Archbishop Thomas Cranmer
There is a major difference between the way in which the Lutheran and Anglican Reformers looked at history, and the way in which the Radical Reformers looked at history. But, that difference is important. And the key difference was stated by the Lutherans in one word they called, “adiophora.” So, what is adiophora?
This may surprise you, but adiophora is the word used to explain what was meant by St. Paul when, in Romans 14-15, he discusses the issues of wine, meat, and other issues that can stumble a weaker brother. It can be roughly translated as, “indifferent things.” But, the word most often used in the German is, “mitteldinge,” or “middle things.” For the Lutherans (and many Anglicans) it means those things that are indifferent with regards to morality and are not expressly forbidden by Scripture. You can find this concept in both Lutheran and Anglican confessions.
In the Lutheran Augsburg Confession, one finds the following statement:
And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4.5,6.
In the Anglican Articles of Faith, one can read:
It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word.
I am not actually discussing adiophora in this post, as much as I am pointing out that there is a major difference in the view of history expressed by the Lutherans and Anglicans, as versus the view of history expressed by the Radical Reformers. I already commented that the underlying text to the theology of the Radical Reformers was the inability of the Twelve Apostles to successfully pass the faith on. But the Anglicans and Lutherans had the opposite view. They believed that the Twelve Apostles had successfully passed the faith on. Their argument was that the faith of the Early Church Fathers had been corrupted by the later Medieval Roman Catholic Church. In fact, both Luther and Cranmer were quite apt at using the Early Church Fathers to argue against the Roman Catholic apologists. Many descendants of the Anabaptists and Baptists, in the USA, assume that Luther and Cranmer used only Scripture to make their points. That is far from accurate.
But, they also had to deal with the issue of apostolic succession. And, the Biblical concept of adiophora came in handy for them. St. Paul really does point out in Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Galatians that there are issues, including ceremonials, special days, etc., in which variety is allowed. I do not believe you can stretch the concept of adiophora as far as apostolic succession. However, in order to fight the Roman Church, both Anglicans and Lutherans had to show that the concept of apostolic succession was not truly linked to a succession of bishops.
You see, as they looked at history, they had enough integrity to know that the alternate trail of apostolic succession proposed by the Radical Reformers led through a thicket of heretics, whose view on the faith was far enough from what was apostolic that they did not wish to go that route. Moreover, as they looked at the Nicene Creed and the books of the New Testament, they ultimately agreed that the Church had made the right decisions on those issues. The Radical Reformation’s view of history endangered both the New Testament and doctrines, such as the Trinity for both of those issues were finally resolved well after the end of the period of the Early Church Fathers.
Mind you, in the reduction of Holy Tradition to simply historical development, the Lutherans and Anglicans made a mistake, but that is another subject for another time. But that still leaves the Calvinists and Church history. What about them? Stay tuned.
===MORE TO COME===
I can’t wait to pick this huckleberry. Calvinists and Church history. You got me hooked.
Hi, Father Ernesto. It’s been a while since I last saw you, but I was wondering how you are doing? I really enjoyed this article, especially seeing that I’ve now found a happy home in the Church of the Augsburg Confession. Please read and comment on any posts on my new blog. I value your opinion. My first article, is partly a refutation of the radical reformed view of the Lord’s Supper. I think you would appreciate this little bit of wisdom from Martin Chemnitz:
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES AND THE WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS
The apostles propagated the doctrine of the Gospel, received from Christ and explained by the Holy Ghost, during the first few years without writing, solely by oral tradition; soon, however, by the will of God, as Irenaeus says, they began to commit to letters and to comprehend in writings, not a contrary, not a different, not another doctrine, but that very same doctrine which they preached orally. … We shall place as it were in the very forefront the beautiful statement of Irenaeus which is found in the preface and chapter 1 of Book III, where he says: “That alone is the true and living faith which the church has received from the apostles and communicated to her children. For the Lord of all gave His apostles the power of the Gospel, and through them we also have come to know the truth, that is, the doctrine of the Son of God; to whom also the Lord said: ‘He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me and Him who sent Me.’ For through no others do we know the plan of salvation except through those by whom the Gospel has come to us. That, indeed, which they then preached, they afterward delivered to us in the Scriptures by the will of God, that it should be the foundation and pillar of our faith.” This statement of Irenaeus speaks of the whole Scripture of the New Testament in general, whose authority, perfection, and (as we now say) sufficiency, he shows by the firmest of demonstrations. For that is beyond all controversy the only true and living faith which the primitive church received from the apostles and delivered to her children. But this faith was first conceived through the preaching of the apostles, which they themselves had received from the teaching of the Son of God. This doctrine of Christ and of the apostles, from which the true faith of the primitive church was received, the apostles at first delivered orally, without writing, but later, not by any human counsel but by the will of God, they handed it on in the Scriptures. What do we conclude? That this is the same doctrine which they had received from the Son of God, which they had preached orally, from which the primitive church had received the only true and lifegiving faith from the apostles and delivered it to her children. (Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971], pp. 79-81)
Thanks so much for this succinct explanation. As a Lutheran, I pull out my adiophora card to settle a number of committee discussions: (Common cup vs. Individual Cup; drums in church, Worship on Wednesday night, etc.).
Thanks for such a helpful concise way to explain it to others.