Martin Luther on the Church Fathers:
"The fathers did not want to have anyone believe them if they did not adduce clear Scripture; and the papists do an injustice to the fathers by wanting people to observe all their statements. Nor are they thereby seeking the honor of the fathers, but their own tyranny, that they may lead us out of Scripture, obscure faith, hatch out their own ideas, and become our idols. We should note this rule well.
For thus says St. Augustine, lib. 3. Trin. in prologo: I want to have such readers for my books as I am when I read the books of others: free and unfettered. Again he says, Epist. 8. ad Hieronymum: I do not suppose that you want people to consider your books as books of the prophets and apostles, for I believe that only Holy Scripture does not err. When I read the other books, I do not believe anything to be true just because they have said so; I believe it only if they prove it with clear reasons or from Holy Scripture. Look! Note this well: Augustine wants Scripture in his own and all other books.
Likewise, when St. Jerome relates the opinion of many of his predecessors, he passes this judgment: This is, however, not grounded in Scripture; therefore it is spurned just as readily as it is accepted. Look! Let whoever he may be say what he pleases; if he does not produce proof from Scripture, then you should say: It is spurned just as readily as it is accepted.
St. Hilary says likewise, lib. 2. Trin.: He is the best teacher who does not bring his opinion into the Scripture but brings it out of the Scripture. Likewise at another place: It is not fair to teach anything beyond the limits set by Scripture. Whoever presumes to do so certainly does not understand what he is teaching; or those who hear him do not understand it."
Source: Luther's comments on Psalm 37:40 (W 8, 238 f—E 39, 134f—SL 5, 336 f) from Ewald Plass (ed.), What Luther Says Vol. 1 (St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959) 311.
Posts
9 comments:
Good one, Jim.
Yes, Rome puts too much of an emphasis on the Fathers and not enough on Scripture. I do agree with good ol' Brother Martin that they simply want the upper hand in determining truth, but ultimately it results in their truth. I really don't know why Catholics don't seem to get it.
When I read the Fathers, I approach them like I would any Christian writer today and throughout history. It starts with spiritual guidance so, first, I pray. I glean the good things and weigh the rest with Scripture. If I still have questions I weigh them within the writings of the Christian community throughout history--to gain their understanding and wisdom. And, if I still have questions, I get on my knees again and ask for clarity :-) Sometimes I get it, many times I don't, but I throw myself at His mercy. In the grand scheme of things, He is the One who really matters and leads to truth.
I can't remember where I read it, but I distinctly remember Augustine writing something to the extent of: if he did a good job to take it for what its worth, but if someone thinks he did some wrong then he is open to correction. Yet, the way you hear Catholics cite Augustine, you would think he spoke and acted out the infallible truth. Augustine, just like any other Father, was just a man, and his writings, just like any other, is subject to critique within the bounds of Holy Scripture.
Peace,
Ray
The RCs should read about how Calvin destroyed them in debate on the basis of patrisitcs...
___________________________________
Personally, I have found that the one area in which the Fathers have failed in is in the proper distinction between Law and Gospel.
___________________________________
Yep, all those giants of church history got it wrong, and you got it right.
anonymous said:
Yep, all those giants of church history got it wrong, and you got it right.
Yep, contrary to popular thought, even the "giants of church history" are just as capable of getting it wrong and Frank is just as capable of getting it right :-)
Peace,
Ray
___________________________________
It is all so basic and simple.
___________________________________
How is it then that we have many sincere, but very significant differences of opinion in Christendom? All that you posted above, in the final analysis, is the private, subjective opinion of Frank Marron.
I read on this blog where Ray (Churchmouse) called himself a Calvinist so I suspect that by reading the same simple Scripture he, using his private, subjective opinion, has come to a different concluision than you (I read where you called yourself a Lutheran).
Whose opinion do you suggest I accept as the correct one, yours or Ray's? I, as do all the other sincere followers of Christ, want to worship the Lord in truth, both subjectively, and objectively.
anonymous,
What if I were to tell you that, regardless of my acceptance of Calvinism and Frank's Lutheranism, I agree with every word, jot and tittle, that Frank posted above. What say ye?
The point of Frank's post isn't matters of opinion, but that of allowing Scripture to be your guide and testing all things, including the Fathers, within the confines of it. Either a man is saved by grace to faith ALONE or he isn't and if Church Fathers, or other men, contradict this plain simple truth, claiming that works are salvific or that we must add to salvation, he is wrong. Historically, there are many who are correct in their understanding of this truth, regardless of the tradition they serve under, or the nuances of their accepted soteriologies and theologies. It is grace through faith alone. This is the tie that bonds.
Peace,
Ray
Hi Frank,
I haven't forgotten about "The Proper Distinction Between Law & Gospel" by C.F.W. Walther. The more I hear you talk about it, the more I want to read it. Presently, due to time constraints, I haven't gotten through the first chapter of Bainton's book, which I received a few weeks ago, but I am intent on finishing this book and then focusing on Walther's book, but it does sounds like a must-read. I know that anonymous (who I believe is Peter???) would do well to think outside the box and "Prove all things, hold fast to the good"(1Th 5:21)
Peace,
Ray
Ray writes:
(who I believe is Peter???)
Me: If it turns out that I find myself participating more with the dialogue, then I will try to come out of my comfort zone and use my real name.
How is it then that we have many sincere, but very significant differences of opinion in Christendom? All that you posted above, in the final analysis, is the private, subjective opinion of Frank Marron.
Hi Annoymous-
Thanks for stopping by- Are you sure you want to proceed this way? I'm used to these type of philosophic riddles. I'm assuming you're Roman Catholic, and you're certain of your certainty, while we who are not Roman Catholic simply follow our own subjective opinions.
Just let me know if I've got it right, and then I will entertain your comments about certainty.
Post a Comment