Trinity Sunday

[peter_speckhard]

Holy Scripture (properly defined, ie. the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments) is the ONLY judge, rule and norm
(richter, regel, richtnur) by which all dogmas, doctrines and teachers are measured in terms of the law and the Gospel.  Our Lutheran confessions, as I read them, agree with what scripture speaks and teaches.  But they are not on par with Holy Scripture in the standard of measuring apostolic authority.

The interesting question is by what authority the first sentence is true. Is Lutheranism defined first and foremost in terms of justification or sola scriptura?

[readselerttoo]

Holy Scripture (properly defined, ie. the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments) is the ONLY judge, rule and norm
(richter, regel, richtnur) by which all dogmas, doctrines and teachers are measured in terms of the law and the Gospel.  Our Lutheran confessions, as I read them, agree with what scripture speaks and teaches.  But they are not on par with Holy Scripture in the standard of measuring apostolic authority.

The interesting question is by what authority the first sentence is true. Is Lutheranism defined first and foremost in terms of justification or sola scriptura?

I think in order to use sola scriptura as a tenet in talking about authority one has to define what scripture is.  As you know thw Bible is a collection of writings,ie. Biblia.  What is apostolic and what is prophetic must also be taken into consideration when measuring what is sola scriptura.  If that is defined and agreed upon then one can see the validity of FC (Formula of Concord), Preface which says clearly that Holy Scripture is the ONLY judge, rule and norm in measuring apostolic authority and clarity of the New Testament kerygma.

The most apt and direct answer to the above question about Lutheranism (and I would venture to say Christianity itself) is the issue of justification ala unaltered Augsburg Confession article 4.  Justification has much to do about righteousness which is received righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ that sin is forgiven.  Again this has bearing on how one defines Holy Scripture. 

So actually I think one informs the other, ie. Holy Scripture and justification.

A deeply interesting topic to me is what and how important FC, Preface is for us to consider today.

[Keith Falk]

More words and you STILL have not answered the question.  Why is that?  Do the Confessions teach differently from the Bible?

Reading through the lines, I think Brian and I would have a similar answer to this question.

Insofar as the Confessions discuss matters of scripture (as opposed to practices or issues of the day), I believe that the Confessions teach doctrine in accordance with the Bible. However, they do not contain the whole breadth and depth of context found in the Bible. Similar to how someone can read the plot of a movie on Wikipedia but miss out on the experience of watching the film, someone who only reads the Confessions without reading the Bible would arrive at a correct understanding of the doctrines they discuss but miss the full context that the scriptures provide. These other contexts and emphases found in scripture are what allow for other confessions (small c), such as the Thirty-Nine articles, the Three Forms of Unity, etc., to exist and serve as valid interpretations of scripture alongside our Book of Concord.

While the words of scripture do not change, our knowledge and interpretations of scripture are always changing. Our Confessions bear witness to how scripture was taught and interpreted at discrete points in time, enabling them to serve as denominational foundations. But they are works of human hands and lack the divine inspiration that holy scriptures have. As a result, there is always the possibility that confessions can be superseded with time - while Lutherans haven't done this, this has happened fairly frequently in the Reformed tradition, for example.

So then, are the Scriptures and Confessions in conflict TODAY?  If so, where?


If an ordained pastor has vowed to teach in accordance with the Scriptures and Confessions,  he must have agreed at least at the time or ordination that is was true ... or he perjured and lied at the ordination.

Unfortunately, I the ordination vows only require that the ordinand vow to preach and teach according to Scripture and Confessions - not actually that the ordinand BELIEVE them.

[Richard Johnson]

Unfortunately, in the ordination vows only require that the ordinand vow to preach and teach according to Scripture and Confessions - not actually that the ordinand BELIEVE them.

Though if you are coming into the Lutheran church from another communion, as I did, you get to profess that you actually believe them!

[J. Thomas Shelley]

Unfortunately, in the ordination vows only require that the ordinand vow to preach and teach according to Scripture and Confessions - not actually that the ordinand BELIEVE them.

Though if you are coming into the Lutheran church from another communion, as I did, you get to profess that you actually believe them!

Q - "...is this your confession?

A - "Yes."

A "Yes" which is unnuanced and unambiguous.

As though the parchment of the Confession of Augsburg were laid out before you with quill pen extended:  "SIGN".

January 7, 1990.

Yesterday but simultaneously long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away.

[pearson]

Holy Scripture (properly defined, ie. the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments) is the ONLY judge, rule and norm
(richter, regel, richtnur) by which all dogmas, doctrines and teachers are measured in terms of the law and the Gospel.  Our Lutheran confessions, as I read them, agree with what scripture speaks and teaches.  But they are not on par with Holy Scripture in the standard of measuring apostolic authority.

The interesting question is by what authority the first sentence is true. Is Lutheranism defined first and foremost in terms of justification or sola scriptura?

Not only an interesting question, but a powerfully important one.  If Lutheranism is defined first and foremost in terms of sola scriptura, then we are perhaps best understood as a radically reductionistic movement within the church catholic.  There are a whole lot of things integral to western Christianity -- liturgy, ecclesiology, ethics, hermeneutics -- that cannot be fully accounted for by scripture alone.  For most of the twentieth century, the question of the relation of scripture and tradition (maybe that should be Tradition with a captial "T") was among the hottest topics within ecumenical endeavors; Lutherans from Jaroslav Pelikan to Oscar Cullmann wrote major essays on the authoritative intersection of Bible and Church.  Scripture is primary; it is the initial authority; Scripture has priority.  But to claim that it is the only authority is to impoverish western Christianity.  I hope Lutherans are not interested in that.

Pr. Rahn mentions "apostolic authority."  Is "apostolic authority" identical to "scriptural authority"?  From a historical perspective, that would seem a very difficult claim to sustain.

Tom Pearson

[Brian Stoffregen]

Holy Scripture (properly defined, ie. the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments) is the ONLY judge, rule and norm
(richter, regel, richtnur) by which all dogmas, doctrines and teachers are measured in terms of the law and the Gospel.  Our Lutheran confessions, as I read them, agree with what scripture speaks and teaches.  But they are not on par with Holy Scripture in the standard of measuring apostolic authority.

The interesting question is by what authority the first sentence is true. Is Lutheranism defined first and foremost in terms of justification or sola scriptura?

Not only an interesting question, but a powerfully important one.  If Lutheranism is defined first and foremost in terms of sola scriptura, then we are perhaps best understood as a radically reductionistic movement within the church catholic.  There are a whole lot of things integral to western Christianity -- liturgy, ecclesiology, ethics, hermeneutics -- that cannot be fully accounted for by scripture alone.  For most of the twentieth century, the question of the relation of scripture and tradition (maybe that should be Tradition with a captial "T") was among the hottest topics within ecumenical endeavors; Lutherans from Jaroslav Pelikan to Oscar Cullmann wrote major essays on the authoritative intersection of Bible and Church.  Scripture is primary; it is the initial authority; Scripture has priority.  But to claim that it is the only authority is to impoverish western Christianity.  I hope Lutherans are not interested in that.

Pr. Rahn mentions "apostolic authority."  Is "apostolic authority" identical to "scriptural authority"?  From a historical perspective, that would seem a very difficult claim to sustain.

There is also a question of solo scriptura refers just to the Bible or to God's Word. I believe that Luther talked more about the Word of God than scripture. As I've noted before, scripture is used to support every Christian heresy. A major shift in the constitutional confession of faith from ALC (which was similar LCMS's) to ELCA is that it does not begin with the Bible.


1. The triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (and that language is in the Constitution).
2. Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and the Gospel as the power of God for the salvation of all who believe.
     a. Jesus is the Word of God incarnate.
     b. The proclamation of God's message to us as Law and Gospel is the Word of God.
     c. The canonical Scriptures are the written Word of God.


There are interpretive norms for us to properly hear the Word of God from Scriptures; namely, our confession about the Trinity, our beliefs about Jesus Christ, and the proper understanding of Law/Gospel.