Basis for Confessional Lutheran

[filosofer]

I have been wrestling with this concept for quite some time.

What confessional subscription is required to be considered a Confessional Lutheran?

Yes, all the Germans will stnd and shout "The Book of Concord"! But what about other Lutherans (notably those in Norway, Denmark, and Sweden and those derived from those countries) that accept only the Three Ecumenical Creeds, Augsburg, Apology, and the Two Catechisms.

So, <in Bill O Reilly intonation> "What say you?"

[ChiRho]

I have been wrestling with this concept for quite some time.

What confessional subscription is required to be considered a Confessional Lutheran?

Yes, all the Germans will stnd and shout "The Book of Concord"! But what about other Lutherans (notably those in Norway, Denmark, and Sweden and those derived from those countries) that accept only the Three Ecumenical Creeds, Augsburg, Apology, and the Two Catechisms.

So, <in Bill O Reilly intonation> "What say you?"


Do they reject the Smalchald Articles, Treatise, Epitome, and Declaration?

[JVAC]

The Three Ecumenical Creeds are a must for every Christian, they are the true catholic faith all others are anathema.

For Lutherans, one must fully align themselves with the Augsburg Confession. The Apology must also be subscribed to for it helps clarify possitions taken in the Augsburg Confession. (Yet, even today most do not firmly believe everything the Apology says, ex: In the Apology there are Three Holy Sacraments.) The two Catechisms are very simple statements but reinforce the possition of the Lutheran Church as a church devoted to Word and Sacraments. The Smalcald articles are also indeed useful for teaching and admonishing. Also the Formula of Concord is indeed also another splendid work to behold.

On the other hand I do not think that the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope is a necessary document for a Lutheran to believe, it is a negative document and is a good tool to argue against the Roman Bishop, however, nothing concrete or postive is layed down for the faith of a catholic Christian, in contrast to the Augsburg Confession.

So what I say is, to be a confessional Lutheran you must firmly hold to the Augsburg Confession, all others are supplementary.

-James

[filosofer]

They don't require subscription to those writings.

[ChiRho]

I think one can rightly proclaim "Confessional Lutheran" by assenting to the distilled truth of the Small Catechism, with the understanding that one shall continue to grind heterodox tendencies upon the Confessions and allow them to provide guidance. Father Fenton has called upon Francis Pieper's guidelines to determine if a church body is heretidox or orthodox; I believe we could apply this same standard to the individual. If heresy is not combated, or when one finds himself in the midst of conflict or doubt, answers should be sought and settled in the Confessions. When the internal battle ceases, I think then, it would be time to panic.

They don't require subscription to those writings.

I wonder why? I doubt that they have never had to engage in the same struggle that Kemnitz had to wage war against, which led him to formalize and publish the Book of Concord...what is the current state of the Norwegian Lutheran Churches?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[filosofer]

Several interesting points for further reflection:

I think one can rightly proclaim "Confessional Lutheran" by assenting to the distilled truth of the Small Catechism, with the understanding that one shall continue to grind heterodox tendencies upon the Confessions and allow them to provide guidance.

So, is someone a confessional Lutheran when the person receives instruction in Luther's Small Catechism? And how much instruction? Complete coverage of the entire Book of concord?

Father Fenton has called upon Francis Pieper's guidelines to determine if a church body is heretidox or orthodox; I believe we could apply this same standard to the individual.[quote]

I assume he refers to the six chief parts of whether someone is a Christian (fundamental doctrines, Person and Work of Christ, Trinity, sin, etc.) and secondary doctrines (Lord's Supper, Baptism). Interesting that he urges the use of Pieper - since outside of the LCMS, he is not considered the doctrinal standard by which to judge doctrine.

[quote]If heresy is not combated, or when one finds himself in the midst of conflict or doubt, answers should be sought and settled in the Confessions.

Yet that is not the confessions approach. The Confessions seek the answers in Scripture.

I wonder why? I doubt that they have never had to engage in the same struggle that Kemnitz had to wage war against, which led him to formalize and publish the Book of Concord

If you examine the issues surrounding the development of the Formula of Concord, it is pretty much a German thing. Doesn't mean that it can't be applicable, but there was never a push to accept them as confessional standards.

what is the current state of the Norwegian Lutheran Churches?
That might be a good pursuit. What about other Lutheran church bodies throughout the world? And what about ELS which came out of the Norwegian heritage? And the old Norwegian Synod (pre-1917)? Some of the predecessors of the predecessor churches of the ELCA came to different understandings of confessional subscription (i.e Augustana Synod, old ALC, etc.) .

These are basically rhetorical questions. But the bottom line is how small do we draw the circle to define "confessional"?

Reminds me of my first day at seminary many years ago when Dr. David Daniel walked into our Reformation class, and asked "Was Luther Lutheran?" :) We spent a good deal of time discussing the issues surrounding that question - and as a springboard for understanding the background of the Reformation and the Reformation itself.

[Qoheleth]

I'll go with this

All Lutheran doctrine (teaching) is to be taken from Holy scripture. Our Lutheran Confessions are very explicit on this point:

". . . the Word of God shall establish articles of faith and no one else, not even an angel." (S.A. Part II, The Mass, 15, Tappert page 295.) "We receive and embrace with our whole heart the Prophetic and Apostolic Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the pure, clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true standard by which teachers and doctrines are to be judged." (F.C., Th. D., sum., 3, Triglot, p. 851)

Holy Scripture is the only source and the absolute norm of our faith.


The Lutheran Confessions, or Symbols are seen as secondary norms, or as true declarations of the doctrines of Holy scripture, which all who would call themselves Lutheran must confess and teach. For this reason the confessional Lutheran Church demands of all its public teachers and ministers a bona-fide subscription to all its Confessions as the pure and unadulterated declarations of God's Word. (We call this a "quia" subscription – that is we subscribe to the Confessions "because" they are truly scriptural.)

To put it another way. Holy Scripture is the deciding norm, it is absolutely necessary. The Bible decides what is true or false doctrine. The Confessions are the distinguishing norm, they are only relatively necessary. They determine whether or not a person has correctly understood the true doctrines of Scripture.

The Lutheran Confessions are that which make Lutherans Lutheran

[filosofer]

The Lutheran Confessions are that which make Lutherans Lutheran

So, just to be clear, you are saying then those who subscribe only to the Augsburg and Apology and two Catechisms are not Lutheran?

[filosofer]

Please, note that when I raise these questions they are not meant as an attack on anyone.


All Lutheran doctrine (teaching) is to be taken from Holy scripture. Our Lutheran Confessions are very explicit on this point:

But that is the very issue under consideration: "our Lutheran Confessions" - is that not assuming what is being discussed? Especially when you provide a quote from one of the writings (Formula of Concord) that is debated as to whether it defines a Lutheran?

The Lutheran Confessions, or Symbols are seen as secondary norms, or as true declarations of the doctrines of Holy scripture, which all who would call themselves Lutheran must confess and teach. For this reason the confessional Lutheran Church demands of all its public teachers and ministers a bona-fide subscription to all its Confessions as the pure and unadulterated declarations of God's Word. [i](We call this a "quia" subscription – that is we subscribe to the Confessions "because" they are truly scriptural.)

Again, this is assuming what is being discussed. Thus, someone may subscribe "quia" to the Augsburg, Apology, SC, LC - and is that person Lutheran?

To put it another way. Holy Scripture is the deciding norm, it is absolutely necessary. The Bible decides what is true or false doctrine. The Confessions are the distinguishing norm, they are only relatively necessary. They determine whether or not a person has correctly understood the true doctrines of Scripture.

That only works if you first assent to all the writings in the BOC.

[Qoheleth]

Well, why would a Lutheran not accept the entire BoC??

[filosofer]

The response is often: is there a need to subscribe to them to be Lutheran?

[ByzantineDixie]

The Lutheran Confessions are that which make Lutherans LutheranThanks Qoheleth...I liked this.

Also, from the LCMS website which mirrors what you say...


The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod accepts the Scriptures as the inspired and inerrant Word of God, and subscribes unconditionally to all the symbolical books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as a true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of God. We accept the Confessions because they are drawn from the Word of God and on that account regard their doctrinal content as a true and binding exposition of Holy Scripture and as authoritative for all pastors, congregations and other rostered church workers of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.I include this only to provide some evidence that...at least for the LCMS...all of the books (they are listed on the website) constitute confessional Lutheranism...but filo, you may have conceded that in your first post?

So are the others who do not fully subscribe to the confessions Lutheran? Well, not per the LCMS definition. But then who decides who gets to call whom, Lutheran. I suspect the name is pretty much up for grabs. I know some Baptists who call themselves Lutheran....:sigh:

Peace

Rose

[Qoheleth]

Sure, I understand your point, Ill get back to it in a few

[filosofer]

Thanks Qoheleth...I liked this.

Also, from the LCMS website which mirrors what you say...

I include this only to provide some evidence that...at least for the LCMS...all of the books (they are listed on the website) constitute confessional Lutheranism...but filo, you may have conceded that in your first post?

As LCMS, yes, I understand and support this.

So are the others who do not fully subscribe to the confessions Lutheran? Well, not per the LCMS definition.

Actually that is not what the LCMS statement says. It says that only for pastors and congregations of the LCMS to be members they must subscribe to the BOC. But it doesn't define "Lutheran" on the basis of that.

I suspect the name is pretty much up for grabs. I know some Baptists who call themselves Lutheran....

You are correct, Rose. And the problem isn't just whether someone might claim that the ELCA should not be called Lutheran. But it now, in light of this discussion, calls into question how the name Lutheran, or "Confessional" is to be applied.

I think I like the original German identification: "Evangelical" = "Lutheran" gets us away from an unsuspecting source of legalism.

[filosofer]

And who says that Lutherans are boring? :P

[ByzantineDixie]

I think I like the original German identification: "Evangelical" = "Lutheran" gets us away from an unsuspecting source of legalism.
Unsuspecting source of legalism? That's too harsh. We are talking definitions here. If one church body defines the term "confessional Lutheran" to mean full subscription to the Lutheran confessions then, voila, it works for them. Why is that legalistic or harsh?

Another church body may have a different, more palatable definition that works best for them.

If you are wanting a definition that crosses multiple church bodies...well, you'll have to call a council or something because we don't have a pope. :P

I won't deny...this discussion has me on edge. Not from a defensive posture at all...just a little concerned about where it is going to go.

Peace

Rose

[Tetzel]

Hey Rose, could you elaborate on these Baptist Lutherans?

[ByzantineDixie]

Hey Rose, could you elaborate on these Baptist Lutherans?Tetzel, I live in the South. You just have to live here to understand how Baptist theology permeates everything--it's like a non-degradable pesticide. We have members who attend our church but whose beliefs are really more in alignment with Baptist beliefs. They struggle with the Lutheran understanding of Baptism, they are into asking others if they have accepted Christ as their personal Savior, they believe that faith is grown through obedient works, they wish we had altar calls. They have swallowed hook, line and sinker every pop Christian book that hits the shelf. Surely not all of our Lutherans are like this, just some. But enough to create some disappointment and concern for me. This is a public board...so I have to stop here.

Peace

Rose

[filosofer]

Unsuspecting source of legalism? That's too harsh. We are talking definitions here. If one church body defines the term "confessional Lutheran" to mean full subscription to the Lutheran confessions then, voila, it works for them. Why is that legalistic or harsh?

Another church body may have a different, more palatable definition that works best for them.

Of course, this is the nub of one of the problems: because that cross-over is being done - those in one denomination claim that the other denomination is "not Lutheran". Or even now, a "Lutheran" church body is "not confessional".

If you are wanting a definition that crosses multiple church bodies...well, you'll have to call a council or something because we don't have a pope. :P

You mean the first LCMS convention in jerusalem in 49 didn't do it? ;)

I won't deny...this discussion has me on edge. Not from a defensive posture at all...just a little concerned about where it is going to go.

Rose, you know me, willing to ask questions beyond the normal expected ones. :)

[Qoheleth]

One question, if the AC and the SC was the only foundational standard to be considered "Lutheran", would the rest of the BoC contradict, limit, or prohibit anything found in the AC or SC?

[filosofer]

One question, if the AC and the SC was the only foundational standard to be considered "Lutheran", would the rest of the BoC contradict, limit, or prohibit anything found in the AC or SC?

Excellent, insightful question. But I would add one more to the list:

"contradict, limit, extend, or prohibit" anything found in the AC or SC."

[ByzantineDixie]

Well, I just finished reading an article on the LCMS website on what it means to be a Lutheran (http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/wa_beinglutheran.pdf) and it clearly indicated that a confessional Lutheran is one who adheres to the BoC. So I don't think that makes for an interesting discussion...but let's talk about the first hundred years of Lutheranism. Adherence to the BoC? Was that the expectation?

Rose, you know me, willing to ask questions beyond the normal expected ones.
Ya and not so liberal with the answers either! :P

Peace

Rose

[ByzantineDixie]

Excellent, insightful question. But I would add one more to the list:

"contradict, limit, extend, or prohibit" anything found in the AC or SC."
All bets are off when you add the word "extend"...I think our Matthew 18 discussion pointed this out? -----R

[filosofer]

BTW, just a note: While I deliberated for a while about whether to start this thread, I have been thoroughly impressed with the responses, the tone, the demeanor of every participant. This speaks volumes about the quality of people on this list. And it makes tackling the tougher issues less intimidating for others.

Thank you, to everyone!

[filosofer]

One question, if the AC and the SC was the only foundational standard to be considered "Lutheran", would the rest of the BoC contradict, limit, or prohibit anything found in the AC or SC?

If the rest do not "contradict, limit, or prohibit anything found in the AC or SC", then are the rest superfluous?

[sculpturegirl]

I have been going around calling myself a "Lutheran" but haven't gotten through the whole Book of Concord. Do I count?

Seriously, I doubt that the majority of our church even knows what the BoC is!

[JVAC]

If the rest do not "contradict, limit, or prohibit anything found in the AC or SC", then are the rest superfluous?


They aren't superfluous, they just work at further elaborating the points. For example, somehow Zwinglian theology made its way into the teaching of the Sacraments in the German churches, while they confessed the Augsburg Confession, such things were refuted heavily in latter confessional writings. All the writings after the AC serve to further clarify the orthodox doctrine that the Confession made bold to say.

Peace,
-James

[Qoheleth]

If the rest do not "contradict, limit, or prohibit anything found in the AC or SC", then are the rest superfluous?
No, they are not even though they edify, not necessarily 'extend' the foundation.

Well, the rest of the Symbols were intended to specifically expound and clarify the AC in well needed issues. This is most notable in the intro to the Book of Concord. But at heart it would seem, a Lutheran is one who sees in the AC a true explanation of the Christian faith, and who sees in the SC the "Bible for the laity."

[Qoheleth]

BTW, just a note: While I deliberated for a while about whether to start this thread, I have been thoroughly impressed with the responses, the tone, the demeanor of every participant. This speaks volumes about the quality of people on this list. And it makes tackling the tougher issues less intimidating for others.

Thank you, to everyone!
You said it brother!! A great group of believers here.

[ByzantineDixie]

No, they are not even though they edify, not necessarily 'extend' the foundation.

Well, the rest of the Symbols were intended to specifically expound and clarify the AC in well needed issues. This is most notable in the intro to the Book of Concord. But at heart it would seem, a Lutheran is one who sees in the AC a true explanation of the Christian faith, and who sees in the SC the "Bible for the laity."
Well let's use this as an example and see where it takes us. Remember our discussion on Matthew 18 and who / what was "the church". I had referenced the Smallcald articles indicating that the pastor was to handle these matters, the pastor excommunicated. This is not something that I believe is taught in the AC. If one only accepts the AC...then one might have a different understanding regarding Matthew 18 and "the church" in the context of excommunication...while those who held to the full BoC would have another. It seems to me this disparity tugs at the definition of confessional Lutheranism?

Peace

Rose

[Qoheleth]

Well let's use this as an example and see where it takes us. Remember our discussion on Matthew 18 and who / what was "the church". I had referenced the Smallcald articles indicating that the pastor was to handle these matters, the pastor excommunicated. This is not something that I believe is taught in the AC. If one only accepts the AC...then one might have a different understanding regarding Matthew 18 and "the church" in the context of excommunication...while those who held to the full BoC would have another. It seems to me this disparity tugs at the definition of confessional Lutheranism? Indeed, and equally important are each of the confessions as they do not exist in a vacuum.

All exposition in Lutheran doctrine is found in the BoC and is expressed rightly as Holy Scripture being the norma normans-- the ruling rule, and the Confessions are the norma normata-- the ruled rule. The latter decides whether the person has clearly understood the true doctrines of Scripture. We don't play one off against the other or exclude as being secondary (confession to confession).

[Phoebe]

Were Confessional Lutherans in existence before the BoC was compiled?

[KagomeShuko]

Tetzel, I live in the South. You just have to live here to understand how Baptist theology permeates everything--it's like a non-degradable pesticide. We have members who attend our church but whose beliefs are really more in alignment with Baptist beliefs. They struggle with the Lutheran understanding of Baptism, they are into asking others if they have accepted Christ as their personal Savior, they believe that faith is grown through obedient works, they wish we had altar calls. They have swallowed hook, line and sinker every pop Christian book that hits the shelf. Surely not all of our Lutherans are like this, just some. But enough to create some disappointment and concern for me. This is a public board...so I have to stop here.

Peace

Rose
I am very happy and blessed to live in the South and be in a LUTHERAN church - without the Baptist influence here! It's all pretty much Catholic and Baptist. I don't know much about the LCMS churches in my area. They seem okay, though. Now, if I go into Texas, ELCA and LCMS seem just fine.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[ByzantineDixie]

I am very happy and blessed to live in the South and be in a LUTHERAN church - without the Baptist influence here! It's all pretty much Catholic and Baptist. I don't know much about the LCMS churches in my area. They seem okay, though. Now, if I go into Texas, ELCA and LCMS seem just fine.

Stein Auf!
Bridget
Please don't get me wrong...I love living in the South. Someday I might even learn to make fried green tomatoes and cultivate a taste for collard greens. Plus, the day we sold our snow blower was one of the happiest days in my life! ;) This exposure to a whole new culture has been a tremendous blessing for our family in all areas, including the growth of our faith.

But...remember, there are differences between LCMS and ELCA and there are differences, on balance, between LCMS churches in some districts vs. others. These are real and not imagined differences. One of my biggest concerns is the potential of causing faith damaging confusion when there is no clarity or when doctrines collide, specifically in times of crisis. I meant no offense and apologize if you got that impression.

Peace

Rose

[ByzantineDixie]

Filo, this is your thread and I do not want to pull it off center so if I do here...just let me know and I will save this discussion for a different thread, different time. It has been brewing in me for quite a while now....

My concern is this. If all the laity needs to be Lutheran is the Small Catechism (and clearly Luther was cool with this) then...are we not expecting too much from the laity in light of the polity of the LCMS? The congregations have the authority but not necessarily (by definition here) the knowledge of nor the commitment to the full confessions. How can the blind lead?

Of course on the other hand...I recall the words of Henry Blackaby, a Baptist preacher and writer, who once said something to the effect that 'if you can not trust your church to make the right decisions, it says more about your faith in God than about your faith in your church.' At some point we have to believe that the Holy Spirit leads His church, that Christ protects His Bride. I don't know...I wrestle with both sides of this argument.

Peace

Rose

[JVAC]

Were Confessional Lutherans in existence before the BoC was compiled?
St Steven was the first Confessing Lutheran, followed by St. James :D

-James

[filosofer]

Filo, this is your thread and I do not want to pull it off center so if I do here...just let me know and I will save this discussion for a different thread, different time. It has been brewing in me for quite a while now....Not a problem, since so many of these issues are intertwined.

My concern is this. If all the laity needs to be Lutheran is the Small Catechism (and clearly Luther was cool with this) then...are we not expecting too much from the laity in light of the polity of the LCMS? The congregations have the authority but not necessarily (by definition here) the knowledge of nor the commitment to the full confessions. How can the blind lead?

At some point we have to believe that the Holy Spirit leads His church, that Christ protects His Bride. I don't know...I wrestle with both sides of this argument. CFW had some pertinent things to say about this (even quotes from early Lutheran theologians) in his book: The Congregation's Right to Call Its Pastor. Is knowledge a substitute for spiritual discernment?

Along the same lines - every Christian heresy in history has come from pastors/theologians, and it is often lay people who steer the church back to the balance of orthodox, evangelical, catholic confession. So, who is more led by the Spirit? Who is better grounded in the Word?

And another aspect: How do you make someone a confessional Lutheran? By studying Scripture!

[ByzantineDixie]

And another aspect: How do you make someone a confessional Lutheran? By studying Scripture!

Well, my charismatic, pentacostal, AoG sister-in-law spends far more time studying scripture than just about anyone I know...she even took a whole year off of her career life to stay home and study 8 - 18 hours a day. She is far from being a confessional Lutheran!!!

I had an algebra teacher in junior high who used to say...practice does not make perfect....perfect practice makes perfect. You have a way of teaching that guides the student to the Truth of Scripture to which one will find agreement in the confessions. I would say your situation is the exception rather than the rule.

To say someone becomes a confessional Lutheran by studying Scripture is not so convincing when considering the broader picture. But, if you mean within the confines of good Lutheran instruction, then I gladly concede the point! :D

Peace

Rose

[filosofer]

I had an algebra teacher in junior high who used to say...practice does not make perfect....perfect practice makes perfect. Being a former Math teacher, I would agree! :)

You have a way of teaching that guides the student to the Truth of Scripture to which one will find agreement in the confessions. I would say your situation is the exception rather than the rule. Then I would say that the pastors are the ones failing to teach. I should not be the exception. (Think I have made this point elsewhere ;) )

To say someone becomes a confessional Lutheran by studying Scripture is not so convincing when considering the broader picture. But, if you mean within the confines of good Lutheran instruction, then I gladly concede the point! But this gets us back to Phoebe's excellent question:

Phoebe wrote: Were Confessional Lutherans in existence before the BoC was compiled?

[KagomeShuko]

Please don't get me wrong...I love living in the South. Someday I might even learn to make fried green tomatoes and cultivate a taste for collard greens. Plus, the day we sold our snow blower was one of the happiest days in my life! ;) This exposure to a whole new culture has been a tremendous blessing for our family in all areas, including the growth of our faith.

But...remember, there are differences between LCMS and ELCA and there are differences, on balance, between LCMS churches in some districts vs. others. These are real and not imagined differences. One of my biggest concerns is the potential of causing faith damaging confusion when there is no clarity or when doctrines collide, specifically in times of crisis. I meant no offense and apologize if you got that impression.

Peace

Rose
Oh, I know of differences with the ELCA and LCMS and between churches, too. If anything, I go to quite a conservative ELCA church, for the ELCA.

We don't really get along great with the LCMSers in the area, but by their choice. I've not understood this at all. However, we get along better with the LCMS church in the little city nearby rather than the one in the same city. I really think it is more a cultural difference, though. They are in the traditionally "snobby" part of town and we're in the "normal and lower class" part of town.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[SPALATIN]

Oh, I know of differences with the ELCA and LCMS and between churches, too. If anything, I go to quite a conservative ELCA church, for the ELCA.

We don't really get along great with the LCMSers in the area, but by their choice. I've not understood this at all. However, we get along better with the LCMS church in the little city nearby rather than the one in the same city. I really think it is more a cultural difference, though. They are in the traditionally "snobby" part of town and we're in the "normal and lower class" part of town.

Stein Auf!
Bridget
Bridget,

It might just be that the LCMS people are acting a bit prejudicially in regards to the ELCA. All you have to do is go over to LQ and you find many there of the same ilk at times and then at others they are very nice.

I am not saying this is true over all, but there are some in the LCMS who feel that the ELCA should drop the L from the synod. Then there are those who are angry with the LCMS and feel that they are now just as heterodox as they feel the ELCA is and when posting refer to it as ??M?.

That may be a reason that the local LCMS is not as kind to the folks at the ELCA. Again I bear no ill will to anyone in any of the synods. I am just posting an observation here.

Scott;)

[ByzantineDixie]

But this gets us back to Phoebe's excellent question:

Phoebe wrote: Were Confessional Lutherans in existence before the BoC was compiled?
OK...let's chew on this, then.

If you believe, as I do, that Lutheranism is nothing more but the reform of the catholic church in the West...then the answer is quite simple, yes...starting with the Apostles.

However, the BoC serves to 1) identify the abuses in the Western church, 2) identify the corrective actions and preventative actions (the CAPA plan as we call it in my field of work) so that the church is reformed now and does not fall victim to these same offenses in the future and 3) does all of this in the context of the Scriptures.

While the Apostles and today's confessional Lutheran may share the same theology, I don't know that the label "confessional Lutheran" for an Apostle is reasonable. The Apostle would have never seen the church in her abused state to even understand why the confessions would have been developed. Subscription to the BoC acknowledges that the church was in need of reform, that the enclosed adquately addresses the necessary reform and that the enclosed are in complete agreement with Scripture or, in the case of Tradition (I am thinking specifically of infant baptism here), not in conflict with the Scriptures.

Then again, maybe I get too wrapped up in the concept of reform....:sigh:

CFW had some pertinent things to say about this (even quotes from early Lutheran theologians) in his book: The Congregation's Right to Call Its Pastor. Is knowledge a substitute for spiritual discernment?I missed this earlier. Absolutely not--but I admit my faith is weak here, hence the wrestling.

Peace

Rose

[KagomeShuko]

Bridget,

It might just be that the LCMS people are acting a bit prejudicially in regards to the ELCA. All you have to do is go over to LQ and you find many there of the same ilk at times and then at others they are very nice.

I am not saying this is true over all, but there are some in the LCMS who feel that the ELCA should drop the L from the synod. Then there are those who are angry with the LCMS and feel that they are now just as heterodox as they feel the ELCA is and when posting refer to it as ??M?.

That may be a reason that the local LCMS is not as kind to the folks at the ELCA. Again I bear no ill will to anyone in any of the synods. I am just posting an observation here.

Scott;)
I don't know. . .I've not really had any discussions with the LCMS pastor of the LCMS church in town. Nor the one nearby, but I've met him and he's really nice. We have the Thrivent meetings at their church.

I went to VBS at the local LCMS church one year. However, I don't understand why they would have to check with the pastor when we offered to help with their VBS one year (I wasn't interested in teaching - just helping, being a gopher, or whatever - and they just had me sit in the crafts area. . .*shrug*)

I went to a Lost And Found concert hosted by an LCMS in Beaumont, TX, and they were extrememly nice and friendly.

Hmmm. . .the ECA and the CMS? Well, they wouldn't have to worry about that Lutheran title. . .but what would they be? LOL

I've no ill will against any of the synods, either.

As long as they aren't turning into cults j/k (I had this guy trying to tell me he was WELS, and he was NOT - he was in some cult that believed in free sex and smoking marijuana as a part of worship. Yeah, and he was trying to tell me he was a part of the most conservative Lutheran synod! LOL :D)

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[SPALATIN]

I don't know. . .I've not really had any discussions with the LCMS pastor of the LCMS church in town. Nor the one nearby, but I've met him and he's really nice. We have the Thrivent meetings at their church.

I went to VBS at the local LCMS church one year. However, I don't understand why they would have to check with the pastor when we offered to help with their VBS one year (I wasn't interested in teaching - just helping, being a gopher, or whatever - and they just had me sit in the crafts area. . .*shrug*)

I went to a Lost And Found concert hosted by an LCMS in Beaumont, TX, and they were extrememly nice and friendly.

Hmmm. . .the ECA and the CMS? Well, they wouldn't have to worry about that Lutheran title. . .but what would they be? LOL

I've no ill will against any of the synods, either.

As long as they aren't turning into cults j/k (I had this guy trying to tell me he was WELS, and he was NOT - he was in some cult that believed in free sex and smoking marijuana as a part of worship. Yeah, and he was trying to tell me he was a part of the most conservative Lutheran synod! LOL :D)

Stein Auf!
Bridget
I remember the conversations about the guy in the cult. He was strange. One of the reasons that they wanted to consult the Pastor is to make sure that what was being taught was scriptural and based on Lutheran teachings. As I said, many in the LCMS believe that the ELCA is not truly Lutheran and is heterdoxical in what it teaches.

[sculpturegirl]

Bridget,

It might just be that the LCMS people are acting a bit prejudicially in regards to the ELCA. All you have to do is go over to LQ and you find many there of the same ilk at times and then at others they are very nice.

I am not saying this is true over all, but there are some in the LCMS who feel that the ELCA should drop the L from the synod. Then there are those who are angry with the LCMS and feel that they are now just as heterodox as they feel the ELCA is and when posting refer to it as ??M?.

That may be a reason that the local LCMS is not as kind to the folks at the ELCA. Again I bear no ill will to anyone in any of the synods. I am just posting an observation here.

Scott;)
Many of the more liberal-minded folks at my ELCA church have little kind words for the LCMS in the area, while the folks I met at the LCMS nearby were very kind and warm to me. Can you believe that there is not LCMS in the second largest city in Maryland. Goes to show what a liberal state Maryland is!

Our congregation is very diverse. We have people who could hardly be called Christians and then there are the confessionals. *sigh*

[filosofer]

Here is a pertinent paragraph from the book Testing the Boundaries: Windows to Lutheran Identity, (CPH, 1995) by Charles Arand, professor of Systematics at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis.


The question that Lutherans in the 19th century debated centered on the extent to which a church body needed to accept the entire confessional corpus contained in the Book of Concord. The related issues that they dealt with include how many of the Confessions must be accepted in order to claim the Lutheran name? Another issue centered on the interpretation of the Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord. Since the 19th century, Lutherans have either tended to read the Augsburg Confession forward to the Formula of Concord, or the Formula of Concord back to the Augsburg Confession. Which should be interpreted in light of the other? A third critical issue deals with the role and interpretation of Philip Melancthon. The position that one took with respect to Melancthon reflected one's position on the Lutheran Confessions.

So, it would seem that the concerns of this thread reflect the concerns of that book. Could be that he and I were near classmates at the seminary and we think alike? Nah. The issue is bigger, deeper, and more significant than that.

[filosofer]

Here is what Theodore Tappert wrote concerning the 19th century debates/battles over Lutheran identity:


Epithets like "symbolist," "anti-symbolist," "hyper-symbolist," "open counterfeiters," "theological proletarians," "croaking old Lutherans," "reckless innovators," "enthusiasts," "moth-eaten symbolists," "wolves in sheep's clothing," and "dead formalists" reflect how zealously, and also how bitterly, the Lutherans contended for one or an-other kind of confessional platform.

Theodore G. Tappert, "The Symbols of the Church," What Lutherans Are Thinking: A Symposium of Lutheran Faith and Life, edited by E. C. Fendt (Columbus: Wartburg, 1947), p. 343.


Sounds very contemporary, doesn't it?

[ChiRho]

After some thought...I think that I might add something to expand on my first post. One should be called a Confessional Lutheran if one holds to the truth of the Small Catechism and doesnt hold objections to the rest of the Confessions. The Catechism is surely simple and true Lutheran belief, but the rest of the Book of Concord was written to expound and clarify upon errors and defend "Lutheran" practices and beliefs. The Small Catechism does not contradict the rest of the Confessions and this is sort of where I am going. If there is conflict in personal belief, then one should consult their pastor and the Confessions to see what the point of contention is and what the Confessions actually say. To demand that a Confessional Lutheran holds to all and every point perfectly in the Book of Concord is a pretty high bar to set considering the sinfulness of man and the depth of the Confessions. To any of the errors outlined or condemned beliefs one may not hold, and still confess to be a Confessional Lutheran- that is if they hold to these contrary beliefs and are unwilling to check their beliefs and closed to testing them agaisnt our Confessions and Scripture.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[Organist]

I don't know. . .I've not really had any discussions with the LCMS pastor of the LCMS church in town. Nor the one nearby, but I've met him and he's really nice. We have the Thrivent meetings at their church.

I went to VBS at the local LCMS church one year. However, I don't understand why they would have to check with the pastor when we offered to help with their VBS one year (I wasn't interested in teaching - just helping, being a gopher, or whatever - and they just had me sit in the crafts area. . .*shrug*)

I went to a Lost And Found concert hosted by an LCMS in Beaumont, TX, and they were extrememly nice and friendly.

Hmmm. . .the ECA and the CMS? Well, they wouldn't have to worry about that Lutheran title. . .but what would they be? LOL

I've no ill will against any of the synods, either.

As long as they aren't turning into cults j/k (I had this guy trying to tell me he was WELS, and he was NOT - he was in some cult that believed in free sex and smoking marijuana as a part of worship. Yeah, and he was trying to tell me he was a part of the most conservative Lutheran synod! LOL :D)

Stein Auf!
Bridget

It is just as some people calling themselves "Christians" and are not. I believe this has been an ongoing problem from the 1st century A.D.

[filosofer]

After some thought...I think that I might add something to expand on my first post. One should be called a Confessional Lutheran if one holds to the truth of the Small Catechism and doesnt hold objections to the rest of the Confessions. The Catechism is surely simple and true Lutheran belief, but the rest of the Book of Concord was written to expound and clarify upon errors and defend "Lutheran" practices and beliefs. The Small Catechism does not contradict the rest of the Confessions and this is sort of where I am going. If there is conflict in personal belief, then one should consult their pastor and the Confessions to see what the point of contention is and what the Confessions actually say. To demand that a Confessional Lutheran holds to all and every point perfectly in the Book of Concord is a pretty high bar to set considering the sinfulness of man and the depth of the Confessions. To any of the errors outlined or condemned beliefs one may not hold, and still confess to be a Confessional Lutheran- that is if they hold to these contrary beliefs and are unwilling to check their beliefs and closed to testing them agaisnt our Confessions and Scripture.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

Well-articulated. Thank you. I think I have come to a similar conclusion - regarding personal confessional adherence.

The greatest challenge is that when we interact with other Christians (congregations, councils, synods, etc.), the issue is what is confessed, and what is publicly believed and taught by the pastors.

[filosofer]

As the focus moves from the individual to the congregations and pastors, the value of the confessions becomes more important. Some aspects of the confessional subscription are:

1. The congregation's public statement of what it believes, teaches, and confesses.

2. The pastors voluntarily subscribe to the Confessions, which assures the congregations that the pastors agree with the doctrinal stand of the congregation, to which he will be assigned.

3. Turning the confessions from a public statement to a Law-enforcement vehicle to maintain confessional integrity.

The first two are important and foundational for congregations and pastors. Notice the voluntary nature of subscription. No one is forced to subscribe. I remember at seminary it was stressed that "this is what the Church believes, teaches, and confesses; now, do you believe, teach, and confess the same? If so, then we publicly declare that you are eligible to accept a call to a congregation in our church body." There was no coercision.

It seems that the difficult part comes when either the pastor has not fully agreed (a conscience problem), or after further study does not agree with the stance of the church body. Now the tension is between what the pastor personally believes and what he publicly confesses.

It would seem that some (maybe most) of the turmoil in the LCMS, and maybe even the ELCA and WELS, springs forth from such dissonance.

Any thoughts?