_15_The Authority of Scripture and the Confessions

In adopting its Symbols, or Confessions, the Lutheran Church did not adopt doctrines which are foreign to Scripture, but confessed its faith in the doctrines revealed in Scripture. The attempts to spread unscriptural doctrines in the Church under the guise of Scriptural teaching forced the Church to set forth in its own words what the Scriptures actually do teach. The Symbols, or Confessions, of the orthodox Church are simply its affirmation of the Scriptural doctrine over against the denial of it by heretics.

This same truth — that the Lutheran Church does not set up in its Symbols a second norm alongside Scripture —is evidenced by its insistence on the quia form of subscription. It binds its teachers to the doctrine contained in the Confessions not because it is the doctrine of the Confessions, but because it is the doctrine of Scripture. There are many who insist on the quatenus form of subscription — “in so far as” the symbols teach the Scripture truth. One wonders whether these people take a serious view of the obligation involved. J. G. Walch aptly remarks that with the restrictive quatenus one could place his signature under the Koran or the Racovian Catechism.157 A person who seeks to justify the quatenus by saying that he is not yet certain what is the Scriptural truth and how far the Symbolical Books give expression to this truth must be told that he is not yet ready for the ministerial office. And if he complains that the quia subscription would entail the coercion of his conscience, he must be told that nobody is coercing him to take up the office of pastor or teacher. As a rule, only such people speak of coercion here as have gotten away from God’s Word and still want to find purchasers of their own thoughts at the expense of the congregation. Walther writes in his Pastoraltheologie, p. 52: “The minister who is called by a congregation must obligate himself to teach according to God’s Word and the Church’s Confession; he owes this to the congregation as a guaranty that he will not dispense his own wisdom, but will preach publicly and privately the pure Christian doctrine and not attempt to be master of their faith.” The quatenus subscription annuls the Symbols as a Confession of faith.

The quatenus pledge has appeared in several forms.

1. It is said that the Symbols “offer an essentially correct” presentation “of the chief doctrines.” It is left to the whim of the individual what is to be regarded as “chief doctrines” and what is “an essentially correct” presentation of these fundamental doctrines.158

2. It has been said that the Symbols must be interpreted “historically.” This is to say, not all doctrines contained in the Symbols are binding, but only those which the Church was compelled to discuss by reason of a doctrinal controversy in its midst. Everything in the Confessions which has not been “historically occasioned” must be regarded as not belonging to the substance of the Confessions. It is plain that this conception of the Symbols lets the subjective judgment of the individual decide how much of the Symbols he will accept as “historically occasioned.” If only so much of the Symbols obligates us as has been the result of a controversy within the Church, we might have to cancel Article XI of the Formula of Concord as not binding upon us. For concerning this article the Formula says that “among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession there has not occurred as yet any public dissension whatever concerning the election of the children of God that has caused offense and has become widespread.” It was only “to prevent disagreement and separation on its account in the future among our successors” that the article is here presented. (Trigl. 1062.) Again, under this “historical” view of the Symbols someone might get the notion to put even the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture on the free list, for this doctrine had not been in controversy; and there is no special article on it in the Confessions; it is only incidentally that Scripture is “identified” with God’s Word, etc. We have previously stated that modern theologians seek indulgence for their denial of the inspiration of Scripture in these facts.

3. Again, there are those who are ready to subscribe to the Confessions with the understanding that they be interpreted “according to Scripture,” or “correctly.” In this sense, Reformed theologians, including Calvin, have signed the Unaltered Augsburg Confession.159 And a Lutheran pastoral conference in Germany proposed to the fathers of the Missouri Synod that the Lutheran Confessions be “understood according to Scripture and in the light of the error specifically rejected” (Lutheraner, Vol. X, p. 90). That has a pious and Scriptural ring, but in fact it completely overlooks and does away with the purpose of the Symbols. By subscribing to the Symbols a man does not declare his readiness to interpret them “according to Scripture,” but the minister or candidate in question makes the solemn declaration to the congregation that he has already discovered what Scripture teaches and he finds the Lutheran Confessions to be the expression of his own faith and confession.

4. It is a quatenus form of subscription when men profess to follow, not the “letter,” but the “spirit,” of the Confessions. The rationalists of the eighteenth century were very willing to sign the Confessions with this restriction. By “spirit” they meant their own spirit, which transformed the essence of Chistianity into heathen morality.

All these and other quatenus forms frustrate the purpose of the confessional obligation. The congregation can never know how much of the doctrine contained in the Confessions is being accepted. These quatenus forms are, at bottom, in conflict with common honesty and uprightness. And experience shows that behind the demand for a conditional subscription lies the refusal to accept certain doctrines of the Confessions. That applies also to those Lutherans of our day who insist on some form of the quatenus subscription because they are not in accord with the doctrinal position of the Confessions in the doctrines, e. g., of the Church, of the Ministry, of the Last Things (Chiliasm), and of Antichrist.

Arguing against the unconditional subscription, the quatenus men ask whether they are supposed to subscribe to all the historical, scientific and purely external remarks that are found here and there in the Confessions. Nobody asks them to do this. They are simply beclouding the issue. The confessional pledge covers only the doctrine. It is the confession of the Church, and the Christian Church is concerned about the doctrine. They also make much of the argument that no one can expect them to subscribe to “all exegetical proof” offered in the Confessions. No one expects them to do this. We readily grant that together with the passages that prove a doctrine passages are occasionally quoted which belong elsewhere. But what we do claim is that there is no doctrine found in the Confessions for which there is not ample Scripture proof offered. And we add this: the Confessions may serve as a model of Scripture proof in that they employ little “exegesis” — as this term is usually understood — but, to speak with Luther, are satisfied to let the nuda Scriptura, without much explanation, speak for itself. More of this in the next chapter, “Scripture and Exegesis.” 160

To show the relation between Holy Scripture and the Symbols of the orthodox Church, the following terms have been used: norma and norma normata, norma primaria and secundaria. Both terms express the truth that the Symbols are a norm, but not by themselves (absolute), but only in a certain respect (secundum quid), namely, a derived norm, because the doctrines confessed in our Symbols are taken from Scripture.161 The purpose of the Symbols is brought out in the terms norma decisionis and norma discretionis (deciding norm and distinguishing norm). Scripture alone decides which doctrine is true, which is false; but from the attitude which one takes toward the Symbols of the Lutheran Church we learn whether he knows and accepts the Scripture doctrine or does not accept it (norma discretionis discernit orthodoxos ab heterodoxis).162

Mylius (d. 1607) and Hutter (d. 1616) and some later Lutheran theologians spoke of an inspiration of the Lutheran Symbols. They did not mean, of course, to place the Symbols on a plane with Scripture, but they merely wanted to state that the Symbols were produced under the special guidance and assistance of the Holy Ghost; Hollaz has shown from their own words that Mylius and Hutter used the term inspiration in a wider sense (sensu latiori).163 But even with these precautions the Symbols should not be called “inspired” It is certainly better to reserve the term for the writings of the Apostles and Prophets. Walther adds to the words of Hollaz: “Shelvigius and I. G. Neumann likewise claim that the Symbolic Books might be called , while Loescher, Carpzov, and others justly express their dissent.”164