Feb 17, 2008
Where Were the Lutherans Before Luther?
Categories: Lutheranism
Written By: Stiegemeyer
Pastor William Weedon has done some very nice research collecting quotations from church fathers supporting classic Lutheran positions. The Lutheran Reformers did not see themselves as innovators. We teach nothing new, but only what has been said before. Here is Pastor Weedon’s blog. Here is the same material presented with Pastor Weedon’s kind permission in a pdf format.
Thanks to Rev. Paul McCain for bringing this to our attention.
February 21st, 2008 at 2:52 pm
The same St. John Chrysostom who is quoted as if he were a Sola Scripturist also says:
[II Thess 2:15] “So then, brethren,
stand fast, and hold the traditions
which ye were taught, whether
by word, or by Epistle of ours.”
Hence it is manifest, that they did
not deliver all things by Epistle, but
many things also unwritten, and in
like manner both the one and the
other are worthy of credit. Therefore
let us think the tradition of the Church
also worthy of credit. It is a tradition,
seek no farther.
As for St. Gregory of Nyssa, I very much doubt Lutherans would want to interpret Scripture as he did, sometimes allegorizing the literal meaning away entirely!
St. Basil, also quoted, says the Lord is faithful in all His words; who wishes to disagree with that? He says to delete or add anything to Holy Write is unacceptable, and who would take exception to that? The sacred text of Holy Scripture (like that of the Creed) is to remain unaltered. We Orthodox emphatically agree. He quotes, “My sheep hear my voice,” and to this we uniformly assent.
St. Basil does *not* say that Voice is only reliably to be found in Holy Scripture. He does not say the *source* of doctrine or practice is the Holy Scripture alone. He does not say something is to be judged by Scripture alone. He does not say Scripture is self interpreting. In short, he does not advocate any form of sola Scriptura. If we read his works more comprehensively, this
becomes clear.
Nor can we legitimately assume that such words as “justify” and “justification” mean some for the Fathers, as they do to the Lutherans, or that “faith” for the Fathers did not include faith’s own works.
And so on.
In short, despite superficial appearances, that these Fathers were Lutherans is not actually supported by these highly selected quotes.
Anastasia Theodoridi’s last blog post..News Clip on Cedar Waxwings
March 12th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
What I’d encourage folks to do is to READ the fathers and see whether Anastasia or I am correct about what the fathers teach on these important matters. I’d say that they are anything BUT selective quotes, and just passages that I’ve collected from years of reading them. But no one should rely on either my say or Anastasia’s. READ them yourselves! Consider this list merely a “starting point.”
March 13th, 2008 at 12:22 am
I’ll second that encouragement. But read not assuming the fathers mean the same thing Lutherans do by the same words.
See if any fathers say, for instance, that Scripture is the source (much less sole source) of doctrine and practice, or that anything is to be judged by it alone. Or that Scripture is always and everywhere self-interpreting. See if that’s in there.
See if that is what they themelves did. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, for example, who urged his catechumens to check everything he said by Scripture, also taught them (Lecture III) all about chrismation (confirmation) with holy oil, which Lutherans, I think, don’t do and don’t find in Scripture. (St. Cyril quotes and alludes to Scripture copiously throughout.)
Read *about* these Fathers, too, who venerated relics and invoked saints in heaven and had (and/or themselves were) bishops and patriarchs.
It just won’t wash. The Fathers can’t fairly be called Lutherans.
Anastasia Theodoridi’s last blog post..Barbara Memories
March 17th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Anastasia,
Would you have the humility to consider that the words they use MIGHT not mean the same thing as modern Orthodox (especially in America) use them? Or is your de facto position that they must mean what the Orthodox of today teach that they mean, and anything they say to the contrary must be fit into that framework? That’s how it comes across, my friend, and it’s not terribly convincing.
An example. You would see us as reading penal substitution into these words of St. John Chrysostom’s homily on Hebrews 9:
“So then also here: The Son became Mediator between the Father and us. The Father willed not to leave us this inheritance, but was angry against us, and was displeased [with us] as being estranged [from Him]; He accordingly became Mediator between us and Him, and prevailed with Him.
And what then? How did He become Mediator? He brought words from [Him] and brought [them to us], conveying over what came from the Father to us, and adding His own death thereto. We had offended: we ought to have died: He died for us and made us worthy of the Testament.”
I think we would definitely see you (if you deny penal atonement here) just ignoring what the great Father actually was saying there.
March 17th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
First, William, the issue here is whether the Fathers mean what the say Lutherans they mean. Whether they mean what the Orthodox saythey mean is a separate issue. It’s one I’m willing to take on, although on my own blog, not to abuse the hospitality of this one.
Secondly, the issue is not humility v. pride, but truth v. falsehood. On that basis I’m willing to take on your challenge. Although I am not prepared to say no Father ever taught Pen-Sub, I am willing to say St. John Chrysostom did not, in this particular passage, and I believe I can make a good case for that assertion, too. Give me a day or so, as I have little time for the Internet just now; my semi-invalid husband, with his broken foot upon which he may not put any weight, is keeping us both hopping!
Anastasia Theodoridi’s last blog post..Happy St. Patrick’s Day!