I see your point. So, looking at it in hindsight, now in the present, how does a Reformed Christian or a Protestant justify following the Reformers when the Reformers either: 1) worked to get back to the original Christianityā¦yet left out many of the original Doctrines OR 2) changed Doctrine?
Well, I myself could not justify becoming a confessional Protestant (Lutheran/Reformed, or for that matter low-church Anglican) or remaining a radical free-church Protestant, precisely for these reasons.
I could suggest some ways in which people do so, but I should probably let them speak for themselves.
I remain a sort-of Protestant because I believe that for all its flaws, Protestantism remains a true expression of Christianity. Hence I belong to the most āCatholicā form of Protestantism I can find (Anglicanism) and use that platform to speak to other Protestants about the need to rethink the Reformation and recover the many aspects pf the Tradition that they have abandoned.
Iām not going to get into a debate about whether this is a legitimate approach, mostly because Iām far from easy in my own conscience about it.
So, how does one explain that the Fathers were a reliable interpreter of āthat original deposit primarily with the content of Scriptureā when there was no established Canon until the 4th century, and in the times of some of the ECFās writings, the Gospels had yet to be completely recorded?
Well, that last is only even
possibly true for a couple of very early texts, at least one of which (the Didache) wasnāt even available in the Reformation era. So itās not a serious consideration. By and large, the NT documents are the earliest Christian texts we have.
You start to see an NT canon in II Peter, which of course the Reformers believed to be by St. Peter and very early. You have a four-Gospel canon in Irenaeus and clear acceptance of the Gospels earlier than that. Second-century Christians certainly did have a canon, at least by the end of the centuryāthe fact that there was still debate about a few books is not very important as far as I can see.
However, I think there is something to this argument, in the sense that the affirmations of the material sufficiency and supremacy of Scripture on which Protestants have always put a lot of weight mostly occur from the fourth century on. In the second century the case is a bit different, which is that the content of the ātraditionā of which Irenaeus and others speak so much is clearly the content of Scripture. I think Protestants overstate this, but by and large the statements of the āRule of Faithā from this era do correspond to things actually described in Scripture.
Formally, though, I think many modern scholars are increasingly of the mind that second-century Christians really did see the Rule of Faith, handed down by tradition, as primary and were not as concerned with canon as Protestants would be, or as Protestants have tended to assume the early Christians were.
But this is taking a while to ātrickle down.ā Many educated Protestants are still relying heavily on the kind of interpretation of Irenaeus that you find in Heiko Obermanās āQuo Vadis, Petre,ā which has been popularized in Keith Mathisonās
The Shape of Sola Scriptura.
And why did the Reformers rely on teh ECFās for SOME of their interpretations, while rejecting others (like the Papacy and the Sacraments)?
Thatās untrue. Protestants, like the Orthodox, point to patristic interpretations of Matt. 16 as referring to Peterās faith, or to the apostles in general.
And the Reformed rested very heavily on Augustine in their formulation of a doctrine of Christās spiritual presence in the Eucharist and their rejection of the āmanducatio infideliumā (i.e., their insistence that only believers eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ). Indeed, if Gary Macy is right the manducatio infidelium only became common Catholic teaching in the later 13th century.
But today, we in the present see that they were actually wrong on some major pointsā¦according to the ECFāsā¦such as on the Papacy.
Thatās one of the
less clear points, I think. (Not that thereās no case, but itās not an open-and-shut case, whatever you and others influenced by Catholic apologetics may wish to believe.) Itās much easier to make a case on other points, principally sola fide but also the general approach to such issues as tradition, apostolic succession, and the communion of the saints.
ātheyā = the teachings of the ECFās. Just because a teaching does not fit easily does not make it untrue. Protestants could account for divergences by, essentially dismissing the teaching, stating that the Fathers were just fallible.
They did do this when necessary. Lutherans actually were much more willing to do it (early on, in the time of Luther and Melanchthon themselves) than the Reformed. But naturally they didnāt want to do it if they didnāt have to.
If the Reformers could dismiss what they wanted under the basis of the Fathers being fallible, what made them so sure THEY (the Reformers) were not wrong?
Some Reformers were OK with the idea that they were as fallible as the Fathers. Luther himself seems to have been convinced that he had a direct line to God in some way and that the Fathers, for all their virtues, were relatively confused about the Gospel. Calvin theoretically acknowledged that he could be wrong, but also, in practice, acted as if he were infallible. I think that itās significant that these are the two guys Protestants are most likely to follow from the Reformation era. In my opinion most Protestants donāt face the implications of this seriously enough. I heard an astounding paper last fall at the Sixteenth Century Studies conference (I donāt know the presenterās church affiliation but he certainly wasnāt CatholicāI think he is either Anglican or Presbyterian, but Iām not sure). The presenter argued that Calvin effectively put his own teachings āabove Scripture,ā and then was surprised that this generated some shock and pushback from the largely Reformed (though not the ultra-conservative Reformed folks on this forum are used to tangling with) audience. The commentator on the paper was a very gracious and learned Swiss Reformed scholar from Geneva (actually he may be French originally, but he lives and works in Geneva now), and he challenged the presenter, resulting in an interesting debate. Probably saying that Calvin put his own opinions above Scripture is too strong, but the presenterās point (which I thought he established well) was that Calvin in practice spoke as if his teachings simply
were the Word of God and should be accepted in their entirety.
At the same time, Calvin, like the other Reformed, made much of the fact that Luther was ājust a manā and thus fallible. . . . .
So yes, I think Protestantism has a serious problem here.
And then looking from todayās perspective, what makes a Protestant belive the Reformers were correct, if they (the Reformers) were so quick to point out the fallibility of āmanā, and the Reformers themselves are only āmanā?
It depends on which Protestants you ask. There are various answers, none of which I find convincing. I can try to list them for you if you wish, but Iād rather let someone who actually believes in Protestantism do the job. . . .
But if they really thought, or if modern Protestants really thinnk, the Fathers had a sound understanding of the Faith, then why reject much of what the Fathers taught?
Itās common in educated Protestant circles now to make much of the continuity between the Reformers and the previous tradition (medieval as well as patristic). My former advisor, David Steinmetz, is often identified with this effort, although I think thatās a mistakeāhis writings actually show quite clearly how radically the Reformers were willing to break with the past at times. But essentially the line I hear most often from learned evangelicals is that the Reformation really wasnāt that radical and is just one form (along with āRomanā Catholicism and Orthodoxy) of the ancient Catholic heritage.
Timothy George, a Baptist scholar, makes this kind of argument. Iāve heard him (in a friendly ādebateā with Francis Beckwith) claim that Augustine teaches sola fide in his comments on Psalm 51, for instance. Heās written articles in First Things on the importance of the Creeds.
I just donāt think this kind of Protestantism holds up. But a lot of very learned and devout people disagree with me.
Iām not sure what all that means. But Iām asking by what authority the Reformers rejected long-established Christian Doctrineā¦Doctrine taught by the same ECFās that supposedly they relied upon in establishing Reformed Doctrine.
By the authority of Scripture. And yes, I think they were way too optimistic about the reliability of their methods of interpretation.
Okay, so does this mean that Reformed Doctrine does not rely soley on Scripture then, if an appeal is being made to the ECFās?
Of course it doesnāt. Thatās almost like saying āso Catholics donāt really worship Mary?ā
Reformed doctrine views only Scripture as
infallible. But of course you look to theological tradition to help you interpret Scripture.
The problem with contemporary Protestant approaches, as I see them, is that they read the Fathers through the lens of the Reformers instead of the other way round.
Tom Odenās
Justification Reader is a fascinating example of this.
Edwin
No, what Iām am trying to do is understand how a protestant can justify a belief that what the āReformersā did was correct. If protestants believe that the āReformersā were right to do what they didā¦then I want to see why they believe this.
into the sixteenth century.
Those who say that are disconnected from even the reformation and tend to be the ones that mis-interpret and/or twist scripture the most AND donāt typically donāt pay any attention at all to the ECFs. Itās also interesting reading and hearing some of the conversion stories by protestant pastors that the ECFās were really not discussed when they went through seminary. And, upon reading the ECFās, they were led to the Catholic church. Sources include Patrick Madridās books and the Journey Home on EWTN.
