Lutheran Confessions - Infallible?

[JonNC]

Here we have a first piece of evidence that it is not infallible

the first evidence is the confessions, itself.

The Formula of Concord:

Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

Nothing, including our confessions, are not regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures. The creeds rightly reflect scripture. We accept the 7 general councils are rightly reflecting scripture, and our confessions, as well. but none are regarded as equal to scripture.

Jon

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Agreeing…it appears that the Lutherans aren’t sure themselves if the Lutheran Confessions can err.

Either that or they like riddles.

Good works are necessary but they are NOT necessary is what is said in this LCMS.
(NOT necessary for salvation but necessary as an expression of your faith)
That’s another topic of course.

Just a mystery of Lutheran-ese.

Not a riddle, as our confessions point out. We are sola scripturist, and we hold all teachers and teachings, doctrines and dogmas, accountable to scripture, including the confessions.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

From what I have mused, Lutherans do not recogize the authority of the Pope, but have delegated the authority of the Pope to some sort of paper pope…namely, in the their confessions…is this a right reflection of the Lutheran paradigm?

 

[R_C]

Not a riddle, as our confessions point out. We are sola scripturist

That does not reflect Scripture, it is in fact contrary to Scripture itself. But I don’t mean to rekindle a debate 500 years old…just pointing out how incorrect the statement “the confessions are a right reflection of the Scriptures” is

 

[stewstew03]

Nothing, including our confessions, are not regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures. The creeds rightly reflect scripture. We accept the 7 general councils are rightly reflecting scripture, and our confessions, as well. but none are regarded as equal to scripture.

Okay, I looked at the link you posted. Essentially, this pastor is saying what I’m saying - that the Confessions reflect Scripture, and are therefore infallible - actually, he says inerrant. Here are the relevant statements:

• “…[Lutheran] confessions proclaim only the truth revealed in Holy Scripture…”
• “…the confessions draw their entire doctrinal content directly from Scripture.”
• “…Lutheran Confessional teaching is Biblical teaching and…nothing in these confessions denies Scripture…”

And, finally:

***"…we do claim that their doctrine is nothing more nor less than that of inerrant Holy Scripture…"

---

There it is - the Lutheran Confessions are no less than that of inerrant Holy Scripture.

How is this different than, say, infallible Catholic dogma?

.

I think this Lutheran Pastor disagrees with you, Jon.

.

 

[stewstew03]

I think perhaps Lutherans don’t seem to quite the same need for precise and dogmatic declarations of infallibility.

If you could prove to me that there is something in our Lutheran confessions that was wrong, we would merely say “Thanks! We’ll change that right away!” - it wouldn’t shake our faith at all.

I’d contrast that to what I think the Catholic response would be if we were able to show that some how the Papacy promulgated something wrong. I’m not sure the reaction would be the same, but I’m open to correction!

What do you mean if…??? We already know what Lutherans would do if they disagreed with the Pope… see, e.g., the Reformation.

Besides - you all have already pointed out that the Confessions are essentially infallible dogma for Lutherans.

.

 

[Monergistic]

What am I missing…?

Infallible can mean two different things. You constructed a logical proof that defines it in only one way, basically conflating the meanings. Perhaps if you had a logical proof for A, and another for A’. (Pronounced A prime).

 

[JonNC]

That does not reflect Scripture, it is in fact contrary to Scripture itself. But I don’t mean to rekindle a debate 500 years old…just pointing out how incorrect the statement “the confessions are a right reflection of the Scriptures” is

That, of course, is the Catholic view. We disagree, respectfully.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I think this Lutheran Pastor disagrees with you, Jon.

.

With all due respect to that pastor, it seems inconsistent to criticize the CC for claiming infallibility, and then claim it ourselves. Its sort of like those who seem to think that Lutherans believe consubstantiation while rejecting Transubstantiation on metaphysical grounds.

Jon

 

[pablope]

But BenJ…isn’t this lack of certainly and precise declaration that is making some Lutherans say yes to gay marriage, women pastors…that accounts for the different and varying beliefs in Mary, purgation, etc…and as an extension…filtered down to the protestant movements spawned by Luther’s disobedience to his bishop and the Reformation?

If you could prove to me that there is something in our Lutheran confessions that was wrong, we would merely say “Thanks! We’ll change that right away!” - it wouldn’t shake our faith at all.

Unfortunately, I do not have the apostolic authority to make this call…that is why I asked…following the example of St. Paul…who by revelation submitted himself…how do you follow the example of St. Paul?

By following his example, you (a Lutheran) would not be declaring something themselves, but would submit it to someone with apostolic authority.

The question would be…who do you recognize as that apostolic authority?

I’d contrast that to what I think the Catholic response would be if we were able to show that some how the Papacy promulgated something wrong. I’m not sure the reaction would be the same, but I’m open to correction!

In faith and morals…a lot have tried…but you are certainly welcome to present something…

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;10659612]

But BenJ…isn’t this lack of certainly and precise declaration that is making some Lutherans say yes to gay marriage, women pastors…

Not speaking for Ben, but the moving away from the scriptures and the confessions has nothing to do with the uncertainty of either, but instead an unwillingness to accept the steadfastness of both.

that accounts for the different and varying beliefs in Mary, purgation, etc

The beliefs regarding the Blessed Mother, except for specific doctrines, varies because we do not consider them articles of faith, but instead pious personal opinion. Lutherans are fairly consistent on our belief regarding purgation at the moment of death for entry to Heaven.

…and as an extension…filtered down to the protestant movements spawned by Luther’s disobedience to his bishop and the Reformation?

I wouldn’t know which movements you speak of. Most of the protestant traditions come from Reformed, Anabaptist, some of the later radical groups. None of these has roots in Lutheranism.
One could also say that many in leadership in the CC at the time leading up to 1517 were disobedient.

Unfortunately, I do not have the apostolic authority to make this call…that is why I asked…following the example of St. Paul…who by revelation submitted himself…how do you follow the example of St. Paul?

By following his example, you (a Lutheran) would not be declaring something themselves, but would submit it to someone with apostolic authority.

Which one would we choose, since the ones who claim apostolicity are in schism with each other?

The question would be…who do you recognize as that apostolic authority?

Apostolic does not necessarily mean in succession, as we consider ourselves apostolic, we confess it, and believe in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

In faith and morals…a lot have tried…but you are certainly welcome to present something…

I personally, have questions about a claim of universal jurisdiction, without benefit of a general council.

Jon

 

[pablope]

Not speaking for Ben, but the moving away from the scriptures and the confessions has nothing to do with the uncertainty of either, but instead an unwillingness to accept the steadfastness of both.

Rightly so…but would you say, this unwillingness has some roots in the lack of precise declarations?

One could also say that many in leadership in the CC at the time leading up to 1517 were disobedient.

 

[benjohnson]

But BenJ…isn’t this lack of certainly and precise declaration that is making some Lutherans say yes to gay marriage, women pastors…that accounts for the different and varying beliefs in Mary, purgation, etc…and as an extension…filtered down to the protestant movements spawned by Luther’s disobedience to his bishop and the Reformation?

No literate person could possible deduce such abuses are within the confines of confessional Lutheranism. That there are people who abandon the Christianity of the apostles and yet claim ownership of the name of others speaks to their failures and not of ours.

Sadly, Lutherans are not the only ones to experience such people.

 

[benjohnson]

Not speaking for Ben,

Jon, you can always speak for me!!! I would make me look much wiser than I am!

-Ben

 

[bzkoss236]

the first evidence is the confessions, itself.

So, you are saying that the confessions are infallible because it claims to be infallible?

That does not reflect Scripture, it is in fact contrary to Scripture itself. But I don’t mean to rekindle a debate 500 years old…just pointing out how incorrect the statement “the confessions are a right reflection of the Scriptures” is

That, of course, is the Catholic view. We disagree, respectfully.

Jon

Then what proof do you have that the Bible teaches sola-scriptura? Or better yet, which Church Fathers?

 

[R_C]

That, of course, is the Catholic view. We disagree, respectfully.

Jon

Well, you can disagree from what is sound and reasonable, but that doesn’t look too good, does it. Obviously we understand and respect your disagreement since what is righteous cannot be imposed, not on atheists, not on non-Christians, not on Christians in partial communion

 

[benjohnson]

Not speaking for Ben,

Jon, you can always speak for me!!! I would make me look much wiser than I am!

-Ben

 

[benjohnson]

Well, you can disagree from what is sound and reasonable,

If one idea is ‘sound and reasonable’, it does not necessarily preclude other ideas from having the same virtue.

 

[pablope]

But Ben…I am not saying they are confined to Lutherans alone. But the thread subject is about the Lutheran confessions…so on to my question…your thoughts…:

*Originally Posted by benjohnson
But BenJ…isn’t this lack of certainly and precise declaration that is making some Lutherans say yes to gay marriage, women pastors…that accounts for the different and varying beliefs in Mary, purgation, etc…and as an extension…filtered down to the protestant movements spawned by Luther’s disobedience to his bishop and the Reformation? *

That there are people who abandon the Christianity of the apostles and yet claim ownership of the name of others speaks to their failures and not of ours.

Sadly, Lutherans are not the only ones to experience such people.

The thread subject is about Lutheran confessions and their possible consequences…not what happened to those outside Lutherans.

 

[benjohnson]

The thread subject is about Lutheran confessions and their possible consequences…not what happened to those outside Lutherans.

To answer directly:

The Lutheran Confessions are fine and good - even Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger mulled over the idea that they were catholic.

“it might be possible to interpret [the Augsburg Confession (CA)—i.e., the primary Lutheran confession] under the laws of the empire as a catholic confession. Efforts are underway to achieve a Catholic recognition of the CA or, more correctly, a recognition of the CA as catholic, and thereby to establish the catholicity of the churches of the CA, which makes possible a corporate union while the differences remain”

Simply put…

The problem isn’t with those that hold to them, the problem are those ‘Lutherans’ that forgotten them.

Just as this Lutheran has the CCC in his Library, I would venture to say that Catholics could derive some benefit to having the AC in their own Library.