When the Confessions assert that they are based on the
Bible and have grown up on its ground, they are
following one of the basic Reformation principles,
which can be traced straight through the theological
writings of both [Martin] Luther and [Philip] Melanchthon. But alongside
of the Bible, and also occupying a major place in the
Confessions, is ecclesiastical tradition – as this can
be seen above all in the church’s oldest doctrinal
formulations. This appears both in programmatic
expressions and in actual procedures. [Walther] Von Loewenich,
who is by no means inclined to overemphasize the
“catholic” element in Luther’s works, reminds us of
the reformers’ efforts to preserve a genuine
continuity with the ancient church. Luther reveals the
same tendency in his attitude toward the iconoclasts,
the liturgy, and the dogmas of the early church. In
his rejection of the early Christian heretics, his
acceptance of infant baptism, and his defense of
private confession we see a clear indication of the
Reformation tendency to preserve and restore. The aim
of the Reformation was not to launch a radical new
beginning but to link up with the heritage of the
ancient church. Luther had a feeling for continuity.
This attitude toward the early church is seen to be
even stronger in Melanchthon and in the confessional
documents he wrote. Since [Peter] Fraenkel published his major
work on the role of the patristic element in
Melanchthon’s theology – from the first writings to
the last – we can better understand why the Augsburg Confession and the Apology adhere so closely to the doctrinal formulations of the
early church. Fraenkel demonstrates that Melanchthon’s
interest in the traditions of the early church
remained unchanged throughout his career as an author
in the field of theology. Against
this background we can see all the more clearly the
earnestness of the Augsburg Confession’s declaration: “Nothing has been
received among us, in doctrine or in ceremonies, that
is contrary to Scripture or to the church catholic,
contra Scripturam aut ecclesiam catholicam. For it is
manifest that we have guarded diligently against the
introduction into our churches of any new ungodly
doctrines.” In order to evaluate the statements of
the Lutheran Confessions in controversial theological
questions, it is important that their orientation in
the direction of the older formulations, especially
those of the early church, be kept in view. In the
contest of opposing theological tendencies which
marked their era, the reformers supported historical
continuity and refuted doctrines they judged to be
novel, without support in either the Bible or the
fathers of the early church. It was their desire to
link up with the traditions of the Western Church –
after these had been freed of later additions and
excrescences. (pp. 45-46)
When Melanchthon supported the
Evangelical position with arguments derived from the
early church fathers, this was in harmony with his
considered opinion concerning the Reformation as a
continuation of the doctrinal formation of the early
church. A study of those parts of the confessional
writings for which Melanchthon was responsible reveals
that the formal statements in the introduction and
conclusion of the Augsburg Confession were not simply there for
tactical-political reasons; they rather reflect a
well-thought-out and distinctive point of view. The
frequently repeated quotations from the church fathers
speak very clearly as the expression of the
theological method upon which the confessions are
patterned. Reference is made first of all to the
Bible, which must clearly support a doctrinal opinion,
and secondly to the writings of the fathers. In
connection with the controversial doctrine of original
sin, Melanchthon asserted that there was nothing novel
about it. We teach, he insisted, nothing concerning
original sin which is in opposition to the Scriptures
or the universal church; we have simply set forth the
chief ideas of the Bible and the fathers. The same
reasoning was applied to the doctrine of
justification, which has support not only in the Bible
but also in many of the church fathers, of whom
Augustine, with his anti-Pelagian views, was cited
first and foremost. Ambrose and Cyprian were also
included. Melanchthon frequently referred to the fathers of the
Eastern Church. Ideas which Melanchthon derived from
Gratian are also given some space. Among the latter
was the proposition that any custom which entered the
church contra mandata Dei ought not be accepted or
approved.
One finds the same attitude in Luther, generally
speaking, although his critical eye was sharper. In
those portions of the Confessions which he wrote
quotations from the church fathers are relatively
scarce and much further in the background. Luther
makes direct references to the fathers only on a few
occasions. Augustine is given a special place. Among
the older fathers Luther also mentions Jerome, whom he
quotes in support of his view concerning the equality
of popes and bishops. Among the younger theologians
he pays close attention to Bernard [of Clairvaux], [John] Gerson, and [John] Hus,
which shows his unconventional attitude to
ecclesiastical tradition.
Two other factors are of even greater importance.
First of all, Luther rejected the radical,
anti-Trinitarian reform movement, whose supporters
were known as “enthusiasts.” There can be no doubt
that this choice was made deliberately. In a letter
concerning rebaptism Luther took a stand against
Balthaser Hubmaier and wrote as follows:
“It is our confession that in the papacy there are the
right Holy Scriptures, the right Baptism, the right
Sacrament of the Altar, the right keys for forgiveness
of sins, the right preaching office, the right catechism,
such as the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, the
Creed. ... Now if Christianity exists under the pope,
it must be Christ’s true body and members. If it is
His body, then it has the right Spirit, Gospel, Creed,
Baptism, Sacrament, keys, preaching office, prayer,
Holy Scriptures, and everything that Christianity
should have. Therefore we do not rave like the
‘enthusiasts’ that we reject everything in the
papacy” [Von der Wiedertaufe (1528)].
Second, Luther attached himself positively to the
dogmatic formulations of the early church. In his
introduction to the Smalcald Articles he pointed to the doctrines on
which both of the opposing parties agreed, and in so
doing he made a direct connection with both the Nicene
and Athanasian Creeds.
These and similar expressions by Luther and Melanchthon clearly reveal the tradition to which they
intended to adhere. (pp. 48-50)
Although the Confessions frequently point up areas of
agreement with the early church fathers, they also
include a variety of criticisms. Their attitude is
that the church fathers cannot be accepted en bloc.
They were not infallible; as men they could make
mistakes; their opinions often revealed a serious lack
of harmony. Since many of the
fathers built with “hay and straw” on the true
foundation, Christ, their work cannot endure (Ap VII
20 f.). No church father is infallible, not even the
best of them all, Augustine; he too is criticized when
he expresses opinions contrary to God’s Word.
These and similar observations presuppose minds
capable of historical criticism, and the reformers had
this capacity. With regard to the sacrament of penance
and the preaching office they discovered an obvious
development, which they looked upon as a deviation.
They maintained that the word “confession” had lost
its original meaning and significance. Episcopal
duties had increased over the centuries, and the
number of sacraments was gradually fixed at seven.
Luther and Melanchthon agreed with the humanists
Erasmus and Lorenzo Valla in claiming that Dionysius
the Areopagite was a pseudonym used by a man much more
recent than the one mentioned in Acts 17:34. They also
criticized other authors of whom it was erroneously
said that they had written books which they could not
in fact have produced.
There is also an obvious effort at classification to
be seen in what the Confessions say about the
doctrinal development of the early church. Some of the
fathers are appreciated more than others. In general,
the testimony of those who lived closest to the time
of Christ is accepted in preference to those who lived
later. The risk of error increased with the passing of
time. The scholastic theologians were criticized with
particular sharpness for their blending of theology
and Aristotelian philosophy. Ap XXI 41 says of this:
“We ourselves have heard excellent theologians ask for
limitations upon scholastic doctrine because it leads
to philosophical disputes rather than to piety. The
earlier scholastics are usually closer to Scripture
than the more recent ones, so their theology has
steadily degenerated.” One can also observe, in a
number of concrete instances, how the confessional
writers play off the early fathers against the
scholastic theologians, including, most prominently,
Thomas [Aquinas], Duns Scotus, and Gabriel
Biel. With regard to the doctrines of original sin,
penance, and the Lord’s Supper the Lutheran
Confessions seek support from the early fathers,
inasmuch as their position was different from that
taken by the scholastics. A number of individual
theologians from the high and late Middle Ages also
provided support for the Reformation teaching, at
least at certain points. Among these, Bernard of
Clairvaux and John Gerson were mentioned most
frequently. (pp. 52-54)
Melanchthon wanted to preserve the
historical continuity between the Lutheran Reformation
and the older forms of Christianity, and he also
wanted to eliminate irregularities within the church.
These were the basic guidelines which he derived from
his study of church history.
According to Melanchthon, the Lutheran Reformation was
not an interruption of church history but a
continuation. As he saw it, church history proceeds
according to a definite pattern and is characterized
by both apostasy and reformation. The divine truth
concerning man’s salvation is one and the same from
the beginning of the world to the present. This truth
has been stifled and threatened with destruction time
after time, only to be brought back into the light
through a reforming movement. The church has always
existed, sometimes strong, sometimes enfeebled. During
periods of decay the true church lives on as a
minority church.
In the earliest years of Christian history this
pattern involved the revelation of the divine truth
through Jesus and the apostles, whom Melanchthon
considered to be reformers. Decay set in after the
apostolic age, which reached its culmination in Origen
and called forth
a reformation via Augustine. After the Augustinian
purge the same course of events recurred anew: decay
throughout the entire medieval period, which elicited
the Lutheran Reformation. But during the entire
process, characterized by renewal-decay-renewal, the
truth was always preserved by a minority. The truth
can be stifled, but it can never be completely
destroyed. Melanchthon could see a dogmatic doctrinal
continuity running throughout the centuries of church
history and the periods of decay, and it was to this
that the Reformation wanted to attach itself. The
Reformation was not designed to introduce novelties
but to revive the ancient truths which had been
forgotten or obscured as a result of the church’s
decay.
This view of history is to be found in the Lutheran
Symbols, and it throws light on both positive and
negative expressions concerning the church’s doctrinal
development. Augustine is accorded the highest rating.
He was the only church father lectured upon regularly
in Wittenberg. It also explains the generally
negative attitude the Symbols take toward the
post-Augustinian epoch, in which Pope Gregory the
Great was thought to have brought about a trend
leading in the wrong direction. It also makes clear
why certain medieval theologians could be consulted on
particular questions: the light was never completely
put out, and the truth never totally obscured. (pp. 54-55)
The truth was given and
established once and for all time. Those fathers whose
work was acceptable had not formulated any new
doctrines; they had restored the original ones and
freed them from irrelevant additions. The
Confessions sought to return to those fathers who had
preserved the pure doctrines, without falsification.
But to attempt such a critical sifting of the church
fathers’ statements demanded the use of a higher norm,
and the Lutherans found it in Scripture. This makes
the question of the relationship between Scripture and
tradition pertinent.
As one would expect, the Lutheran Symbols view
tradition in relation to their concept of the church’s
living proclamation. The church has God’s revealed
Word, which is also a living Word. What the church
proclaims cannot be altered; its content must remain
the same from age to age. The Symbols place the
greatest emphasis on the church’s living proclamation.
Doctrine and preaching are very closely connected to
one another in the Confessions – not in such a way
that preaching should lack doctrinal content and that
doctrina could be translated as preached Word, but so
that God’s revelation and salvation may be told and
taught and brought to life anew in every generation.
This is expressed most clearly in the words of
absolution and in the words of institution of both
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, where no additions may
be made; only God’s own voice is to be heard. As a
result, the only function or duty of the clergy is to
cause the voice of Christ to be heard. Put another
way, the church must give voice to Christ’s Word. In
preaching, in absolution, and in the administration of
the means of grace we are to hear Christ’s own voice
(in accordance with Luke 10:16). The Confessions
energetically oppose the idea that the clergy have the
authority to add new words themselves, either in the
doctrinal sphere or with regard to church discipline. (p. 58)
One of the major points made by the Reformation has to
do with the permanent identity of the church’s
proclamation. The church has one and the same message
to proclaim, from the promise of the protevangelium
(in Gen. 3:15) forward to the present time. The
promise of salvation given to Adam was repeated to the
patriarchs and the prophets; it was renewed by Christ,
and preached by the apostles as being valid for all
men in all ages (Ap XII 53). It is into this context
that legitimate ecclesiastical tradition must be
placed. The symbols of the early church, certain of
the church fathers, and a number of later theologians
are included in the long list of witnesses.
Melanchthon – and Luther too – was profoundly convinced
of the church’s doctrinal continuity. The Confessions
located the source and norm of the divine message in
the Bible; as a result, the Bible occupies such a
central position in Reformation theology. The
apostolic Word is found preserved in Scripture, and
all statements must be verified by Scripture. As
Fraenkel has pointed out, the primacy of Scripture was
axiomatic.
The fact that Scripture was accorded such significance
did not mean, however, that its words had to be
repeated in a literal way. As a result of the
[mis]application of the Scripture principle there were
circles within the Reformation where this demand was
no stranger – but in the Confessions it is completely
unknown. What is said in the Bible is also to be found
in certain of the early church fathers and has been
codified in the ancient creeds of the church. It is
certainly true that they sometimes use other words and
different modes of expression, but they nevertheless
preserve the meaning of Scripture. Luther considered
the Apostles’ Creed to be a revealed Word of God,
faithfully preserving and summarizing Scripture’s
Gospel. In the Smalcald Articles Luther associated himself unreservedly
with “the sublime articles of the divine majesty,” as
these are formulated in the three oldest creeds. Both
Luther and Melanchthon identified themselves in this
manner with the doctrines of the early church because
they considered these doctrines to be in harmony with
the Scriptures. There was no difference of opinion
between the two reformers on this point. On the contrary, they both
found a secure basis for the church’s doctrine and
proclamation in the creeds of the early church.
Inasmuch as the creeds were looked upon as an
interpretation of Scripture, the Bible became both the
source and the norm for judging the legitimate
ecclesiastical tradition. That which harmonized with
Scripture was accepted; that which did not was
discarded. According to the Lutheran Confessions the
real basis of all legitimate tradition is nothing
other than the ecclesiastical exposition of the Bible.
That which can be accepted as genuine ecclesiastical
tradition must be capable of verification by
Scripture. Tradition may not include theses which lack
Biblical support. It is this principle which gave rise
to the saying, “The Word of God shall establish
articles of faith” (SA II II 15) and which explains
the critical rejection of certain points in the older
doctrinal development. One of the Bible passages used
most frequently in this connection was Acts 10:43,
which says that forgiveness of sins for Christ’s sake
is given to all who believe in Him. This unanimous
consensus prophetarum is the same as the church’s
consentient opinion, and it carries more weight than
all of the contrary teachings of the later
theologians. Negatively, it implies a critique of
individuals as well as of opinions. The conventional
distinction made in the doctrine of penance between
two kinds of repentance, contritio and attritio, as
well as the doctrines of satisfaction, purgatory, and opus operatum, are contrary
to Scripture. But this appeal to Scripture in no way
includes a demand to reiterate Scriptural formulations
in a literal way. The Confessions, too, use terms
that cannot be found in the Bible but are in harmony
with its meaning. The same is true of the formulations
employed in the ancient creeds of the church. (pp. 59-61)
The conviction concerning the identity of the church’s
proclamation also gives tradition a certain importance
for the exposition of the Bible. Scripture therefore
does not have a merely critical function to fulfill
over against tradition; the latter also has a degree
of importance as a guide for the church in its own
exposition of Scripture. To support the argument that
the Confessions did not introduce any novelties, it
was important to be able to refer to patristic
utterances. There is, in other words, a line which
runs from the Scriptures to the later tradition; but
also in the reverse: Beginning with tradition, one can
also find the road which leads back to Scripture.
During the sixteenth-century theological confrontations the
ancient creeds served as guides to the Scriptures.
Luther and Melanchthon approved of Biblical
interpretations which affirmed the dogma of the
Trinity, while those which did not were rejected as
mistaken.
That Luther deliberately chose a line running counter to the radical
tendencies within the Reformation can be seen in his
letter on re-baptism written in 1528. He traced all
heresy back to the denial of the Second Article of the
Creed, which sets Christ forth as true man and true
God. Melanchthon also upheld the idea that the
ancient creeds can be used as guides back to
Scripture. But the connecting line is not unbroken,
not even in the first five centuries of the church’s
existence. Rather, the truth is to be found in
isolated points, elucidated by individual theologians,
with Scripture serving at all times as the supreme
norm. The authenticity of what the church says today
depends on its factual agreement with what the church
has said in all ages, through those who have
understood the true meaning of Scripture. (pp. 61-62)
REFERENCES:
Fraenkel, Peter. Testimonia patrum: The Function of the Patristic Argument in the Theology of Philip Melanchthon. Geneva, 1961.
Loewenich, Walther von. Von Augustin zu Luther: Beiträge zur Kirchengeschichte. Witten, 1959.
Holsten Fagerberg