This is not some elusive quest for certitude. And your desire for historical and theological continuity is admirable, and shared by all. In fact, the Reformed are surprised to learn that Lutherans appreciate the Church fathers more than they do. [Yes. Pfft, I'm not impressed.--ed.] The question is not whether threads of continuity can be identified from one's own confessional position; they surely can. The question is, "What is the means by which continuity was established, and identified going forward?" The Church fathers themselves are not a norm in themselves; as you and countless have pointed out, they are all over the place, depending on what thing is under discussion. But they are useful, for this very purpose: they tell us how to find the Church. We can talk about what that Church believed, and who among us is the true continuation of that faith only after we identify how the Church marked herself out. This is what Stellman meant when he said (echoing Cross) that it was shooting an arrow and painting the target around it. Let me say it this way: I don't care what Lutherans of any era have said, nor decisions of Synods, commentators, etc. unless and until those people are shown to be the ones I should listen to. It's just an intellectual curiosity until then. Because the Anglicans and the Reformed are waiting in the next room to tell me why their theologies are just as "fully-orbed" and satisfying as yours. You can't assume your theological continuity, and then go about showing us where you find it.
Anglicans are fond of telling us that they have "purged" the "excesses" of Roman Catholic medieval theology, and I'm sure you say your Lutheran forbearers have done the same. But none of you have answered the fundamental question: Who sent you? And who gave you the charism, nay, the authority, to identify excesses in the first place? You can read all the Church fathers you want; if your pastor was not ordained by a bishop in apostolic succession, the Church fathers say I should flee. Right off the top. And that succession leads back to Peter's chair. Sorry to ruin the fun.
Pointing out for example that you have an orthodox Christology (more or less) is about as useless as a screen-door on a submarine, because that is not in question. This has always been an ecclesial question, and you assume precisely what is in dispute between us.
Fun Question, Never Answered: If the Reformation was licit because of corruption in the Catholic Church, why deny transubstantiation? In other words, why offer a theological solution to a moral problem? We're waiting.
Anglicans are fond of telling us that they have "purged" the "excesses" of Roman Catholic medieval theology, and I'm sure you say your Lutheran forbearers have done the same. But none of you have answered the fundamental question: Who sent you? And who gave you the charism, nay, the authority, to identify excesses in the first place? You can read all the Church fathers you want; if your pastor was not ordained by a bishop in apostolic succession, the Church fathers say I should flee. Right off the top. And that succession leads back to Peter's chair. Sorry to ruin the fun.
Pointing out for example that you have an orthodox Christology (more or less) is about as useless as a screen-door on a submarine, because that is not in question. This has always been an ecclesial question, and you assume precisely what is in dispute between us.
Fun Question, Never Answered: If the Reformation was licit because of corruption in the Catholic Church, why deny transubstantiation? In other words, why offer a theological solution to a moral problem? We're waiting.
Comments