WELS and the Lutheran Confessions

[DaRev]

In all sincerity and seriousness...

In light of recent discussions here on TCL, I am curious as to the official position of the Wisconsin Synod and their subscription to the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

Does the Wisconsin Synod hold a quia subscription (because they are thoroughly Scriptural) or a quantenus subscription ("in so far as" they agree with Scripture) to the Lutheran Confessions.

Please, for the sake of this question and to avoid any harsh words and hurt feelings, give only the official WELS position, with appropriate references, and not personal opinions.

 

[dinkime]

13. We believe that the three ecumenical creeds (the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian) as well as the Lutheran Confessions as contained in the Book of Concord of 1580 express the true doctrine of Scripture. Since the doctrines they confess are drawn from Scripture alone, we are bound to them in our faith and life. Therefore all preaching and teaching in our churches and schools must be in harmony with these confessions, and we reject all the errors that they reject.

taken from "This We Believe" http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?2617&collectionID=783&contentID=57253&shortcutID=20289

 

[DaRev]

Thank you very much.

 

[porterross]

Thanks, Becky. That is what I understood as well and you've answered a lot of my questions.

 

[dinkime]

that is the doctrinal statement as a whole at the link -- i recieved a copy at/before confirmation and then a "new" copy when the revised one came out a few years back

 

[Jim47]

Yes the WELS does hold the confessions to be true, but we also as I have said before do not put the confessions on the same level as scripture.

I think the confessions are indeed good, and we are studing them now in bible class, but most folks in my church have never even heard the term Book of Concord nor read it, myself I am still trying to get through it.

 

[DaRev]

Yes the WELS does hold the confessions to be true, but we also as I have said before do not put the confessions on the same level as scripture.

Of course the Confessions are not on the same level as the Scriptures. The Scriptures are the "norm normata", that being the basis by which all things are normed in the church, the basis of all teachings. The Confessions are the "norm normans", that being the teachings that are normed by the Scriptures. The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as bound in the Book of Concord of 1580 are the doctrines of the Church catholic based solely and thoroughly on the Scriptures. We can rely on what the Confessions teach us because it is what the Scriptures teach us, since they are thoroughly Scriptural.

I think the confessions are indeed good, and we are studing them now in bible class, but most folks in my church have never even heard the term Book of Concord nor read it, myself I am still trying to get through it.

And that is just poor catechesis. I can't even imagine teaching a confirmation class or an adult membership class without using and teaching the Confessions of the Church.

 

[BigNorsk]

So which version of the Book of Concord does the LCMS hold as authoritative? I'm just asking because I've never actually seen one version stated as the authrority and basically the version vary slightly.

A big difference would be what seem to me to normally now appear as appendixes on the end of the Small Catechism. Since they were indeed contained in the 1580 BOC, I would assume the WELS thereby would take them as authoritative for such things as the marriage ceremony, or baptism. That would be one example.

Anyway, I was just wondering which version the LCMS takes as authoritative.

Marv

 

[DaRev]

The original versions. The Unaltered Augsburg Confession, written in both German and Latin. And the German versions of the other documents.

I'm assuming by "versions" you are referring to translations. It's a similar situation with the Scriptures.
The "version" used by the seminaries in the LCMS is the Kolb/Wengert edition. The "version" of the Small Catechism that most congregations use for instruction is the edition of 1991. These "versions" accurately reflect the original documents found in the Book of Concord of 1580.

 

[DaSeminarian]

The original versions. The Unaltered Augsburg Confession, written in both German and Latin. And the German versions of the other documents.

I'm assuming by "versions" you are referring to translations. It's a similar situation with the Scriptures.
The "version" used by the seminaries in the LCMS is the Kolb/Wengert edition. The "version" of the Small Catechism that most congregations use for instruction is the edition of 1991. These "versions" accurately reflect the original documents found in the Book of Concord of 1580.

For Confessions I and II we were told to have either the Kolb/Wengert or Tappert or Triglotta. Either one sufficed. I use both Kolb and Tappert in my Libronix/Logos program and the On-line BOC I believe is Triglotta.

 

[DaRev]

For Confessions I and II we were told to have either the Kolb/Wengert or Tappert or Triglotta. Either one sufficed. I use both Kolb and Tappert in my Libronix/Logos program and the On-line BOC I believe is Triglotta.

The Concordia Reader's Edition is also based upon the English translation of the Triglotta by Dau and Bente.

At CSL we were told to use the K/W edition for continuity, although the Tappert was also acceptable.

 

[Edial]

Thanks to LilLamb219's heads up to the Staff, CF reinstaituted a new rule ...

2.9 No Disrupting the Peace and Harmony of the forum

You will not do anything on the site that disrupts the peace and harmony of this forum. This includes, but not is limited to:
A. Deliberately reposting a post, thread, image, Chatbox post or anything else that has been removed by a staff member for a breach of forum rule.
B. Baiting where a member harasses another member to the point where he or she might retaliate in a flame.
C. Brinking where a member deliberately does things to push the boundaries of the forum rules.

The Mods will consider this rule in their evaluation of reports.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[porterross]

Were there violations in this thread, Ed?

 

[Edial]

Were there violations in this thread, Ed?

This is just a prompt for this and the "Mary" thread.
But the questions are good.

And I really should not add anything else, since we'll start discussing Mod actions in the open forum, ... and that's a rule violation.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[DaRev]

I don't see it as discussing Mod actions as much as rule clarification. We don't want to violate the rules, so a better understanding of how they are applied is always a good thing.

 

[porterross]

This is just a prompt for this and the "Mary" thread.
But the questions are good.

And I really should not add anything else, since we'll start discussing Mod actions in the open forum, ... and that's a rule violation.

Thanks,
Ed

Understood. I only wanted to know so as to not sin again without doing so boldly.

 

[LilLamb219]

To avoid going off-topic, you can always PM a moderator to get more specifics on rule representations

I have a question for our Wels friends about the Confessions.

As a couple of you have stated, you do not put the Confessions on par with the Bible, and that's not a problem. But I'm wondering, do you consider the Confessions to be a true exposition of the Bible?

 

[Edial]

I don't see it as discussing Mod actions as much as rule clarification. We don't want to violate the rules, so a better understanding of how they are applied is always a good thing.

To me as to a CF poster - 2.9 expands on 2.1.

To me as to a CF poster, the rule of the thumb is - hard questions are good and enliven the thread.
Good answers keep the thread alive and interesting.
If a person does not want to discuss it, no discussion takes place.
If there is a disagreement, it should be based on Scriptural references and not personal views.
And if the difference is based on personal view, that person should not be judged because of it, just his/her view.

And since Christ died for us all, 2.9 and 2.1 should be applied to remind us of it.

I'll share with you a secret, I never read the rules till I became a Mod.

And I never had any warnings prior to it.
Yet I argued mightily, sometimes in error, sometimes with a hammer and an ax ... but never directed at a person.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

Understood. I only wanted to know so as to not sin again without doing so boldly.

 

[BigNorsk]

The original versions. The Unaltered Augsburg Confession, written in both German and Latin. And the German versions of the other documents.

I'm assuming by "versions" you are referring to translations. It's a similar situation with the Scriptures.
The "version" used by the seminaries in the LCMS is the Kolb/Wengert edition. The "version" of the Small Catechism that most congregations use for instruction is the edition of 1991. These "versions" accurately reflect the original documents found in the Book of Concord of 1580.

Rev, If you have the original, there would be a lot of people who would really like to see it. I think you aren't too familiar with all the twists and turns of the text.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.viii.ii.html

Gives a very good discussion.

I know it was thought for years that the Book of Concord of 1580 gave the original text of the Augburg Confession but that has pretty well been proven wrong. No real problem if it was just accepted as the authority anyway as the WELS apparently has.

Marv