Friday, January 18, 2008

Joe Abrahamson Responds about Confessional Subscription




Joe Abrahamson has left a new comment on your post "Why Is the Lutheran Church a Two-Headed Calf?":

Greg,
I think the article is "Are We bound only to what the Confessions Teach?" (found in Our Great Heritage Vol. 1, p. 434-6)

According to the note in Our Great Heritage the article was printed in The Northwestern Lutheran (vol. 60, 1973; p. 353 and written by Arnold Koelpin.

It is a poorly written article that allows way too many interpretations.

My best construction on the article is that it was meant to address such issues as Abortion and Homosexuality which are not covered in the Book of Concord.

But the unfortunate conclusion that is left to the general reader is not a Confessional Lutheran response. The emphasis on what Scripture Alone teaches allows the reader to inject his own interpretation of Scriptures to be considered true over and against the Lutheran Confessions.

The article states:

"Practically speaking, what does this mean for us? To appeal to a common subscription to the Lutheran Confessions in support of unity may be evasive of the truth." (p. 435) I wonder which Confessional Lutheran subscribing with a quia subscription could ever argue in this way. If the Lutheran Confessions are a correct interpretation of the Scriptures (in a quia subscription, then there is no second-guessing what might be meant on a theological issue.

But if the subscription is quatenus "in so far as the Confessions agree with Scripture" then this article in Our Great Heritage would be more accurate. Perhaps the author (Koelpin) thought that all his readers were more likely to have a limited subscription to the Lutheran Confessions. If that is the case, this would be very sad, and very telling about what the author believed the readership in the WELS would consider normal.

The article goes even further by defining the so-called "Historical Subscription" to the Lutheran Confessions in a way that makes it normative for WELS. The article mis-quotes the Formula of Concord with the words:
"As the Formula of Concord states, these other writings (creeds and confessions) are 'mere witnesses and expositions of the faith, setting forth how at various times the holy Scriptures were understood in the church of God by contemporaries with reference to the controverted articles, and how contrary teachings were rejected and condemned." (p. 435)

The quotation from the Formula of Concord is from the Epitome (par. 8).

But Koelpin's selective quotation ignores the previous paragraphs which set down as the standard of judgment in all controversies the three ecumenical creeds: the Apostles' Creed, The Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed (sec. 3); The first Unaltered Augsburg Confession, the Apology, The Smalcald Articles with the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (sec. 4); and the Small and Large Catechisms of Dr. Martin Luther (sec 5).

Most of the problems (heresies) of Christianity have already been dealt with in the Lutheran Confessions. Especially and specifically the inerrancy of the Church and the Pope (who ever is considered by the congregations to be the head of the Church or Synod). The Means of Grace through the Divinely Instituted Ministry is established in these documents over and against any modern Church Growth attempt at replacing the Means of Grace. And almost any internal theological issues facing the synods of our contemporary period are already discussed and solved in the Lutheran Confessions.

I suspect that Donatism has reared its ugly head again. And the so-called Lutherans are looking for other marks of the Church than the "Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments rightly administered." (AC VII:1)

Sorry this is so long. I just felt a need to blather.

Joe Abrahamson

***

GJ - Thanks Joe. (He is an ELS pastor.) If pastors start signing their names to intelligent comments, I may have to shut this thing down. The drama will be gone.

I remembered correctly. I would have posted a citation, but the books were given away, pulped, or used as kindling in my fireplace. They were very dry, so they burn well.

My problem with the decaying remnants of the Synodical Conference is this - adoration of recent documents, which are used as the norma normans of the sect. For example, I was talking to Jeb Schaefer (former editor, NWL). We were discussing the growth of women in authority over men in WELS. He said, "Have you read Whitey's essay on ritual law?" The clear implication of his question was that an essay by the former seminary president was the canon for judging all such issues. Once a seminary professor makes his solemn declaration, especially in in WLQ, the issue is settled for all time. Church Growth theology is fabulous (Valleskey). The Reformed only downplay the Means of Grace (Valleskey). The New Testament says nothing against the ordination of women (Brug).

Many in the LCMS think the Theses on Justification are the last word on justification. Thus they supplant the clarity and force of the Book of Concord. Anyone who criticizes them is abgeschnitten, cut off from the Kingdom.