.

I think we would all do better to focus on atheists and how such as Dawkins are feeding our children nonsense, whilst stamping it science!!

Well, the points you make here are nothing new to any of us. As you accused Luther of picking and choosing you likely should not be doing so yourself; rather looking to the reasons and mindset. My old, 150 year old translation of Luther's Bible has the Apocrypha where St. Jerome felt they should be located; between the OT and the NT. Even the Eastern Orthodox do not put these books on the same level as the 66 books of the O & NTs; they are used to give context to Scripture by, readings from these books are used in Graduals and Introits in the Liturgy (Advent in particular), and appear way more often than most would think in our Hymns.

When one reads our funeral services, it is pretty clear that we Lutherans continue to pray for the departed. Our confessions state that doing so is beneficial (they are silent as to how they are beneficial though).

You should study not just what Luther said once about the Epistle of James, but you should understand why he made that comment; while James does not counter salvation by faith, in an age of relative literary ignorance of the common people, he was considering the confusion that it's misinterpretation might cause, and the abuses to which it may lead; namely works based salvation.

Luther's position on the "Priesthood of all Believers" is not so different than the Catholic position. Ordination (of men only in our Confessional Churches), likewise, has been retained; but by a stricter definition that the CC uses, ordination is not considered a sacrament (but could certainly be considered a "sacramental act").

Certainly, not all modern day Lutherans might hold these views, deferring to reformed protestant influences, but historicaly, these postions were ratified in the unaltered 1580 edition of the Book of Concord.

Regarding Papal authority, we were not the first to "protest this", there was a minor incident some years before called "The Great Schism); the Eastern Orthodox beat us to it by about 1000 years; so that's nothing new or innovative either.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Interesting. But with respect, the OP was asking for the Lutheran view of it.

I cant speak for Lutherans , but I think Luthers own view consistent with his core beliefs would be "nothing at all, it is totally irrelevant" . And in as far as Lutherans agree with it, their source for those views would be elsewhere. Nor would they be concerned much if didache wholly opposed them. Because most protestants would use "sola scriptura" to reject all historic documents such as it.

There were many documents in circulation, and councils ultimately had to decide which should form the canon, which appeared in embryo 3rd- in essence finalised 4th century.

Thank you for your inputs!

I'm familiar with much of the heat Lutherans and Roman Catholics get in both directions - and I think it's safe to say that, whilst there are some pretty significant theological differences, there have also been malicious exaggerations in both camps. Luther certainly was a passionate man with some pretty hard statements, but I think it's important to realize that much of the doctrines we (orthodox) hold to now were formulated and settled after Luther, namely as put together in the Book of Concords. Needless to say, the Book of Concords is not a replacement for the Bible, and Luther is not our eternal pope.

I will say this though - I don't think this idea of Luther putting his scissors to the Bible to suit his personal theology or bitter agenda is accurate. It's more a case that we don't put too much stock in any writings that has an obscure or uncertain origin. We are skeptic to any writings that challenges the apostles' writings. I don't see that as rejecting scripture, but more as safeguarding and containing the pure and original teachings of those closest to our Lord. We can trust these words and we know they are God-breathed.

However, it should be noted that most classical Lutheran theologians hold the church fathers in high esteem and use their writings pretty freely. Personally, I no problem learning from the early writings - I think there are great values that can be found in it. (Especially learning about heresies!) - though, of course, I view things in a particular Lutheran Orthodox way. That is to say, I'm critical to things like purgatory and the immaculate conception. Though as you point out, ironically, Luther somewhat held to - but you know - he was a good Augustinian Catholic

Anyway, I hear where you're coming from and I fundamentally believe in one holy church. As such, I think you're quite right that we ought to be living out our duties in the world by bearing good fruit and doing good in unity with one another.

 

[Mountainmike]

I agree with your last para most of all
Focussing on living out duties and bearing fruit.

But I have to say , I dont "get" luther. He had every justification (eginclusion in septuagint) for including rather than rejecting maccabees, but in rejecting it , he rejected the best scriptural support for purgatory, whilst believing in purgatory, then claiming no support for it?. I just didnt understand Luther.

If I had to give luther a "mindset "I cannot help but feel that he had a bit of a hissy fit, whilst rightly contemptuous of lack of response on valid issues. His essential rejection of paid indulgencies, which feature large in his theses, (and in his early letters to the pope, he actually states that he feels certain the pope agrees with him) but the pope does nothing for some while...but acts eventually.
The lack of response, or proper communication seems to be what led to Luther rejecting authority and with it threw a lot of babies out with the bathwater. Only in later life, did he realise quite how many!

Thank you for your inputs!

I'm familiar with much of the heat Lutherans and Roman Catholics get in both directions - and I think it's safe to say that, whilst there are some pretty significant theological differences, there have also been malicious exaggerations in both camps. Luther certainly was a passionate man with some pretty hard statements, but I think it's important to realize that much of the doctrines we (orthodox) hold to now were formulated and settled after Luther, namely as put together in the Book of Concords. Needless to say, the Book of Concords is not a replacement for the Bible, and Luther is not our eternal pope.

I will say this though - I don't think this idea of Luther putting his scissors to the Bible to suit his personal theology or bitter agenda is accurate. It's more a case that we don't put too much stock in any writings that has an obscure or uncertain origin. We are skeptic to any writings that challenges the apostles' writings. I don't see that as rejecting scripture, but more as safeguarding and containing the pure and original teachings of those closest to our Lord. We can trust these words and we know they are God-breathed.

However, it should be noted that most classical Lutheran theologians hold the church fathers in high esteem and use their writings pretty freely. Personally, I no problem learning from the early writings - I think there are great values that can be found in it. (Especially learning about heresies!) - though, of course, I view things in a particular Lutheran Orthodox way. That is to say, I'm critical to things like purgatory and the immaculate conception. Though as you point out, ironically, Luther somewhat held to - but you know - he was a good Augustinian Catholic

Anyway, I hear where you're coming from and I fundamentally believe in one holy church. As such, I think you're quite right that we ought to be living out our duties in the world by bearing good fruit and doing good in unity with one another.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm unfamiliar with any "official" Lutheran position on the Antilegomena, I'd guess that insofar as Lutherans are familiar with them that it is largely in the realm of academic interests; the Didache presents us with what is perhaps the oldest non-Canonical Christian text, and provides a number of very helpful statements in regard to both moral and liturgical practice.

As far as this individual Lutheran's personal opinion on the Didache: Not inspired, but definitely good to read; I think that there is a good deal of benefit to be found in reading the Didache and other such early--orthodox--Christian texts.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Daniel9v9]

I'm unfamiliar with any "official" Lutheran position on the Antilegomena, I'd guess that insofar as Lutherans are familiar with them that it is largely in the realm of academic interests; the Didache presents us with what is perhaps the oldest non-Canonical Christian text, and provides a number of very helpful statements in regard to both moral and liturgical practice.

As far as this individual Lutheran's personal opinion on the Didache: Not inspired, but definitely good to read; I think that there is a good deal of benefit to be found in reading the Didache and other such early--orthodox--Christian texts.

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you - that makes sense.

 

[FireDragon76]

Some of the language used in the Didache is used in some of the liturgical options in the ELCA. Specifically, one of the communion prayers relating to the Church. I noticed that recently.

That doesn't surprise me as the didache has one of the oldest recorded liturgies and it's inspired a lot of the modern liturgical movement.

Lutherans can and do pray for the departed. It just doesn't take the form that it does for Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxy (votive masses, molieben, etc.). The Lutheran attitude concerning praying for the dead is distinct from the Calvinist/Reformed and other Protestants.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

mike, post: 70423896, member: 392252"]I cant speak directly for Lutherans, but I can speak for Luther himself, who rejected anything outside the canon, therefore Luhter rejected the didache.

Considering the text of the Didache was lost until 1873, I don't think Luther had a chance to comment on it. I imagine that Melachthon would have had his scholastic nose buried in it

 

[Rion]

Why would you accept it as canon? It is an instruction manual for converts, not a doctrinal work or writing by an apostle.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Considering the text of the Didache was lost until 1873, I don't think Luther had a chance to comment on it. I imagine that Melachthon would have had his scholastic nose buried in it

Both were a long time with our Lord at that point.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Why would you accept it as canon? It is an instruction manual for converts, not a doctrinal work or writing by an apostle.

The only thing that precludes it from being canon is the indeterminate authorship; and it may well have been written by an apostle; we just don't know.

 

[Rion]

The only thing that precludes it from being canon is the indeterminate authorship; and it may well have been written by an apostle; we just don't know.

I doubt it was, since it is referred to as the teaching of the twelve. Most likely an apostle's pupil.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I doubt it was, since it is referred to as the teaching of the twelve. Most likely an apostle's pupil.

Regardless, we do not derive either doctrine, dogma nor praxis, but it does support all three.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Even the Eastern Orthodox do not put these books on the same level as the 66 books of the O & NTs

That would depend upon the book, really. I know of several who regard the contents of the entire Septuagint as protocanonical. The real test of importance tends to be whether or not something is in the Prophetologion.