A Church Without Patristics Becomes a Sect
“The great truths of the faith that the Holy Spirit led the church of Christ to recognized in the weighty doctrinal struggles of the early centuries, and which have been recognized by the orthodox church down through the ages as the true interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, do not cease to be truths because they have been abused, taken apart, or even denied. If there is one thing that especially Evangelical* theology in our time has to learn from Luther and the Confessions of the Reformation, it is that the ancient church must be taken seriously. The history of the church did not stand still, as many a young theologian today seems to think, from the death of the last apostle until Luther arrived on the scene. The decline of the knowledge and study of patristics among the present generation of theologians threatens to become a disaster for our theology unless it is turned around. A church without patristics becomes a sect.”
“I Believe in the Apostolic Church”
by Hermann Sasse
(Originally written in 1936)
* By “Evangelical theology”, Sasse means Lutheran theology.
Translated by M.A. Henderson from the text found in In Statu Confessionis, Lutherisches Verlagshaus, Berlin & Hamburg, 1966. The translation of Norman Nagel found in We Confess Jesus Christ (Concordia Publishing House, St Louis, 1986) was also consulted for purposes of comparison and accuracy. HT: What Sasse Said Blog
So very, very true.
I think “A church without patristics becomes a sect” is disingenuous coming from a Lutheran (or insert any Protestant group x here and the relevant x reformer when necessary) because “patristics” just mean “patristics as Luther accepted/interpreted them”. Any patristic thing that Luther disagreed with is likewise cast aside by modern day Lutherans (and then some). Or anything Patristic is read into with Luther tinted glasses. Or do you know of any patristic teaching that reformers rejected that Protestants accept today? I can’t think of any.
I believe that Jon makes a valid point. The Church (as opposed to a sect) is found where the Gospel is taught in truth and purity and the sacraments are administered according to Christ’s institution. The church fathers teach us nothing new. Where they agree with the Scriptures, we agree with them, but don’t need them to tell us what we already know from the Bible. And where the church fathers contradict the Scriptures, we find ourselves at odds with them, again because the Bible dictates what we believe. Referencing the fathers is only valuable when a doctrine is being challenged as being new and the fathers can be used to show that what we believe has always been believed (infant baptism, for example). But to add the fathers as another layer is dangerous. We subscribe to the Confessions because we have read them and are convinced they are in complete agreement with the Scriptures. The same cannot be said of the fathers.
I appreciate Sasse’ point, but Jon makes a good one as well. I would say that a church without properly understood patristics becomes a sect–whether Romanist, Lutheran, Reformed, Pietist, etc.
Jon —
Oh, pulleez.
I assume you’re RC, but if you’re not, have you ever spoken with an RC about patristic texts? To paraphrase: Any patristic thing that Roman catholic bishops disagree with is cast aside by modern day Roman Catholics (and then some). Or anything Pastristic is read into with bishop-tinted glasses.
The Roman Catholic catechism says “scripture, tradition, and magisterium.” But it’s not really. It’s “scripture as interpreted by the magisterium as interpreted by today’s bishops”, “tradition as interpreted by the magisterium as interpreted by today’s bishops”, and “magisterium as interpreted by today’s bishops.”
In short, it’s “magisterium, magisterium, magisterium.”
Jim-
I can readily admit that interpretation of the Fathers will always follow denominational lines and each group believes they interpret them best.
However, my other point still stands, that Protestants aren’t genuinely patristic beyond what their respective Reformer was (and usually less so [for example, the perpetual virginity of Mary). Veneration of saints is a clear example. You can disagree with the practice and declare it extra-biblical, but you can’t deny that it was the patristic consensus. So my point is, what does “a church without patristics becomes a sect” mean? Who is he pointing his finger at when he himself rejects the patristics Luther tells him to (or as he agrees the Bible as interpreted by Luther tells him to).
“the ancient church must be taken seriously” but if large chunks of it are rejected by the author himself, what exactly does it mean to take them “seriously”. What’s the difference between taking them seriously and deciding for yourself what you believe (Sasse) and ignoring them and deciding for yourself what you believe? You can say Catholics do the same thing, which is fine, but my question still remains because Sasse is the one who said it.
I pretty much agree with Jon …
Briefly, Lutherans approach the Fathers of the Church eisegetically, whereas Catholics approach them exegetically.
Except, of course, where Rome dogmatizes what are merely/only late Patristic speculative opinions, and invents dogma ex nihilo when it comes to the infallibility of the Pope, which is the cornerstone of Romanism.
Another way of expressing my previous post would be to say that Lutherans approach the Fathers with preconceived conceptual structures, whereas a catholic approach will allow those conceptual structures to emerge from the totality of patristic thought.
Thanks for your response, Paul, but … very respectfully … I think it merely illustrates the sort of problems at which I only hinted in my previous posts.
Maybe CPH could publish an abridged English-language version of Gerhard’s Confessio Catholica? (I acknowledge that in its full form nobody would buy or read it outside of a small handful of academics). It would be helpful in addressing issues like this.
Bethany Kilcrease
The RC party line. Whatever.
Thanks, Paul, but your response merely illustrates problems at which I only hinted with my previous posts.
James, I have permitted you to comment on my blog, but if you are only interested in making assertions, not in engaging in actual discussion, there is no point in your continuing to post comments. We both know, at least I think we do, that the notions of Papal-infallibility are nowhere to be found in the Early Church Fathers, the office of the papacy itself is only but barely hinted at in most of the EC Fathers. I think you have some explaining to do if you really are seriously intent on trying to make the case that it is Romanism that is the best reflection of the theology of the Early Church fathers.
The primary reason I am Lutheran is because the Evangelical Lutheran Church is entirely Christocentric, it “rightly divides the Word of truth,” and faithfully administers the Sacraments according to Christ’s Word and Institution.
The Church Fathers, in my mind, are the continuity between Jesus’ Church 2,000 years ago and today’s Church (and there was that Reformation in between, by the way). The external teaching and preaching of the Gospel has continued from that time, and that’s what has preserved God’s elect through the centuries.
I for one feel very sorry for my Baptist and non-denominational brethren who have no historic confession or sense of their Church’s history.
Given what is being said, and cognisant that this discussion will not lead to Rome, why is the Orthodox perspective usually treated as if it does not exist? It is at least as old as is the Latin perspective, has the advantage of dealing with Scripture as being its Mother-tongue, and has always understood what Luther and other Reformers only figured out in the 16th Century?
To be honest, and I am new to Lutheran World, but it has always bothered me that Lutherans seem to treat Martin Luther as if he was the 14th Apostle, and everything he said came straight from the mouth of God, too. While I am grateful for his recognition of the power of the grace fo God, last time I checked, for example, it wasn’t Lutherans, but Baptists, who pushed the U.S. to remove the evils of Jim Crow from the social landscape.
There is no perfect group of Christians this side of the 2nd Coming, we ALL “know in part,” including the followers of Luther. Fortunately, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is completed in weakness.”
@James B. Bittner
I don’t think this is the way that the church fathers critiqued their peers. I daresay that the errors of Pelagius and Nestorius were approached with a preconieved conceptual structure. That is the point Sasse is making. To know the patristics is to know that there are no new heresies under the sun, it is to learn from history so that you do not repeat the anti-trinitarian errors of a millenia ago.
@Delwyn X. Campbell
We Lutherans certainly don’t put Luther at or above the level of Holy Scripture. I would recommend you search this blog for the post, “Concerning the Name Lutheran” (I believe it was).
Sorry for stirring up the pot, I should try to comment constructively instead of just poking around for trouble just because it’s easy. I generally don’t mind when Protestants say Protestant things except when they start making patristic claims, I’ll have to get over that. Pastor McCain, you can feel free not to publish any further comments from this e-mail address. Although I will say, I appreciate Delwyn’s comment about Orthodoxy because I am Orthodox (not Catholic like Jim suggested).