Wisdom from Krauth's *Conservative Reformation* - the entire section worthy of being read, studied, and pondered. I produce it here because "private judgment" is a key to understanding how one becomes a Lutheran in fact and in deed, and not merely in name. The person who would be a Lutheran is the one who has studied and read prayerfully the Sacred Scriptures; who has studied and read prayerfully the Augsburg Confession; who through the exercise of his private judgment confesses that these two agree with one another, that they say the same thing. When people are inquiring into the Lutheran Church, this is how we should encourage them to prayerfully and sincerely engage the Scriptures and the Augsburg Confession or the Small Catechism:
"In freely and heartily accepting the faith of our Church, as our own faith, and her Scriptural Confession of that faith, as our own Confession, we do not surrender for ourselves, any more than we take from others, the sacred and inalienable right of private judgment. It is not by giving up the right of private judgment, but by the prayerful exercise of it, not by relinquishing just investigation, but by thoroughly employing it, that we have reached that faith which we glory in confessing." (169)
"As the individual, in exercising the right of private judgment, is in peril of abusing it, the Church has the right and is bound by the duty, of self-defence against that abuse. The right of private judgment is not the right of Church-membership, not the right of public teaching, not the right of putting others into an equivocal attitude to what they regard as truth." (170)
"When we confess, that, in the exercise of our private judgment, our Bible has made us Lutherans, we neither pretend to claim that other men shall be made Lutherans by force, nor that their private judgment shall, or will, of necessity reach the same results as ours. We only contend, that, if their private judgment of the Bible does not make them Lutherans, they shall not pretend that it does. We do not say, that any man shall believe that the Confession of our Church is Scriptural. We only contend, that he should neither say nor seem to say so, if he does not believe it." (171)
"We concede to every man the absolute right of private judgment as to the faith of the Lutheran Church, but if he have abandoned the faith of that Church, he may not use her name as his shelter in attacking the thing she cherishes, and in maintaining which she obtained her being and her name." (172)
"It is the doctrine of the Reformation, not that there should be no checks upon the abuse of private judgment, but that those checks should be moral alone. The Romanists and the un-Lutheran elements in the Reformation were agreed, that the truth must be maintained and heresy extirpated by the sword of government. Error is in affinity with the spirit of persecution." (173)
"It is not the right of private judgment which makes or marks a man Lutheran. A man may have the right to judge, and yet be simpleton, as he may have the right to get rich, yet may remain a beggar. It is the judgment he reaches in exercising that right which determines what he is." (175)
"The right of private judgment and the right of Church discipline are co-ordinate and harmonious rights, essential to the prevention, each of the abuse of the other." (175)
"The faith of the Church, drawn from the rule by the just exercise of private judgment, illumined by the Holy Ghost, has been tested and developed in three ways: First, by science; next, by history; and thirdly, in the practical life of the Church." (175, 176)
"But the object of the Creed is not to find out what God teaches, (we go to the Bible for that,) but to show what we believe." (184)
"The Bible is the rule of faith, but not the confession of it; the Creed is not the rule of faith, but is the confession of it. A Lutheran is a Christian whose rule of faith is the Bible, and whose creed is the Augsburg Confession." (185)
25 comments:
Brilliant! Especially that final paragraph.
Tom Fast
"It is the doctrine of the Reformation, not that there should be no checks upon the abuse of private judgment, but that those checks should be moral alone. The Romanists and the un-Lutheran elements in the Reformation were agreed, that the truth must be maintained and heresy extirpated by the sword of government."
I am open to argument on this point, but I wonder if this affirmation is more consistent with 19th Century notions of Americanism than it is with the Lutheran Confessions.
Passages in the Confessions seem to suggest that the civil government does have authority over some spiritual matters.
First, from "Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope," 54:
“Especially does it behoove the chief members of the church, the kings and the princes, to have regard for the interests of the church and to see to it that errors are removed and consciences are healed. God expressly exhorts kings, ‘Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth’ (Ps. 2:10). For the first care of kings should be to advance the Glory of God. Wherefore it would be most shameful for them to use their authority and power for the support of idolatry and countless other crimes and for the murder of the saints."
Secondly, from the Apology XXI.44:
“Emperor Charles . . . It is your special responsibility before God to maintain and propagate sound doctrine and to defend those who teach it. God demands this when he honors kings with his own name and calls them gods (Ps. 82:6), ‘I say, “you are gods.”’ They should take care to maintain and propagate divine things on earth, that is, the Gospel of Christ, and as vicars of God they should defend the life and safety of the innocent."
Finally, in the preface to the Small Catechism, Luther notes that "banishment" by the magistrate is one presponse to an individual who stubornly refuses pastoral instruction from the catehcism. Luther points to a civil-dimension to a common confession so, strictly speaking, it's not compeling anyone to believe. The interest comes in good order, but good order is connected with outwardly receiving pastoral instruction from the catehism:
“If any refuse your [i.e., pastors and preachers] instructions [from the catechism], tell them that they deny Christ and are no Christians. . . . In addition, parents and employers . . . should notify them that the prince is disposed to banish such rude people from his land.
“Although we cannot and should not compel anyone to believe, we should nevertheless insist that the people learn to know how to distinguish between right and wrong according to the standards of those among whom they live and make their living. For anyone who desires to reside in a city is bound to know and observe the laws under whose protection he lives, no matter whether he is a believer or, at heart, a scoundrel or knave."
And also recall the many confessional passages regarding the “first use of the law” do not seem to limit civil authority to the second table of the law. It seems to me that the only limitations in those passages is the practical limitation of whether the sin involves an observable action or not (since the civil government can only act on what it can see). So matters of the first table of the law would come within the scope of the civil government, as well as sins against oneself, or that involve only consensual behavior.
I have difficulty understanding Krauth's sweeping generalization about Lutheranism and "private judgment" as consistent with those passages in the Confession.
FWIW.
Jim,
As I understand him, the thing that Krauth is saying there is that Lutherans did not advocate using the power of the sword to MAKE Lutherans. He cites Luther: "The pen, not the fire, is to put down heretics. The hangmen are not doctors of theology. This is not the place for force. Not the sword, but the Word, fits for this battle. If the Word does not put down error, error would stand, though all the world were drenched with blood."
Certainly Lutherans used banishment from their territories, but they would not countenance the use of torture or death in order to force any person to make a Lutheran confession of the faith. They certainly did believe that the government (the prince) had a duty to uphold and protect the Church within those limits.
"Certainly Lutherans used banishment from their territories, but they would not countenance the use of torture or death in order to force any person to make a Lutheran confession of the faith."
It was a provision of the Religious Peace of Augsburg in 1555that neither Catholics nor Lutherans could persecute-to-death each other. This only applied to Catholics and Lutherans, though, and both Catholics and Lutherans continuied to execute Anabaptists and other Radicals in their territories whenever the desire to do so took them. Charles V, moreover, only allowed his brother Ferdinand to ratify the 1555 settlement on his behalf so long as the Burgundian lands over which he ruled directly were exempt from this provision, and he and his son Philip II continued to execute Anabaptists, Calvinists and Lutherans alike for heresy down to the 1590s.
As to the Reformed, they tried to shelter under the Lutheran "unbrella" by adhereing to the 1540 "altered" version of the Augsburg Confession. Catholics generally "winked" at this, so as to divide the Protestants and promote further division among them. For decades, Lutheran princes discussed taking military action against territories (such as the Palatinate) that went from Lutheran to Reformed, but this would require permission, or at least acquiescence, on the part of the Habsburg emperors, and this they never got (in the case of the Palatinate, which went from Catholic to Reformed in 1560, then back and forth between Reformed and Lutheran till about 1576, when it became Reformed for good, because the Emperor insisted that it would have to become Catholic if the Calvinist Elector were removed).
Outside Germany, Scandinavian Lutheran rulers did occasionally execute dissidents. Two or three Norwegian farmers were burnt at the state in Hamar in 1555 for the "heresy" of declaring that invocation of the Virgin Mary was an obligatory Catholic practice, and in Sweden after 1598 and on occasion in the Danish realm, anyone who expressed Catholic views and refused to go into exile, or who returned from exile without permission, were subject to execution, as were any Swedes who were ordained abroad to the Catholic priesthood and subsequently returned to Sweden.
On another thread, Chris Jones suggested that it was the responsibility of "the congregation" to discern truth from falsehood as regards doctrine; but Krauth seems to prefer "private judgment." These do not seem to be the same thing, and neither of them appear to have much support in the Fathers (East or West) or the Patristic Church (East or West). Is this an area in which the Church languished in darkness until the 16th or even the 19th century?
Dr. Tighe,
Thank you for the additional information. Do you think Krauth's assessment, though, is correct as regards Lutherans as a whole?
Also, were the Anabaptists executed in Lutheran lands for their religious views per se, or because they were regarded as treasonous to the government because of the positions they took toward the civil realm? That is what I was taught in seminary, in any case; though in those days (as in all days) it can be difficult to sort out political from religious motive.
Dr. Tighe,
St. Cyril of Jerusalem urged his catechumens:
"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures."
How is this not an urging to use private judgment?
Or better than St. Cyril, when the Apostle Paul urged the Christians of Thessalonika:
"Test all things; hold fast to what is good."
How is this not an urging to use private judgment?
Or again, St. Gregory of Nyssa, when he wrote:
"Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words."
The passive "are found to agree" sounds to me as though he were inviting his hearers to judge whether or not the teaching he was presenting accorded with the Divine Words of the inspired Scripture.
Oh, on the congregation and the role of judgment, that's the role of discipline which Krauth discussed earnestly: it is the task of the congregation (pastors and people) to guard from corruption the confession of the faith that they have espoused together. Hence the so common name of our Churches: "of the unaltered Augsburg Confession."
And sort of tied in with that - my favorite quote from Loehe (sadly, no longer applicable to our churches, I honestly confess):
Lutheran churches are so unconcerned about numbers that we look around and ask: "Who doesn't belong here?"
He meant, of course, who doesn't hold to the Confession of the Rule of Faith that this congregation confesses.
If Krauth is right, then I guess I am not a Lutheran, but only a person who happens to be a member of a congregation which calls itself Lutheran.
Krauth's model seems to be that a person should examine the Scriptures alongside the Lutheran Confessions, exercise "private judgement" to discern whether or not they teach the same thing, and only then cleave to the Church which teaches according to the Confessions. But then his membership in the Church is ultimately dependent on his own private judgement. Krauth concedes that such judgement should be "illumined by the Holy Spirit," but how is the gift of the Holy Spirit to be obtained but through the Church's ministry of Word and Sacrament, through which alone the Holy Spirit is given (AC V)?
So to cleave to the Lutheran Church we must exercise private judgement; and to exercise private judgement rightly we must have the Holy Spirit; and to receive the Holy Spirit we must receive Him through the public ministry of the Church; but apart from private judgement we cannot be in the Church. It is circular.
Krauth is wrong on two key points: there can be absolutely no private judgement in the apprehension of Christian truth; and the Bible cannot be (in the sense that he means it) the rule of faith. There can be no private judgement because it is given to the Church to be the proclaimer and the guardian of the Word of God (the pillar and the bulwark of the truth). He who would receive the Word of God must apply to the Apostolic Church and receive that Word through her kerygma and her covenanted mysteries. It is not otherwise available. It is certainly not available through the private study of the Bible apart from the Church.
The Bible is not the rule of faith because the true rule of faith, as St Irenaeus of Lyons so eloquently testifies, is that canon of truth by which alone we can read and understand the Scriptures rightly. It is the hypothesis of the Scriptures, the unifying principle that makes of the diverse Scriptures a single whole, the verbal icon of the only-begotten and immortal Word of God.
Apart from that canon of truth, given to us in and by the Church ("given in baptism" as St Irenaeus says), we cannot see the image of Christ and His resurrection in the Scriptures.
In short, the Bible is not that which enables the individual, by private judgement, to come into the Church; is is that which the Church uses to proclaim and impart the Gospel which she already knows, her canon of truth, to the world.
Dear Christopher,
I think you are making it more difficult than it is. You DID by an act of private judgment enter the Lutheran Church; you recognized in her Confession the truth that you had come to know through the Scripture (albeit through the Church's proclamation of the scripture). But picture, if you will, the person who comes to faith through reading the Bible in prison. Would you deny them their place in the Church? No, of course not. The Spirit at work through the Scripture, interpreting the Old by the New Testament, opened their eyes to behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Even though not joined to the Church through Baptism and Eucharist, yet they are truly joined to the Church by the Spirit's working of faith in their heart through the Word. Truthfully, this is the way that much of the Lutheran Church was sustained in the former Soviet Union through the worst days of persecution. Her pastors were killed or exiled. But the Word remained - often hidden Bibles that were treasured and read and shared - and the Word sustained the people in faith. In our zeal not to be like the fundamentalists, let us not denigrate the power of the God's holy Word to bring to faith and to sustain in faith. It is the NT that St. Irenaeus is willing to credit as the pillar and ground of the truth, recall, for it shows us the correct reading of the OT: its constant witness to Him who is the Forgiveness of sins and the Destruction of death!
And though it is by an exercise of private judgment that a person assents to this, we as Lutherans confess that such a private judgment as truly assents to the Divine Scriptures is the working of the Spirit and not merely "by my own reason or strength" for we do not arrive at faith in any other way.
Pax!
P.S. And when a person is brought to faith through the Scriptures, it is of course the WORK OF THE CHURCH that preserved and handed on those Scriptures! Thus, anyway you slice it, "she is the mother who bears us all through the Gospel" as the LC says.
such a private judgment as truly assents to the Divine Scriptures is the working of the Spirit
Then it's not really very "private," is it? If it is the work of the Spirit, given through the ministry of Word and Sacrament, then it is precisely an ecclesial, not a private, judgement. You cannot have it both ways.
What Krauth says is really a denial of AC V. Because if the individual is to judge the teaching of the Church by his own reading of the Scripture, guided by the Holy Spirit prior to that individual's acceptance of the Church, then he is relying on the gift of the Holy Spirit apart from the public ministry of the Church (to which, remember, he has not yet joined himself, because he is still weighing her teaching and authority in the scales of his "private judgment").
But the gift of the Holy Spirit to individuals apart from the public ministry of the Church is precisely what AC V condemns: They condemn the Anabaptists and others who think that the Holy Ghost comes to men without the external Word [i.e. the public ministry of the Church], through their own preparations and works -- for what is private interpretation of the Scriptures, but "our own preparations and works"?
You DID by an act of private judgment enter the Lutheran Church ...
Perhaps so; but if I did so because the Lutheran Church met my doctrinal standards then it is nothing to be proud of.
... the truth that you had come to know through the Scripture ...
This phrasing is not in my vocabulary. In its place is the phrase the tradition that I received.
What Krauth says is absolutely NO denial of AC V at all! It is the recognition that to embrace any confession, that confession is to be tested against the Word of God. All the confessors at Augsburg understood that and that was the boast they made: nothing here contrary to the Scripture or the fathers or even the Roman Church as known from its ancient writers. They were urging everyone to TEST it out and see.
I think you confuse, perhaps, private judgment with private interpretation. I'd argue that the two are different beasts. A private judgment is simply the nature of all judgment, it ends up being made in the conscience. It can be in error, of course; Krauth says no differently. It IS in error when it decides against the witness of Scripture.
No one spoke of the gift of the Spirit apart from the ministry of the Word, though. Just done confine the "ministry of the Word" simply to the Office of the Holy Ministry, for the word has an active ministry in whose ever lips it is spoken and through it, the Spirit ever seeks to bring to faith. AC V is addressing itself primarily to the responsible public administration, but it is not at all denying the power of the Word through the Holy Spirit to bring to faith when spoken by those in the order of the laity also.
What befuddles me about this discussion is that it is clearly by an act of private judgment that one embraces ANY confession (including moving from one confession to another). One decides: "That was wrong; this is right. That was false; this is true." The basis on which makes the decision may indeed vary, but the decision itself is one that EVERYONE who either converts or who embraces what was handed on to him from youth does make. The Lutheran claim is that the faith as we confess it is wholly consonant with the Sacred Scriptures, and we invite anyone and everyone to prayerfully read the Scriptures, to prayerfully consider our Confession of them, and to judge whether or not they are stating the same faith: the faith in Christ as the Lamb of God who has taken away the sins of the world and who has died and risen to give us a share in the unending life of the Blessed Trinity.
One decides: "That was wrong; this is right. That was false; this is true."
What, then, is the difference between this and what confessional Lutherans rail against under the name of "decision theology"? What becomes of the vaunted "Lutheran monergism" in justification?
The picture that you (following Krauth) are painting is that of an individual making a commitment to Lutheran orthodoxy on the basis of individual intellectual effort (illumined, as you claim, by the Holy Spirit; but the Holy Spirit in this scenario comes by uncovenanted grace, not by the objective means of Word and Sacrament).
I do not doubt, nor would I ever try to deny, that there is a personal element to one's embrace of a particular confession. But while it may be personal, it is never private. Or if it is private, it cannot be orthodox, because in an orthodox anthropology and ecclesiology, an authentic person can exist only in community, that is, ecclesially.
Chris,
The difference between this and decision theology is quite profound; for Krauth is dealing with judgment regarding the fides quae creditur (the faith that is believed) and not addressing here the fides qua creditur (the faith that believes).
If you prefer "personal judgment" to "private judgment" that's fine. You'd still arrive, I believe, at the same indisputable fact that every one of us has exercised our own judgment to determine that what we have received IS or IS NOT the "faith once delivered to the saints."
The old Lutheran practice of confirmation was precisely intended to strengthen (firmungen) this judgment - that one, having searched and studied the Scriptures, can confess that the faith as one has learned it from the Small Catechism is indeed "faithful and true to the Word of God" and receive the benefit of the Church's prayer and the laying on of hands with it that one remains firm and constant in such faith until death.
P.S. What is the weight to you of our Lord saying: "Judge for yourselves what is right" in Luke 12 or His Apostle in 1 Cor. 10 and 11 inviting his hearers to "judge for yourselves"?
Pr Weedon—
you wrote:
“St. Cyril of Jerusalem urged his catechumens:
"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures."
How is this not an urging to use private judgment?”
Do you think that in this quote, Cyril is denying the divine authority of hierarchs? Or that he would be okay if we hold something contrary to the inherited oral tradition of biblical interpretation that the Church keeps, based on our own ideas about how to interpret the Scriptures? Or that the interpretation of the Bible that is presented by the Ecumenical Councils does not bind our consciences, based on the fact that it is a manifestation of the chrism of truth given to the Apostles' successors? Or that the Church doesn't set the canon?
Unless you think Cyril would deny *all* of this, then you can't say he believes in private judgment. Whatever this quote means, it can't contradict his other beliefs, right?
Notice that he says people should not give him “absolute credence”. But one can deny the theory of private judgment and still think that we are not obligated to give absolute credence to what some particular hierarch says. Authority can come in degrees, and some degrees of authority may not be sufficient to completely bind someone's conscience.
Also, notice that he doesn't say that the judgment of the Church as a whole is not infallible. He is just talking about himself as a particular heirarch. But that doesn't mean he would deny that the Church as a whole is infallible.
Consider these quotes:
"But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures....Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your heart."
“[The Church] is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly… for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church;' that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated.”
"Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testaments, and what those of the New."
Doesn't this seem to be an endorsement of the inherent authority of the Church?
You wrote:
“Or better than St. Cyril, when the Apostle Paul urged the Christians of Thessalonika:
"Test all things; hold fast to what is good."
How is this not an urging to use private judgment?”
What standard is he asking them to test things by?
You wrote:
“Or again, St. Gregory of Nyssa, when he wrote:
"Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words."
The passive "are found to agree" sounds to me as though he were inviting his hearers to judge whether or not the teaching he was presenting accorded with the Divine Words of the inspired Scripture.”
Again, do you think Gregory would deny the divine authority of hierarchs? Or that he would be okay if we hold something contrary to the inherited oral tradition of biblical interpretation that the Church keeps, based on our own ideas about how to interpret the Scriptures? Or that the interpretation of the Bible that is presented by the Ecumenical Councils does not bind our consciences, based on the fact that it is a manifestation of the chrism of truth given to the Apostles' successors? Or that the Church doesn't set the canon?
Unless you think Gregory would deny *all* of this, then you can't say he believes in private judgment. Whatever this quote means, it can't contradict Gregory's other beliefs, right?
It seems to me this quote is easy to interpret as teaching private judgment if read out of context. But lets take a look at what he says. St. Gregory is opposing people he keeps referring to as “they”. “They” are not members of the Church. They are “our enemies”—Trinitarian heretics:
“Now they charge us with innovation, and frame their complaint against us in this way:—They allege that while we confess three Persons we say that there is one goodness, and one power, and one Godhead. And in this assertion they do not go beyond the truth; for we do say so. But the ground of their complaint is that their custom does not admit this, and Scripture does not support it. What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”
St. Gregory of Nyssa, On The Holy Trinity http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.viii.iv.html
When we read the section as a whole, we see that the reason he only tries to appeal to Scripture is because he is abiding by the rules of persuasion. You don't appeal to authorities your audience is unwilling to accept if you are trying to persuade them of something. The heretics wouldn't accept the councils' rulings on their teachings, so of course Gregory wouldn't want to let councils be the umpire. This would be an illegitimate appeal to authority. Instead he makes an appeal to authority that is legitimate: he appeals to an authority that is recognized *in common*. This is Scripture—something that these heretics about the Holy Trinity would actually accept. So because they will accept Scriptural proof, he appeals to inspired Scripture to be our umpire to judge the dogmas of heretics.
But notice that he thinks that both he and the heretics have dogmas. They both have teachings distinct from Scripture that they consider to be authoritative. Because Gregory submits to the authority of the Catholic Church, he considers the dogmas of the Church to be dogmas. In fact, he thinks that both he and his opponents would try to say that their customs are the kinds of laws or rules that can bind those who are members of their respective communions.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.viii.iv.html
Also, consider this quote:
“[S]eeing, I say, that the Church teaches this in plain language, that the Only-begotten is essentially God, very God of the essence of the very God, how ought one who opposes her decisions to overthrow the preconceived opinion... And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning: for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our Fathers, handled on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them.”
That sounds like a denial of private judgment to me. It sure seems like the tradition (=right interpretation of Scripture) that has been handed down is inherently authoritative.
For some background on the concepts of private judgment and inherent authority, I would direct anyone reading to the following locations. These will help clarify the discussion:
http://weedon.blogspot.com/2009/01/it-strikes-me.html
Look for the following series of comments that starts with:
Pr Weedon—
you wrote:
Dear MG,
“Your last point
Also, I wrote a post awhile back the distinction between authority and accuracy and how it relates to the teachings of the Church and Scriptures:
http://wellofquestions.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/accuracy-authority-and-the-visibility-of-the-church/
Also, Pr Weedon--
Would it be okay for me to publish my responses to you (including quotes) on my own blog? I would appreciate this very much.
MG,
First, please limit your reponses to one at a time - there is no way that I will be able to deal with the "shotgun" you've recently lobbed at this blog. As to citing from the discussion here, I do not give permission to reproduce my words, but you may refer readers to this blog for my words. The reason is that I do not want my words used out of context and especially not for any Orthodox apologetics.
Now, to try to deal with SOME of what you wrote:
In the quote from St. Cyril, he is affirming that nothing is to be taught in the Church which is not grounded in the Sacred Scriptures; with this, the whole range of fathers concurs. Yes, even St. Basil, despite the famous quote that sounds otherwise from *On the Holy Spirit.* That quote needs to be set in the context of his other writings, and he is simply adamant on grounding dogma in the Sacred Scriptures. Consider how he he could also write:
“What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.” Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).
Also note that you injected the word "interpretation." St. Cyril didn't speak of interpretation. He spoke of the proofs from the Word. He believed that he could show every point of doctrine from the Sacred Scriptures and proceeded to do so, though he warned his catechumens not to give absolute credence to any utterance just because he said it. Why do you object to holding the Church to the standard of God's Word, to which the fathers had no objection whatsoever of holding it?
St. Gregory does not posit that his dogma is something distinct from Scripture, but that his dogma is simply the teaching OF the Scripture and by bringing his teaching and theirs to the bar of Scripture, SCRIPTURE ITSELF will act as the umpire; it will decide. He SEES the Word as indeed living and active and judging!
On the matter of the authority of the fathers, understand that for a Lutheran their authority is that of witness. If I may cite from the Formula of Concord, one of the Lutheran Symbols:
1] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.
2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.
3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.
4] 3. As to the schisms in matters of faith, however, which have occurred in our time, we regard as the unanimous consensus and declaration of our Christian faith and confession, especially against the Papacy and its false worship, idolatry, superstition, and against other sects, as the symbol of our time, the First, Unaltered Augsburg Confession, delivered to the Emperor Charles V at Augsburg in the year 1530, in the great Diet, together with its Apology, and the Articles composed at Smalcald in the year 1537, and subscribed at that time by the chief theologians.
5] And because such matters concern also the laity and the salvation of their souls, we also confess the Small and Large Catechisms of Dr. Luther, as they are included in Luther's works, as the Bible of the laity, wherein everything is comprised which is treated at greater length in Holy Scripture, and is necessary for a Christian man to know for his salvation.
6] To this direction, as above announced, all doctrines are to be conformed, and what is, contrary thereto is to be rejected and condemned, as opposed to the unanimous declaration of our faith.
7] In this way the distinction between the Holy Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament and all other writings is preserved, and the Holy Scriptures alone remain the only judge, rule, and standard, according to which, as the only test-stone, all dogmas shall and must be discerned and judged, as to whether they are good or evil, right or wrong.
8] But the other symbols and writings cited are not judges, as are the Holy Scriptures, but only a testimony and declaration of the faith, as to how at any time the Holy Scriptures have been understood and explained in the articles in controversy in the Church of God by those then living, and how the opposite dogma was rejected and condemned [by what arguments the dogmas conflicting with the Holy Scripture were rejected and condemned].
Post a Comment