Scrolling through the Blogosphere

• aardvark alley


• Always Yes (T. Pietsch)


• Amor et Labor


• Ask the Pastor (Snyder)


• Augsburg Aggregator


• Be Strong in the Grace


• Blog My Soul (Kinnaman)


• The Blogora


• Bunnie Diehl


• The Burr in the Burgh (Stiegemeyer)


• Café Diem (Pluger)


• Carol Rutz's Annexe


• The Children of God (E. Harju)


• Collarbones (Brondos)


• Concordia Seminary Institute of Lay Vocation (Siemon-Netto)


• Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions (McCain, et al.)


• Conversi ad Dominum (Fenton)


• Cranach (Veith)


• The Crowned Ones (Cholak)


• Cwirla's Blogosphere


• Cyberbrethren (McCain)


• CyberStones (Petersen)


• DarkMyRoad


• Explorations in Theology (Wandrey)


• Extra Nos (Cruz)


• Father Hollywood (Beane)


• Friends of Mercy (Sell, ScotK)


• General Scuttlebutt


• Gottesblog (Eckardt)


• Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength


• Horn+Swoggled


• incarnatus est (Alms)


• Keeping the Faith (Bakker)


• Latif's Memoir


• Long Thoughts of a Confessional Lutheran


• Love and Blunder


• Luther Library


• Lutheran Blog Directory


• The Lutheran Logomaniac (Peperkorn)


• Lutheran Survivor (Chryst)


• Nerd Heaven (Powell)


• Norman's Demesne (Teigen)


• On the Lutheran Church & Her Liturgy (May)


• One Lutheran...Ablog! (Beisel)


• Outer Rim Territories (Gillespie)


• Paredwka: Dropping the Ball (B. Harju)


• The Plucked Chicken (Jacobsen)


• Pastor Disaster & the Backsliders (Loree, Scheer, Schaaf)


• Poor Miserable Sinner


• Preachrblog (Chryst)


• Putting Out the Fire


• Random Intolerance


• Quicunque vult... (Carder)


• Rebellious Pastor's Wife


• Reformation Letters I & II (Schoewe)


• Sacred Meditations (Schroeder)


• Schaaf's Kopf


• The Sectarian Strand


• St. Charles Place (Gottschall)


• St. James the Hoosier


• Theophilus' Inferno (Cota)


• This Side of the Pulpit (Hall)


• Uneasy Priest (Juhl)


• Wartburg Speaks


• Watersblogged!


• Weedon's Blog


• What Did Jesus Do (Schroeder)


• Whey Lay


• Wise is She (C.R. Pietsch)


• Writ-in-Red (Muehlenbruch)

People I would like to add to my blogroll

• J. Bushur


• M. Harrison


• J. T. Pless


• L. R. Rast


• D. P. Scaer


• W. C. Weinrich

The Smalcald Articles from the 1854 Henkel Concordia have been blogged and are available online at smalcaldreader. Presently, they are blogged in the same rough format as the Small and Large Catechisms at catechismreader, with typographical errors galore. The comment feature on both is closed at present, with plans to open them after the completion of the project.

Luther's Smalcald Articles are a great read, reminiscent of the Augsburg Confession in many ways, with both symbols treating quite a few of the same topics. The intervening time, however, between 1530 and 1537 (and perhaps also the difference in authors and recipients,) accounts for a definite change in tone from "hopeful for reconciliation" to "hopeless that any real reconciliation or reformation will take place".

Catechismreader is up and running! Ok, so I've had the link posted for quite some time; but this evening, the final portions were posted on the Larger Catechism, bringing both the Smaller and the Larger Catechisms from the 1854 Henkel edition into the blogosphere. While both catechisms are now posted in their entirety, I have yet to go back through with a fine-toothed spellchecker to catch words that I may have inadvertantly mis-typed. (Some misspellings were intentional, in an attempt to maintain the original Henkel spellings. Others were the result of quick-moving fingers hitting the wrong keys... And still others, spellchecker will not catch, because those misspelling may have formulated another word that is correctly spelled!)

On Infant Baptism from the Large Catechism

Here we further assert, that it is not of the greatest importance as to this point, whether the person baptized believes or does not believe; for Baptism does not become wrong on this account, but all depends upon the word and command of God. Now this is indeed a nice point, but it is founded upon the assertion, that Baptism is nothing else than water and the word of God intimately united; that is, when the word is connected with the water, then baptism is right, although the individual may be destitute of faith at the time of his baptism; for my faith does not make, but it receives Baptism. Now Baptism does not become wrong, even if it be wrongly received and applied, since, as observed above, it does not depend on our belief, but upon the word of God....

For this reason we say, if you have not believed, believe yet, and thus declare: "The baptism was surely right, but I alas! have not received it rightly." For I myself, and all who permit themselves to be baptized, must thus say before God: "I come hither in my faith and that of others, yet I cannot depend on my belief and the prayers of many others for me, but I rely on thy word and command, even as I go to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, not upon my faith, but upon the words of Christ, whether I be strong or weak, for this I let God provide; but I know that he orders me to go, to eat, and to drink, &c., and that he gives me his body and his blood,– which words will neither belie nor deceive me."

More on the Filioque

The Father and the Son are identical in everything except the mutually opposed relations of fatherhood and sonship. According to the famous dictum of Athanasius, "the same things are said of the Son as are said of the Father, except His being said to be 'Father.'" The only thing that the Father alone can do is to be Father, that is, to generate the Son. Since the Father does not act alone in spirating the Spirit, the Spirit must proceed from the Father and the Son as from a single co-principle. The Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Son by a different relation of origin.

(The Filioque: What Is at Stake? by Avery Dulles, S.J.; Concordia Theological Quarterly; vol. 59, numbers 1-2; p.36)

Wilhelm Loehe on the Filioque

from

Questions and Answers

to the Six Chief Parts of Luther's Small Catechism

397. On whom do you believe in the Third Article?

The Holy Ghost.

398. Who is the Holy Ghost?

The Third Person of the Godhead, equal to the Father and the Son in essence, majesty, and glory.

399. What do you believe concerning the Holy Ghost?

That from all eternity He proceeds from the Father and from the Son, and has been sent by the Father and by the Son for the sanctification of men.

400. What is the meaning of the words,

"He proceedeth from the Father and the Son"?

They denote the manner of the origin of the Third Person of the Trinity, as it is described in the Athanasian Creed:

"The Father is made of none: neither created, nor begotten.

"The Son is of the Father alone: not made, nor created, but begotten.

"The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding."

All our imagination and thought fall short of this thrice-holy mystery.

401. Is all Christendom agreed in the doctrine

of the proession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son?

No. The Eastern church believes that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father alone.

402. Why?

Because no express word declaring His procession from the Son is found in the Scriptures.

403. Why then is it believed in the West?

Because otherwise the Father and the Son would not be equal. John xvi. 15.

Because otherwise the order of Persons would not be clear, nor would it be evident which is the Second, and which is the Third Person.

Because otherwise the Holy Ghost would be sent by the Father alone, and not by the Father and the Son. John xv. 26; xvi. 7; xiv. 26.

Because otherwise the Spirit could not be called the Spirit of the Son. Gal. iv. 6.

Published by Repristination Press;
translated by Edward T. Horn and copyright by the same, 1893,

Pages 102-3.

Thoughts on an Unconditional Confessional Subscription

(fourth part of several to follow)

I wrote:

What makes a subscription to the Book of Concord unconditional?

(4) When the great "we believe, teach, and confess" statements (regardless of an indicated sedes,) together with similar statements such as "our churches believe", etc., are considered the only portions of the Book of Concord which are to be upheld for the Evangelical Lutheran Church to believe, teach, and confess today - ?

From time to time, one hears (from respected persons who care deeply about the Confessions,) that pastors and congregations subscribe only to the "doctrinal articles" contained in the Book of Concord. I'm not speaking facetiously when I say that I'm not quite sure what exactly this means. What exactly is meant by a "doctrinal article"? As I suggest above, are "doctrinal articles" only those portions of the Book of Concord that are highlighted by a certain phrase, such as: "we believe, teach, and confess" or "our churches believe..." or "our ministers teach..."? Are the doctrinal articles only the positions which were stated on controverted teachings? Or is there another operative definition of a "doctrinal article"?

My question:

What is the point of having the Book of Concord at all - if outside of the doctrinal articles (however they are defined), nothing else contained therein should be considered a doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church? Is the ELCA's Church Council finally correct when they resolve the embarrassing problem of the Book of Concord by relegating it to the historical department, by implying that it is not necessary for the Lutheran Church today to hold to everything that is said in the Book of Concord, when they regret the beliefs of their sixteenth century namesake because those beliefs do not match what is believed, taught, and confessed by the "Lutheran Church" today?

If pastors and churches are not subscribing to everything - saying that they believe, teach, and confess whatever is contained in the Book of Concord (out of the conviction that it is, indeed, in agreement with the Sacred Scriptures) - then what is the point of subscribing to it at all? If it was never the intention of the Lutheran confessors that their children should subscribe to everything contained in the Book of Concord, then why did they never draft a concretely specific book of "the Accepted Doctrinal Articles Contained in the Book of Concord to which our Pastors and Churches Subscribe"?

My response:

I would maintain that the unconditional confessional subscription of a pastor and a congregation ought to be to the entire Book of Concord, to believe, teach, and confess not only the doctrinal articles but everything else that is in there, too.

(Perhaps those who are wiser or more knowledgeable than I would be willing to show where I have missed the mark?)

Thoughts on an Unconditional Confessional Subscription

(third part of several to follow)

I wrote:

What makes a subscription to the Book of Concord unconditional?

(3) When only those portions of the Book of Concord that have the defense of explicit sedes doctrinae in citation are to be upheld as normative for the belief, teaching, confession, and practice of the Evangelical Lutheran Church today - ?

Any time that the word "only" is used, a conditional statement is made. "I would like to eat the whole pie," I say after dinner, "but I think it would be best if I only take a small piece."

If we uphold only those beliefs, teachings, confessions, or practices in the Book of Concord that have explicit sedes doctrinae cited or available for citation, then we do not wish to subscribe unconditionally to the entire Book of Concord. If we only wish to observe those portions that carry an explicit scriptural command, if we only feel compelled to abide by those portions which can be explicitly defended from the Sacred Scriptures, then we have reservations - we reserve to ourselves the right to reject portions of what the Confessions say. We thereby attach a "condition" to our confessional subscription.

An example:

Augsburg Confession XI says that "private absolution ought to be retained in the church, and should not be discontinued"; likewise XXV says: "Confession is not abolished by our ministers. For the custom is retained among us, not to administer the Sacrament, unto those who have not been previously examined and absolved" and "Yet by our ministers it is taught with diligence, that confession, because of absolution, which is the chief part in it, should be retained for the purpose of consoling alarmed consciences, and for some other reasons."

Article XXV does not give any scriptural proof texts in order to defend the retention of the custom of private confession and absolution; in fact, the article seems to go out of its way to cite the teaching of an extra-biblical document to explain that [private] "confession is not commanded in the Scriptures, but that it was instituted by the church."

* * * * *

So - was ist daß?

Even though there is no scriptural command to do so, are the ministers and churches who wish to maintain an unconditional subscription to the Lutheran Confessions required (that is, do they require it of themselves when they freely make their subscription to the Lutheran Confessions,) to offer private confession and absolution on a regular basis?

Antwort:

I believe so, but I'm interested in hearing your comments as well.

Thoughts on an Unconditional Confessional Subscription

(second part of several to follow)

I wrote:

What makes a subscription to the Book of Concord unconditional?

(2) When, like a certain nineteenth century theologian, one excises offensive portions from the confessions and heartily subscribes to whatever is left, as long as the remaining portions still fit the criteria of "agreeing with the Scriptures" - ?

I've already ranted elsewhere about Samuel Simon Schmucker and his General Synodical Platform. This sort of position is really an "I'll follow the Lutheran Confessions in so far as they agree with whatever criteria I wish to establish", that is, it is a very conditional subscription to the Book of Concord. Cyberbrethren has pointed out elsewhere that someone who wishes to maintain an "in so far as" subscription to the Lutheran Confessions might as well subscribe to the telephone directory or Webster's Dictionary (he may have said, "The Koran",) in so far as it agrees with the Scriptures. If a confessional subscription indicates just how much of the Lutheran Confessions you believe are in agreement with the Scriptures, then to subscribe only in so far as is to leave the field wide open, saying that some parts do and that other parts may not. Ultimately, this boils down to a conditional subscription.

Perhaps the only kind word that I have for Schmucker is that he at least had the honesty to clearly delineate which portions of the Augsburg Confession he found agreeable and to physically cut out those portions with which he disagreed. Schmucker at least defined his in so far as subscription in clearer terms, whereas others leave theirs clouded in ambiguity.

* * * * *

Maybe what's missing in this whole discussion is a clear definition of what it means to "subscribe" to the Lutheran Confessions. Is it a token "pledge of allegiance" - something that we "keep on the books" so that we can maintain our 21st century ties to our long-dead 16th century forefathers, some formality that somehow permits us to retain the name "Lutheran"? Or is it (was it always intended) to be something more - to say that we also believe, teach, confess, and do what is written therein as it is in accord with the Scriptural faith?

Thoughts on an Unconditional Confessional Subscription

(first part of several to follow)

I have to apologize; I was not playing nice in my previous post.

I wrote:

What makes a subscription to the Book of Concord unconditional?

(1) When, in its entirety and without any exceptions, the Book of Concord is acknowledged as the belief, teaching, and confession of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the sixteenth century - ?

This statement sounds good, and in and of itself, it is certainly true. Most who call themselves "Lutherans" today will acknowledge that the Book of Concord contains the beliefs, teachings, confessions, and practices of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the sixteenth century.

And yet, (this is where I was not playing nice), this nice-sounding statement does not go far enough; it intentionally stops short. It answers the question: "What did they believe?" It does not say anything about me. For my part, I am not making an unconditional subscription unless I say, "Put my name right after theirs. It is my belief, teaching, confession and practice today as well." That is where you see a great divide among Lutherans today, on the question of the extent to which their sixteenth century confessions are still binding for us today.

As an example of this division, we might consider a recently formulated position released by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. (Thanks for the heads-up to Cyberbrethren with the post entitled, "The Situation of the 16th Century No Longer Applies in the 21st Century"; the referenced ELCA news release is also available here). The press release indicates that the ELCA's Church Council "repudiated":

statements in the Formula of Concord and declared that condemnations in the Augsburg Confession directed at the Anabaptists do not apply to today's Mennonite Church USA. The Formula of Concord and Augsburg Confession are among the Lutheran confessions written in Europe in the 16th century.

From the declaration itself, pay particular attention to the following:

The Augsburg Confession's condemnations of the Anabaptists in the matter of baptismal faith and practice (CA IX) and participation in the police power of the state (CA XVI) are properly the subject of future conversation between our churches. We note that Lutheran churches in France and Germany have adopted statements declaring that these condemnations are not church-dividing and that they do not apply to Mennonites in their countries. The Lutheran World Federation has begun conversations with the Mennonite World Conference and we support their efforts to ascertain whether the differences that remain between our two churches in these matters are in fact church-dividing.

What is the point in highlighting these things? It would seem to me that the ELCA wishes to declare that what was believed, taught, confessed, and practiced in the sixteenth century is no longer relevant for the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the twenty-first century. Why? We live in a different context, and things have changed. Rather than maintaining divisions because of doctrine, we should set aside the doctrine, or at the very least, say that it doesn't matter any more.

I would maintain that it is not enough for one who wishes to subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions "unconditionally" to merely acknowledge that the Book of Concord relates what "they believed" in the sixteenth century. If the sentence that follows "this is what they believed" is not "and it is our belief, teaching, confession, and practice, too", then you are looking at some form of a conditional subscription.

PLEASE NOTE: The press release and the declaration of the Church Council of the ELCA both failed to indicate where the Lutheran Confessions actually urge governmental violence against those who held/hold to Anabaptist teachings. (I am not aware of any such urgings.) The word "condemned" is not always used (nor, I suspect, was it exclusively used in the sixteenth century) to mean "capital punishment", "imprisonment, exile, and execution". Dictionary.com kindly highlights several of the ways in which the word "condemn" is used; please consider the following:

1. to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.

3. to give grounds or reason for convicting or censuring.

4. to judge or pronounce to be unfit for use or service.

7. to declare incurable.

What makes a subscription to the Book of Concord unconditional - ? (An Opinion Poll)

(1) When, in its entirety and without any exceptions, the Book of Concord is acknowledged as the belief, teaching, and confession of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the sixteenth century - ?

(2) When, like a certain nineteenth century theologian, one excises offensive portions from the confessions and heartily subscribes to whatever is left, as long as the remaining portions still fit the criteria of "agreeing with the Scriptures" - ?

(3) When only those portions of the Book of Concord that have the defense of explicit sedes doctrinae in citation are to be upheld as normative for the belief, teaching, confession, and practice of the Evangelical Lutheran Church today - ?

(4) When the great "we believe, teach, and confess" statements (regardless of an indicated sedes,) together with similar statements such as "our churches believe", etc., are considered the only portions of the Book of Concord which are to be upheld for the Evangelical Lutheran Church to believe, teach, and confess today - ?

(5) When, in addition to the "our churches believe" portions, statements that are qualified with phrases such as "it is the practice of our churches" or "our ministers [do thus and so]", etc., are specifically and particularly the only portions of the Book of Concord which are to be upheld as the belief, teaching, confession, and practice of the Evangelical Lutheran Church today - ?

(6) When one maintains a subscription (of the type suggested in any of the above, or perhaps something else) to the Book of Concord of 1580, understanding that edition as the first and normative edition of the Evangelical Lutheran Symbols and seeing each subsequent edition or translation as a commentary on the authoritative edition of 1580?

(7) When one maintains a subscription to the Book of Concord of 1580 as well as to the Book of Concord of 1584, citing these two as complementary and not differing in any substantial way (with the difference between mehr in the Treatise of 1580 and supra in 1584 not being considered substantial; likewise, the addition of the semper virgo phrase in the 1584 edition of the Smalcald Articles not being considered substantial, perhaps out of deference to FC SD VIII...) and when these two are considered the normative and authoritative editions - ?

(8) When one maintains that his subscription is to the 1580(+1584?) Book of Concord, yet only practices theology solely on the basis of modern translations of that/those text(s), despite modern deviations (eg., gender neutralization,) which have been imposed upon the original texts in order to forward a particular agenda - ?

(9) When one maintains, down to the assertions about garlic juice and magnets, that everything in the Book of Concord (1580 and/or 1584 and/or 1921 and/or 1959, etc.,) is a faithful exposition of the Scriptures and is normative for what we believe, teach, confess, and practice today - ?

(10) When one maintains, beyond the assertions about garlic juice, that everything in the Book of Concord (edition: your choice), including the materials referenced authoritatively by the Lutheran Symbols (such as Luther's Great Confession Concerning the Lord's Supper), is a faithful exposition of the Scriptures and is normative for what we believe, teach, confess, and practice today - ?

(11) When one maintains that, in addition to everything that is written in the Book of Concord, we are also bound to every universally accepted document and doctrine of the Church which does not disagree (implicitly or explicitly) with anything that is written in the Book of Concord or which the Book of Concord does not explicitly condemn or reject - ?

(12) I didn't think that anybody subscribed unconditionally to the Book of Concord anymore - ?

(13) I didn't think that anybody ever subscribed unconditionally to the Book of Concord - ?

The Small Catechism from the 1854 Henkel Concordia is now up and running at catechismreader. Portions of the Large Catechism are being gradually added as I am able.

Working my way through the Ten Commandments, I find myself praying for the Creed (and Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and the Brief Exhortation to Confession), as the Commandments are nothing but the strictest preaching of the Law intended to kill the sinner dead in his tracks, with no path of escape. You who think yourselves righteous - read what Luther says of the 10 Commandments in the Large Catechism; and if you still think yourselves righteous, then I can be of no help to you.

Some thoughts on Liturgy and Doctrine from Hermann Sasse

"What causes me to write is rather an issue of the Confessional Lutheran (July-August 1956).... What [Burgdorf, the editor] and his friends fail to realize is the necessity of a liturgical movement within the Lutheran Church which would help to revive the great "Catholic" heritage of our fathers, the liturgical life of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It was this liturgy that has prevented Lutheran Orthodoxy from becoming a mere system or rational theology.

"We cannot revive the theology of our fathers without realizing what theology meant to them: praise of God and doctrine at the same time. One has often the impression that the correct doctrine on the Sacraments is regarded as more important than their celebration. This is the danger for your church, though I must admit having read wonderful sermons on the Sacrament by your theologians, in which the full devotional content of the orthodox liturgy found an expression. But Pieper's Dogmatics is not satisfactory in this respect, due perhaps to the influence of the last stage of Orthodoxy in the later seventeenth century, when the Sacraments had lost their 'existential' meaning. We observe already with Melanchthon... a mere pedagogical understanding of the liturgy. This development went on. The two sides of orthodoxy, orthodoxy as 'pure doctrine' and orthodoxy as 'right worship,' still happily united with men like Johann Gerhard and Paul Gerhardt, were more and more separated which led to a decay of both. Whatever the causes of the development in your church may have been, ... the great task remains for you, as for all Lutheran churches, to regain that lost unity."

When "confessional churches" become "unliturgical", Sasse calls them "ineffective"; they may also fall off the horse in the other direction, when liturgical movements become "heretical or Romanistic". Sasse holds out the unity of the two as the goal, the task being to rediscover and maintain both without falling into tragedy on either side of the horse.

Source:
Hermann Sasse, "Letter to Arthur Carl Piepkorn (1956)," in The Lonely Way: Selected Letters and Essays, volume II (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2002), pp. 239-40.

Those who subscribe to the Augsburg Confession acknowledge that, according to the Scriptures, Christians may participate in their government (AC XVI). The confession specifically states that Christians may hold legislative, judicial, executive offices, among other civil positions (such as being a soldier). Each Christian is encouraged to carry out his vocation in life; today, as a U. S. citizen who is registered to vote, I exercised that opportunity.

Announcing Augsburgreader

For those interested in the Lutheran Confessions, Concordiareader is pleased to announce Augsburgreader. At its introduction, Augsburgreader is a transcription of a nineteenth century English translation of the 1580 Book of Concord's "Unaltered Augsburg Confession". Using the blogger/blogspot platform, Augsburgreader makes this translation, originally published by Solomon D. Henkel and Brothers in 1854, available to the blogosphere in a searchable format.

The text used for this transcription is available on-line in digital format, together with various other works, at Lutheran Legacy, where volunteers are being sought to aid in the work of transcription. (Please note: Concordiareader is not affiliated - either officially or unofficially - with the folks at Lutheran Legacy. Browse their site; it's interesting to see what they've made available.)

For now, the comment feature at Augsburgreader is disabled. If you would like leave a comment, you may respond to this post.