I think about this a lot lately as I’ve been trying to read all the first millennia bishops with extent writings: so far I don’t think I could hand the BoC to any of them and by the criteria that confessional Lutherans use, be admitted to their sacraments. If affirmation of every piece of even the Augsburg confession was required, which bishop could affirm the entire thing? 😅 I, thus far, haven’t found one. I guess my question is why is it prudent to hold a requirement for communion to beliefs that historic amazing Christian bishops in the first thousand years couldn’t agree on, and then make it necessary for today’s Christians? To phrase it another way, I don’t think if I pastored a confessional Lutheran church that I could allow almost any historic bishop to commune with me because they might reject even a single AC tenant. Should those Christians just not be Lutheran and find another church that would allow that view that didn’t seem to be a hinderance to those amazing saints?
There any many theories and beliefs within the broader confessions that can rightfully be debated. For example we affirm a Chalcedonian Christology, however a Lutheran can validly believe or debate whether Christ had a perfected Pre Fall Adam nature or if Christ took on a fallen human (not sin) nature. There is usually a broad a belief, with the specifics having diversity of thought. A confessional Luther for example could be Thomistic or Scotus and still follow the confessions. Some topics are widely diverse while still within Lutheran Orthadoxy
@@WaterMelon-Cat but what about the beliefs that were widespread in the church fathers that the Augsburg confession for example reject? Like I said, I can’t find a single bishop in the first thousand years (I’m only to year 700 currently and making my way through) that I could hand a book of concord to and they’d be able to affirm every article. Why do we hold people to a standard none of the greatest saints in the past could do?
That's exactly why WELS & LCMS do not commune together. They rightly believe that all who commune should believe the same thing and walk together. The problem is that what Lutherans believe hasn't been believed in all times and in all places. Lutherans are fond to quote-mine Fathers like Augustine, but they wouldn't be allowed to commune in a Lutheran Church if they were alive today. It makes zero sense. One reason why I left Lutheranism and all forms of Protestantism for Catholicism.
@@WaterMelon-Cat you may be able to find single fathers agreeing on single topics but there isn’t one that agrees on every AC article. So if I teleported myself back to 300, 500 or 800 where could I commune if I must find a bishop to affirm every single article as confessionalism requires? That’s my problem
I can understand this stance if you're referring to the whole of the BoC, but what in just Augsburg should be controversial? Maybe kts explicit rejection the invocation of saints could be problematic for some but for the most part it seems a relatively basic and catholic confession.
Interesting,found arrivals in Lutheran Library on Trent in USA early settlements,,like staking a gold claim,and boy if u overstepped,,move the whole settlement .
I think it's really interesting that you said to stay connected to your Theological tradition but submit even your tradition to the Bible. See I believe that your interpretation of the Bible is marked by your tradition or put it another way we read the Bible through the lense of our already established tradition. Therefore it's our tradition that really sways us, has authority over us. Do you think this is a fair conclusion? For example you are a Lutheran so your reading of the Bible concerning Baptism or the Ecurest is different from a godly, wise, honest Presbyterian/Anglican or Baptist. I'd love guidance here.
If changing the tradition to incorporate electric pipe organs, pastors notes on a tablet, and linguistic changes… fine. The problem is when we start bowing to culture and allowing changes to the understandings of sexual immorality or the word “woman.” “This is the feast” was a hymn of the 1900’s and the pope organ replaced the lyre, lute, and horns of the early church (I can’t help but imagine a ska version of “A mighty fortress is our God”) and that is fine. The problem is that there is the temptation to start allowing modern culture to first change traditions, then understanding, then our understanding of God’s word. I used to write off concerns as “slippery slope fallacy,” then I saw a ELCA service, and the world outside, and understood that this isn’t a fallacy. If that door to modern feminism, identity politics, and sexuality beyond God’s design is cracked open even the slightest bit the door is quickly smashed open the rest of the way and you have universalism crawling like zombies through the once beautiful stained glass windows until Trinity denying women pastors are performing gay weddings in rainbow vestments and preaching that nothing is sin except pointing out sin and cow farts. Even within the LCMS understandings on matters of race, self defense, and feminism are causing damage. On FB’s LCMS encouragement already we are reading of deaconess’s leading congregations and giving sermons acting as a pastor in everything but title. When considering changes every effort must be made to ensure the new does in no way contradict of diminish the ancient.
Saying “you find this language of the unanimous consensus of the fathers” is deeply disingenuous, the Council of Trent was not declaring that all Catholic teaching is found in all the fathers but rather that on questions of faith and morals you can’t interpret scripture in such a way to contradict the unanimous consensus of the fathers. Pretending like it is advocating for a specific view when it is setting guardrails against innovation just completely misses what Trent is saying. This is not in any way at odds with Newman, but rather is an integral part of Newmans theory
Catholics use the metaphor of the acorn and the tree. By the way, you assert without evidence that there are traditions that contradict the Word of God. First of all, there is a difference between contradicting the Word of God and being explicitly taught in Scripture. Catholics accept any teaching that is divinely taught is the Word of God. Nothing that Catholics believe, whether oral or written, contradicts the Word of God. For example, when St Paul told the Thessalonians to follow what he taught whether oral or written, they could have disregarded St Paul's oral teachings because they weren't written down in his letters. That concept would itself contradict Scripture.
I don’t think there’s a difference between assertions that contradict scripture and assertions that are plausible and are being taught as doctrine. To be clear, I’m not challenging the sign of the cross or a liturgy or any tradition that has proven to be helpful to the church in maintaining Biblical doctrine and staying steadfast in the faith, but something like the bodily assumption of Mary or Papal infallibility being taught as doctrine without scriptural explicit teachings is wrong. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386) says it best when he posits “For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Volume VII, p. 23) But also St. Gregory of Nyssa (335-395) “We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.” (On the Soul and the Resurrection: Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Series II,vol. V., p. 439) And “Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." (On the Holy Trinity, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, p. 327). We can’t claim for doctrine what is not explicitly taught in scripture. So while it’s possible Mary was assumed into heaven bodily, the lack of scriptural evidence (not to mention any evidence from the apostolic, antenicene, nicene, post nicene, etc. texts) dismisses the notion that plausibility is enough to derive doctrine.
@@RealityConcurrenceBut grabbing out of context quotes from the Fathers to prove your point isn't intellectually honest. And the Trinity did not appear as an official dogma until the 4th century. And if that major a doctrine didn't come to fruition into that late in history, I'm not sure why you have such an issue with the bodily assumption of Mary being a product of doctrinal development. Protestants have a near-obsession with things being written down. If the Trinity was accepted, but not codified until later, and accepted now by all, it would seem you have a standard for Catholics yet another for Protestants. You may say "it's not derived from Holy Scripture", yet we see the woman in Revelation elevated greatly. You can say "I don't interpret it that way" but now we are back to private interpretation being a final authority, which is ironically forbidden in Scripture itself. The Church being the pillar and ground of truth actually means what it says.
Something that would be unanimous consensus in the Fathers is the fact that the Protestant notion of justification is erroneous. Not a single Father taught what Luther taught in this regard.
Development is not a problem; it's a simple reality. The problem comes when the Church does not remain one and fails to develop in unison. Luther is a classic case of private interpretation.
Wrong. Catholic Church invented many new things and Luther being a Catholic Priest who actually KNEW the Bible pointed it out and tried to restore the traditional Church. I sincerely hope more Catholics realize that loyalty to God's word is more important. The current pope is a heretic and with bergoglio trying to move towards lGbT friendly and firing conservatives while allowing James Martin to stay we have a prime example of "development" of doctrine. The same development that has split Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian denominations. The schematics however are the ones who make changes contrary to the Bible. If Rome allows alphabet marriages then they lose authority and believers are called to mark and avoid, and find new Churches or establish a Catholic Church not tainted. Unity is not above purity of doctrine.
The problem comes when the church refuses to be reformed by the Word of God, and declares itself infallible in order to justify dogma that’s contrary to God’s word.
For some reason I read the title as the “documentary hypothesis” and was thoroughly confused.
Hahaha same. I thought why Jordan Cooper is speaking about the documentary hypothesis
Same
Me too
Ha!
Same 😂
Newman wasn’t the first to “come up” with development of doctrine @militantthomist has great content showing this
I actually saw the thumbnail and thought it was one his videos at first
inb4 "Vincent talks about progress in the church"
We know. That doesn't allow for novelties.
Well stated. Thank you.
I think about this a lot lately as I’ve been trying to read all the first millennia bishops with extent writings: so far I don’t think I could hand the BoC to any of them and by the criteria that confessional Lutherans use, be admitted to their sacraments. If affirmation of every piece of even the Augsburg confession was required, which bishop could affirm the entire thing? 😅 I, thus far, haven’t found one.
I guess my question is why is it prudent to hold a requirement for communion to beliefs that historic amazing Christian bishops in the first thousand years couldn’t agree on, and then make it necessary for today’s Christians?
To phrase it another way, I don’t think if I pastored a confessional Lutheran church that I could allow almost any historic bishop to commune with me because they might reject even a single AC tenant.
Should those Christians just not be Lutheran and find another church that would allow that view that didn’t seem to be a hinderance to those amazing saints?
There any many theories and beliefs within the broader confessions that can rightfully be debated. For example we affirm a Chalcedonian Christology, however a Lutheran can validly believe or debate whether Christ had a perfected Pre Fall Adam nature or if Christ took on a fallen human (not sin) nature. There is usually a broad a belief, with the specifics having diversity of thought. A confessional Luther for example could be Thomistic or Scotus and still follow the confessions. Some topics are widely diverse while still within Lutheran Orthadoxy
@@WaterMelon-Cat but what about the beliefs that were widespread in the church fathers that the Augsburg confession for example reject? Like I said, I can’t find a single bishop in the first thousand years (I’m only to year 700 currently and making my way through) that I could hand a book of concord to and they’d be able to affirm every article.
Why do we hold people to a standard none of the greatest saints in the past could do?
That's exactly why WELS & LCMS do not commune together. They rightly believe that all who commune should believe the same thing and walk together. The problem is that what Lutherans believe hasn't been believed in all times and in all places. Lutherans are fond to quote-mine Fathers like Augustine, but they wouldn't be allowed to commune in a Lutheran Church if they were alive today. It makes zero sense. One reason why I left Lutheranism and all forms of Protestantism for Catholicism.
@@WaterMelon-Cat you may be able to find single fathers agreeing on single topics but there isn’t one that agrees on every AC article. So if I teleported myself back to 300, 500 or 800 where could I commune if I must find a bishop to affirm every single article as confessionalism requires? That’s my problem
I can understand this stance if you're referring to the whole of the BoC, but what in just Augsburg should be controversial? Maybe kts explicit rejection the invocation of saints could be problematic for some but for the most part it seems a relatively basic and catholic confession.
Almost 53 K subscribers now, that's good.
Interesting,found arrivals in Lutheran Library on Trent in USA early settlements,,like staking a gold claim,and boy if u overstepped,,move the whole settlement .
According to every Romanist I know the Saints and a church Fathers all believed the exact same Vatican II theology 😂😂😂
Development never stops .
I think it's really interesting that you said to stay connected to your Theological tradition but submit even your tradition to the Bible. See I believe that your interpretation of the Bible is marked by your tradition or put it another way we read the Bible through the lense of our already established tradition. Therefore it's our tradition that really sways us, has authority over us. Do you think this is a fair conclusion? For example you are a Lutheran so your reading of the Bible concerning Baptism or the Ecurest is different from a godly, wise, honest Presbyterian/Anglican or Baptist. I'd love guidance here.
If changing the tradition to incorporate electric pipe organs, pastors notes on a tablet, and linguistic changes… fine. The problem is when we start bowing to culture and allowing changes to the understandings of sexual immorality or the word “woman.”
“This is the feast” was a hymn of the 1900’s and the pope organ replaced the lyre, lute, and horns of the early church (I can’t help but imagine a ska version of “A mighty fortress is our God”) and that is fine.
The problem is that there is the temptation to start allowing modern culture to first change traditions, then understanding, then our understanding of God’s word. I used to write off concerns as “slippery slope fallacy,” then I saw a ELCA service, and the world outside, and understood that this isn’t a fallacy. If that door to modern feminism, identity politics, and sexuality beyond God’s design is cracked open even the slightest bit the door is quickly smashed open the rest of the way and you have universalism crawling like zombies through the once beautiful stained glass windows until Trinity denying women pastors are performing gay weddings in rainbow vestments and preaching that nothing is sin except pointing out sin and cow farts.
Even within the LCMS understandings on matters of race, self defense, and feminism are causing damage. On FB’s LCMS encouragement already we are reading of deaconess’s leading congregations and giving sermons acting as a pastor in everything but title.
When considering changes every effort must be made to ensure the new does in no way contradict of diminish the ancient.
True
Interestingly, I believe Austin now says these are “legitimate developments” which is sort of hard to me to do
Saying “you find this language of the unanimous consensus of the fathers” is deeply disingenuous, the Council of Trent was not declaring that all Catholic teaching is found in all the fathers but rather that on questions of faith and morals you can’t interpret scripture in such a way to contradict the unanimous consensus of the fathers. Pretending like it is advocating for a specific view when it is setting guardrails against innovation just completely misses what Trent is saying. This is not in any way at odds with Newman, but rather is an integral part of Newmans theory
Rome doesn't just develop doctrine. They innovate it.
Jews did not worship in the synagogue.
Catholics use the metaphor of the acorn and the tree. By the way, you assert without evidence that there are traditions that contradict the Word of God. First of all, there is a difference between contradicting the Word of God and being explicitly taught in Scripture. Catholics accept any teaching that is divinely taught is the Word of God. Nothing that Catholics believe, whether oral or written, contradicts the Word of God. For example, when St Paul told the Thessalonians to follow what he taught whether oral or written, they could have disregarded St Paul's oral teachings because they weren't written down in his letters. That concept would itself contradict Scripture.
I don’t think there’s a difference between assertions that contradict scripture and assertions that are plausible and are being taught as doctrine. To be clear, I’m not challenging the sign of the cross or a liturgy or any tradition that has proven to be helpful to the church in maintaining Biblical doctrine and staying steadfast in the faith, but something like the bodily assumption of Mary or Papal infallibility being taught as doctrine without scriptural explicit teachings is wrong.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386) says it best when he posits
“For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.”
(Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Volume VII, p. 23)
But also St. Gregory of Nyssa (335-395)
“We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.”
(On the Soul and the Resurrection: Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Series II,vol. V., p. 439)
And “Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words."
(On the Holy Trinity, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, p. 327).
We can’t claim for doctrine what is not explicitly taught in scripture. So while it’s possible Mary was assumed into heaven bodily, the lack of scriptural evidence (not to mention any evidence from the apostolic, antenicene, nicene, post nicene, etc. texts) dismisses the notion that plausibility is enough to derive doctrine.
@@RealityConcurrenceBut grabbing out of context quotes from the Fathers to prove your point isn't intellectually honest. And the Trinity did not appear as an official dogma until the 4th century. And if that major a doctrine didn't come to fruition into that late in history, I'm not sure why you have such an issue with the bodily assumption of Mary being a product of doctrinal development. Protestants have a near-obsession with things being written down. If the Trinity was accepted, but not codified until later, and accepted now by all, it would seem you have a standard for Catholics yet another for Protestants. You may say "it's not derived from Holy Scripture", yet we see the woman in Revelation elevated greatly. You can say "I don't interpret it that way" but now we are back to private interpretation being a final authority, which is ironically forbidden in Scripture itself. The Church being the pillar and ground of truth actually means what it says.
Something that would be unanimous consensus in the Fathers is the fact that the Protestant notion of justification is erroneous. Not a single Father taught what Luther taught in this regard.
Development is not a problem; it's a simple reality.
The problem comes when the Church does not remain one and fails to develop in unison.
Luther is a classic case of private interpretation.
Wrong. Catholic Church invented many new things and Luther being a Catholic Priest who actually KNEW the Bible pointed it out and tried to restore the traditional Church. I sincerely hope more Catholics realize that loyalty to God's word is more important. The current pope is a heretic and with bergoglio trying to move towards lGbT friendly and firing conservatives while allowing James Martin to stay we have a prime example of "development" of doctrine. The same development that has split Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian denominations. The schematics however are the ones who make changes contrary to the Bible. If Rome allows alphabet marriages then they lose authority and believers are called to mark and avoid, and find new Churches or establish a Catholic Church not tainted. Unity is not above purity of doctrine.
The problem comes when the church refuses to be reformed by the Word of God, and declares itself infallible in order to justify dogma that’s contrary to God’s word.
@@Dilley_G45 Sola Fide is the most aberrant development.
@@americanslav9694 How is it that the Church can be overcome by the gates of Hell?
@@Catholic-Perennialist if you ignore the Bible, yes.