THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS
AND THE LCA
Introduction
Most Lutheran churches today
subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions. This is also true of the LCA. As the
Theses of Agreement say, Article 9, paragraph 1.
Those of you who have attended LCA Conventions will have pledged fidelity
to the Lutheran Confessions in the opening worship service. Through this
confession the LCA expresses its faith to the world. The format is as follows:
P: Do you accept the confessions
of the Lutheran church as a true exposition of the
holy Scriptures:
C: We accept, without reservation, the confessions of the evangelical
Lutheran
church as contained in the
Book of Concord.
The first confession of the church is recorded in Mt 16. Here Christ asks
his disciples, ‘Who do you say that I am?’ Peter replies, ‘You are the Christ,
the Son of the living God’ (Mt 16:15-16). God the Holy Spirit works faith
through the Word and this faith expresses itself immediately in confession.
Confession responds to God’s revelation. Confession belongs to the essence of a
believer; one cannot be a believer and not confess Christ. In confession the
believer says, ‘This is my faith, for so all true Christians believe and so
God’s Word teaches us’. Charles Krauth puts it this way: faith makes us Christians,
but confession alone marks us as Christians. The rule of faith is God’s voice
to us; faith is the hearing of that voice, and the confession our reply of
assent to it (The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology, 166).
The 16th century Lutheran Church confessed its faith through
various writings. These were collected in what is now called the Book of
Concord (AD 1580). There we also find the three ecumenical creeds, indicating
that the Lutheran Church wanted to be counted among the church universal. The
Augsburg Confession (AC or CA) is the pre-eminent confession of the Lutheran
Confessors. ‘The acceptance of its doctrines and the avowal of them without
equivocation or mental reservation, make, mark and identify’ the Lutheran
Church (Krauth 163).
·
It is important to
distinguish between the Scriptures and the Confessions. Scripture is the only
source of doctrine. As Luther says in the Smalcald Articles, ‘The Word of God
shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel’. The
Confessions place the Christian in correct relation to the Word of God as the
source and norm for judging all doctrine and teachers. This is how the Theses
of Agreement expresses this relationship (TA 9.3,4).
·
So the Confessions
are to be accepted because they are in agreement with the Word of God.
As Walther says,
An unconditional subscription is the solemn declaration which the individual who wants to serve the church makes under oath 1) that he accepts the doctrinal content of our symbolical books, because he recognizes the fact that it is in full agreement with Scripture and does not militate against Scripture in any point, whether that point be of major or minor importance; 2) that he therefore heartily believes in this divine truth and is determined to preach this doctrine, whatever the form may be in which it occurs, whether the subject be dealt with ex professo or only incidentally. An unconditional subscription refers to the whole content of the symbols and does not allow the subscriber to make any mental reservation in any point. Nor will he exclude such doctrines as are discussed incidentally in support of other doctrines, because the fact that they are so stamps them as irrevocable articles of faith and demands their joyful acceptance by everyone who subscribes the symbols (CTM , April 1947).
·
Having said that,
we need to say that our subscription to the Confessions does not mean we
‘pledge ourselves and subscribe to the Latin or German grammar of the confessions, or to the logic or illustrations used there, or to what they might say about historical or scientific matters, or liturgical usages of vestments, or the numbering of the sacraments, or to the mode of baptism (which seemed to be immersion. See SC IV,11. Latin: quid autem significat ista in aquam immersio?), or to non-doctrinal pious phraseology like the ‘semper virgo’ which we find in Selnecker’s translation of the Smalcald Articles. We are bound however to the exegesis of the Confessions. Obviously, we are not bound to every choice of passages our confessions make in supporting their doctrine, or to every precise detail in their exegesis of Scripture passages. But we cannot reject the exegetical conclusions (many of which are only implicit in our creeds and symbols) of our confessions without rejection of the confessions themselves as being statements of doctrine drawn from the Scriptures. It is clear that a rejection one by one of the passages used to support Lutheran doctrine or a rejection of the exegetical methodology of our confessions is tantamount to a repudiation of the confessions themselves. It is not correct to say that it is un-Lutheran to require agreement in exegetical conclusions. Consensus, for instance, on the real presence of Christ s body and blood in the Sacrament of the Altar is contingent upon agreement on the exegetical conclusions drawn from the words of institution (FC VII). And the same could be said for any number of articles of faith which the confessions defend exegetically’ (Robert Preus, Faithful Confessional Life in the Church, 6).
TA 9.6 makes a similar point.
·
So our confessional
stance is firm: we accept the Confessions because they are in agreement with
the Word of God. If one should only accept the Confessions as far as they
are in agreement with the Word of God, one can make of the Confessions what one
will. They become a wax nose to be shaped by the whims and prejudices of the
interpreter.
·
The Confessions are
gospel centered; the gospel is their central theme. The Confessions were
written for the sake of the gospel, to preserve the gospel. It is for the sake
of the gospel that Lutherans subscribe and commit themselves to the
Confessions. TA 9.5 makes this point very clear.
·
At the same time one should not
therefore say that other articles are unimportant. Indeed, the
LCA has pledged itself to the doctrinal content of the Confessions, which means
the gospel and all its articles. This point needs to be stressed today because
there are some in the LCA who take a minimalist approach to the Confessions.
They say that the gospel in the narrow sense, along with a common understanding
of the Sacraments, is sufficient for unity with other churches (AC 7). To repeat, such
a minimalist position is not the official position of the LCA. TA 5.22 says, ‘For Lutherans the consensus
required should always be regarded as the doctrinal content of the Book of
Concord….’
·
As Lutherans we are under obligation to confess all
doctrines, both fundamental and non fundamental. We cannot chop the one divine
truth into pieces and select only what we regard to be essential. The next
generation might not be so generous. History shows that when subjectivism comes
into the church in this way, it is not long before fundamental doctrines are
rejected, eg the virgin birth of Christ and his bodily resurrection.
·
Furthermore, it is not proper to reclassify Scripture
teaching so that what was once held to be doctrine is no longer held to be a
doctrine. This process is in place in the LCA unfortunately. It is said, for
example, that the ordination of women is not a doctrine of the church and can
therefore be accepted with a good conscience.
·
The Confessions are
not to be regarded as sectarian. Again and again they stress that their
interpretation of Scripture is fully consonant with that of the tradition of
the church.
· We Lutherans have not always been comfortable talking about the tradition of the church. This is understandable as sometimes the tradition of the church has deviated from the teaching of Scripture. However, the tradition of the pure catholic church was highly desired by the sixteenth-century Lutheran Reformers. They were not sectarian innovators who set out to create a new church. Rather, they acknowledged, and rejoiced in, their continuity with the church of the apostles and the Christian fathers, especially the fathers closest to the time of Christ. The Reformers did not introduce novelties but received the ancient truths which had been forgotten or obscured. They formally and unreservedly endorsed the Ecumenical Creeds with the following declaration: ‘Immediately after the time of the apostles - in fact, already during their lifetime - false teachers and heretics invaded the church. Against these the ancient church formulated symbols (that is, brief and explicit confessions) which were accepted as the unanimous, catholic, Christian faith and confessions of the orthodox and true church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. We pledge ourselves to these, and we hereby reject all heresies and teachings which have been introduced into the church of God contrary to them’. (Formula of Concord, Epitome, Rule & Norm: 3, p. 465)
· The Reformers knew that the Fathers of the church, like themselves, were men who ‘could err and be deceived’, and that ‘The writings of the holy Fathers show that even they sometimes built stubble on the foundation’ of the apostles and prophets (Apology 24:95; 7/8:21).
· But they also believed that ‘good, useful and pure books, such as interpretations of the Holy Scriptures, refutations of errors, and expositions of doctrinal articles’, should definitely not be rejected or ignored (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Rule & Norm: 10, p. 506). Such ‘writings of ancient and modern teachers, whatever their names, should not be put on a par with Holy Scripture’, but they may and should be received ‘as witnesses to the fashion in which the doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved in post-apostolic times’ (Epitome, Rule & Norm: 2).
· In keeping with this principle, the Reformers were able to say, for example: ‘we teach nothing about original sin that is contrary to the Scripture or the church catholic, but we have cleansed and brought to light important teachings of the Scriptures and the Fathers that had been obscured by the sophistic arguments of modern theologians’ (Apology 2:32).
· In regard to the ‘chief article’ of the Christian faith, they likewise were able to say: ‘what we have said agrees with the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures, with the holy Fathers Ambrose, Augustine, and many others, and with the whole church of Christ, which certainly confesses that Christ is the propitiator and the justifier’ (Apology 4:389). And it was clear to the Reformers that the Lord had preserved his Means of Grace within the church also in more recent centuries, for ‘God has confirmed Baptism through the gift of his Holy Spirit, as we have perceived in some of the fathers, such as St. Bernard, [John] Gerson, John Hus, and others’ (Large Catechism 4:50).
· Appended to the Book of Concord is a long list of quotations from the church councils and fathers (about 133 of them!). Here the confessors say:
‘They are
printed in goodly number as an appendix at the end of this book, in regard to
particular points, for the purpose of furnishing a correct and thorough account
to the Christian readers, whereby they may perceive and readily discover that
in the aforesaid book, nothing new has been introduced either in matter or in
expression, that is, neither as regards the doctrine nor the manner of teaching
it, but that we have taught and spoken concerning this mystery just as, first
of all, the Holy Scriptures and afterwards the ancient pure Church have done’.
· We can summarize the reasons for the Confessors’ persistent use of church councils and the fathers:
(1) They want to remain within the tradition of the ancient pure church not only in teaching but even in terminology.
(2) They desire to show the unbroken tradition of teaching. Chemnitz, ‘We also hold that no dogma that is new in the churches and in conflict with all of antiquity should be accepted’.
(3) They desire to identify with the ancient pure church and its interpretation of Scripture.
(4) They want to establish authority for their own teaching.
(5) They want to use the fathers to refute errors.
(6) They want with the help of the fathers to establish a normative interpretation for certain key doctrines and passages.
· The following list shows the Confessions’ usage of the fathers in support of their doctrine.
Augsburg Confession 14 citations or references to the fathers
Apology of Augsburg C. 29 references
Smalcald Articles 5 references
Large Catechism 5 references
Formula of Concord Epitome 6 citations or references to the fathers
FC Solid Declaration 24 including references to the creeds
Catalog of Testimonies 8 citations from the canons of the
councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon,
along with 133 references to, or
citations from, church councils or fathers
7. The Confessions Condemn
False Doctrines
· The Confessions do not only present scriptural doctrine, they also condemn doctrines which contravene the Word of God. Because their eternal salvation is at stake, Christians must know the difference between true and false doctrine. (FC SD Rule and Norm, 8; cf. Epit. Rule and Norm, 5). Therefore the Confessions condemn false doctrine with countless antitheses and condemnations wherever it crops up: ‘In order to preserve the pure doctrine and to maintain a thorough, lasting, and God- pleasing concord within the church, it is essential not only to present the true and wholesome doctrine correctly, but also to accuse the adversaries who teach otherwise (1 Tim 3:9; Tit 1:9; 2 Tim 2:24; 3:16)’ (FC SD Rule and Norm, 14).
· Truth and error need to be articulated. One cannot hold to the real presence in the Lord’s Supper, for example, and reject it, both at the same time. Failure to distinguish truth and error is one of the greatest evils plaguing the church today. If error is not named as error, it has an insidious way of creeping into the church. We have seen this happen with respect to the ordination of women; we are about to see it happen in the LCA with respect to the issue of homosexuality. Krauth brilliantly traces the course of error in the church (p.195f).
‘When error is
admitted into the church, it will be found that the stages of
its progress are always three.
1) It begins by asking toleration. Its
friends say to the majority: You need
not be afraid of us; we are few, and weak; only let us alone; we shall not
disturb the faith of others. The church has her standards of doctrine; of
course we shall never interfere with then; we only ask for ourselves to be
spared interference with our private opinions.
2) Indulged in this for a time, error
goes on to assert equal rights. Truth
and error are two balancing forces. The church shall do nothing which look like
deciding between them; that would be partiality. It is bigotry to
assert any superior right for the truth. We are to agree to differ, and any
favoring of the truth, because it is truth, is partisanship. What the
friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental. Anything on which
they differ is by that very fact non-essential. Anybody who makes account of
such a thing is a disturber of the peace of the church. Truth and error are two
co-ordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve
the balance between them.
3) From this point error soon goes on
to its natural end, which is to assert
supremacy. Truth started with tolerating; it comes to be merely tolerated,
and that only for a time. Error claims a preference for its judgments on all
disputed points. It puts people into positions, not at first in spite of their
departure from the church’s faith, but in consequence of it. Their
recommendation is that they repudiated that faith, and position is given
them to teach others to repudiate it, and to make them skilful in combating
it.’
·
TA 9.8 accepts the negativa (negative statements) of
the Confessions.
· Many Lutherans today cannot understand the evangelical concern behind condemnations and the necessity of these antitheses to safeguard and clarify the true doctrine of the Gospel. For instance, the LWF at its meeting at Evian, France, in 1970 actually proposed, through its joint committee, the elimination of all doctrinal condemnations of the past as obsolete in the light of recent theological development (See NEWS BUREAU release 70-84, LCUSA, Erik W. Modean, ed. July 29, 1970, p.12). Thus we observe the tragic demise of all true confessionalism in large sectors of Lutheranism (cf Preus, p.13). Yet Scripture itself is replete with condemnation of error. One need only read the letters of St Paul to see this. Moreover, every sentence of the Apostles’ Creed is formulated against some heresy.
· Other Lutherans say it is loveless to condemn error. However, Krauth makes the fine point, ‘Charity does not cover error; because error is the daughter of sin, and charity is the daughter of God’ (143).
·
TA 9.9 includes two thoughts. First, it says that a
church can be regarded as Lutheran even if that church has not accepted the
whole Book of Concord. Secondly, it says that new formulations of Lutheran
doctrine may need to be added to the Book of Concord.
·
Point 1. Although
it is possible to be Lutheran even if a church hasn’t accepted the whole Book
of Concord, it is not proper to call
oneself Lutheran if one has repudiated various teachings of the Confessions.
Sadly more and more Lutheran churches have departed from the teachings of the
Confessions. Years ago Sasse said that confessional consciousness is
increasingly disappearing (The Lonely Way, Vol 1, 362). This is still
happening today.
·
One reason for
this stems from a low view of Scripture. When Scripture is seen in a human way, the Confessions are soon eroded.
Doctrine is up for grabs. What, finally, is there to confess? (Cf. H Hamann, ATR,
September 1956, 63).
·
This low view of
Scripture often harbours a desire to change the witness of Scripture. This
desire may be wrapped in a development of doctrine terminology. This is
precisely what has happened for some who argue for the ordination of women. And
it is happening already with respect to the issue of practising homosexuals.
All of a sudden Scripture passages which have been clear and binding for nearly
2,000 years are said to be unclear and uncertain, or no longer applicable. The
interpretation of Scripture is open game. And if the Scriptures give an
uncertain sound, how can we be bound to the Confessions which have bound
themselves to these same Scriptures? A denial of the clarity of Scripture,
inevitably leads to a muted confession and skepticism.
·
How different are
the Confessions. They see the Word of God as clear and unchanging. There is no
suggestion in the Confessions that Scripture can be taken in a different sense.
·
When I was doing post-graduate studies in the
USA over 30 years ago, the trend to weaken the authority of the Confessions had
overtaken a Lutheran Seminary. The study of the Lutheran Confessions was merely
called ‘Lutheran heritage’. The ELCA has not changed its attitude today. There
is room in this church for multiple expressions of doctrine. As Marquart
recently said,
(K Marquart, ‘Augsburg Revisited’, in A
Justification Odyssey, Luther Academy 2003, 167)
·
Even worse, an ELCA
theologian, John Reumann, wrote in the official theological journal of the LWF
(‘Lutheran World Report’) that Article 3 of the AC, ‘Of the Son of God’, was
unbiblical and untenable in light of modern biblical research and ought to be
given up (Marquart 169). Here we can clearly see that even the heart of the
Lutheran Confessions, justification by faith, is under massive attack even from
Lutherans. The signing of the JDDJ by many Lutheran churches also confirms this
fact. Another case in point is the ELCA’s sharing its altars and pulpits with
churches which deny the real presence in the Lord’s Supper. One wonders how
anyone could seriously consider the LCA joining the LWF when so many of its
churches have abandoned the Confessions.
·
But even if
churches make a verbal commitment to the Confessions, that is not enough. Such
churches also need to follow them in practice. They need to make the
Confessions their own and to confess its doctrine fully and faithfully in all
aspects of their life. It goes without saying that this is also true for the
LCA.
9. The Need for the
Confessions to be Supplemented
·
Point two. The need
for new formulations of Christian doctrine. The LCA has done this to some
extent with its adoption of the Theses of Agreement. The Theses deal with
certain doctrinal matters that are not broached in the Confessions, because
they were not an issue at the time. For instance, the theses speak of joint
prayer, election, Scripture and Inspiration, the ordination of women etc,
matters which do not have special attention in the Confessions. At the same time
the LCA ‘does not elevate the TA to the level of the Lutheran Confessions’
(A26).
Would that every member of the LCA be able to confess with TA 9.10. However, we will let the Confessions themselves have the last word. May those who signed the original Confessions give hands and voice to our own:
Therefore, in the presence of God and of all Christendom among both our contemporaries and our posterity, we wish to have testified that the present explanation of all the foregoing controverted articles here explained, and none other, is our teaching, belief, and confession in which by God’s grace we shall appear with intrepid hearts before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ and for which we shall give an account. Nor shall we speak or write anything, privately or publicly, contrary to this confession, but we intend through God’s grace to abide by it. Therefore, after mature deliberation, we have, in God’s fear and with the invocation of his name, attached our signatures with our own hands (FC SD 12, 40.)