Thank you so much Dr. Cooper, this answered a long standing question I had, and the podcast/conversational approach to the video made it very approachable to conceptualize the matter. I was very uncomfortable with my previous understanding, and defaulted to the "insofar as" approach out of my absolute reverence to the inerrancy of the Bible; I now have the task and pleasure to read the confession and decide if I am indeed a Lutheran.
My issue that I struggle with, is that if a Lutheran pastor makes a vow at his ordination to always and only teach in accordance with the confessions, what does that Pastor do when in the course of his study of scripture, he comes to a different position on this or that doctrine? For just one example, say a person became convinced of annihilationism over the doctrine of eternal torment, or of old earth creation over young earth, or of premillennialism over amillenialism? Should that Pastor just ignore what he conclusions he comes to, and just submit to the confessions? Then how is that different than Rome?
Frankly, people that hold to a quatenus subscription to the Confessions aren't Lutheran. Anyone can hold to a quatenus subscription to anything, that doesn't make them a part of that group.
I wanted a leather bound copy too but ended up getting the standard two tone hardcover off Amazon (Concordia, not just Augsburg confession) and I've got to say it looks really good on the shelf and stays open well on the desk. This was almost a year ago and my family has just begun the process of becoming Lutherans. The pastor gifted us a small catechism so we don't have to lug concord around and they look good together on our shelf. Plus the various prayer books and other resources Concordia publishing releases all match concord so in the long run we ended up being happy with the hardcover.
Question for Dr. Cooper: You pointed out denominations have confessions and creeds (whether they know it or not) and their purpose is to clarify what scripture teaches when there are points of confusion. To what degree are adherents of a denomination allowed to rethink and/or not believe particular secondary or tertiary aspects of those creeds and confessions (where primary aspects are Christian essentials such as that Jesus is God, death and bodily resurrection, etc. which in no way should be up for debate)? Because if they're not free to rethink their confessions, I wonder how that is different than the Roman Catholic idea of Holy Tradition...."the church says it's this thing and not that thing, so you must believe it that way." But if they are free to rethink them because scripture alone is infallible, in what sense is the confession/creed binding, timeless and worthwhile? I find the debate between Sola Scriptura vs. Holy Tradition to be a difficult one. Perhaps if you commented on this from a Lutheran perspective it would be helpful for people of any denomination struggling with this.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 Right, thus my question, in what sense are the confessions binding and timeless? Because if they're not because they're subject to correction, isn't that like saying "This is what we think scripture means, but we could be wrong, so even though the scripture is infallible, we could be wrong about our interpretation." In which case, what is the nature and extent of the importance of the confession? I feel like I'm not articulating my question well. I was raised Pentecostal and lately find myself attracted to more confessional denominations, but I'm trying to grasp the full significance of how a denomination such as the Lutherans view their confessions. Right now I just see an endless loop. Scripture is the infallible authority, but it can be misinterpreted so we need church authority to settle disputes and keep us from error and heresies. But people are fallible and may be wrong in their interpretation, and thus need to be corrected by scripture. Which is infallible but can be misinterpreted..... Hopefully you see the question I have. Where does this endless loop stop, and how have the confessional denominations solved this problem?
@@Landon_R there is no way for confessions (or any other secondary authority) to be normatively binding or irreformable under Sola scriptura - all Protestant confessions have disclaimers precluding the authority to do so. This is why Sola scriptura ultimately reduces to solo scriptura even under confessional or high church Protestantism - every offered teaching/interpretation is subject to correction or rejection by the individuals private judgment of scripture. Your struggle seems to sense this fundamental issue.
I've never had to affirm this, very rarely have I heard pastors talk about it unless it's a specified talk. I'm personally fine with one of God's days being as long as he'd like it. A day is relative. For us it's how long it takes to revolve around the sun. God isn't sitting on earth to a limited "Day". His day might be a full revolution of the cosmos. So who knows and honestly who cares he made us out of love.
@@chowyee5049 technically is not in our confession of faith, it is just a stance the denomination has adopted as its teaching on the matter. the distinction being that they dont require agreement or adherence to the view by its members.
What has always been frustrating to me are churches that make subscription to a written confession of faith a condition of church membership. I can almost always find something in the statement somewhere which debatable and rests on a weak exegetical foundation.
As far as i know, most confessional churches dont have It as a condition for membership but you need to affirm the Confessions to have a leadership or teaching position within the Church. Some of them allow pastors and elders to disagree with some statement.
The difference is that the Roman Catholic Church do affirm infallibility to the Magisterium and Tradition, while Protestans affirm that only Scripture is infallible.
You don't have to as a Christian, necessarily, there are other denominations. But I think the answer is pretty obvious, you just wouldn't be a Lutheran. If someone defined "Standard American English Grammar" as a certain set of rules for "proper speak," you're not bound to them in so far as you cannot speak outside of the predetermined rules, but you would no longer be speaking using "Standard American English." Same thing, we believe there's salvation outside of the Lutheran Church, but why wouldn't we have confession that defines what our denomination believes? I really feel this isn't the conundrum you're making it out to be.
its infallible in matters of doctrine because it is a true and right exposition of the teachings of an infallible source (scripture). as Dr cooper says its not infallible in historical or scientific anecdotes because those are not from scripture.
@@andrewborchelt305 I absolutely respect you saying that the BOC is infallible on matters of doctrine! I mean, if it’s not, why be a Confessional Lutheran? However Confessional Lutherans believe that only Scripture is infallible.
@@OrdoConcordis if there is salvation outside the Lutheran “church” (I am assuming you mean Confessional Lutheran denominations), then why be Lutheran?
@@fatimatriumphs you are kinda right, i think I should have said that Lutherans say that the confessions are 100% correct in its doctrinal statements and that's why you should believe them but only scripture is infallible since it has infallible authorship while the authorship of the confessions are certainly fallible.
The real issue here is the perspecuity of scripture. It simply isn't clear, and in many places it flatly contradicts itself. It fails to speak univocally on the most important issues. So one major foundation stone of the reformation is utterly false: that simply handing men a Bible in the vernacular would mend all error and bring unity. It's quite the opposite. So now men's consciences are bound by onerous confessions that would have been foreign to the apostles.
you say that as if the RCC doesnt bind consciences left and right about issues foreign to the apostles all the time. additionally you seem to be implying that the early church would be against confessions but that is basically what the ecumenical creeds are so i dont think that is logically consistent.
@@andrewborchelt305 The earliest confession was the apostles creed. It really should have ended there. It's minimally binding and serves to unify. You would be shocked to know that only a very small percentage of Catholics adhere to the entire catechism. Yet few are ever excommunicated. It's not nearly so binding as some think.
@@darewan8233 Chalcedon caused the first great division in Christianity between the Orthidox and the Oriental Othodox. Very damaging, and the one thing gained was a very suspect definition of the incarnation.
Those people who say "deeds, not creeds" just stated their creed
Or “No Creed but CHRIST” 😉
@@doubtingthomas9117 This one is a CLASSIC 😂
And violated it in the same breath
Very helpful and concise overview/discussion! Thank you
Because that's what you do.! Once always but always every time Amen.Over and Over,,you got to Love..
Thank you so much Dr. Cooper, this answered a long standing question I had, and the podcast/conversational approach to the video made it very approachable to conceptualize the matter. I was very uncomfortable with my previous understanding, and defaulted to the "insofar as" approach out of my absolute reverence to the inerrancy of the Bible; I now have the task and pleasure to read the confession and decide if I am indeed a Lutheran.
My issue that I struggle with, is that if a Lutheran pastor makes a vow at his ordination to always and only teach in accordance with the confessions, what does that Pastor do when in the course of his study of scripture, he comes to a different position on this or that doctrine? For just one example, say a person became convinced of annihilationism over the doctrine of eternal torment, or of old earth creation over young earth, or of premillennialism over amillenialism? Should that Pastor just ignore what he conclusions he comes to, and just submit to the confessions? Then how is that different than Rome?
Frankly, people that hold to a quatenus subscription to the Confessions aren't Lutheran. Anyone can hold to a quatenus subscription to anything, that doesn't make them a part of that group.
@jordan b cooper: have you noticed if a lot of people have left for Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism over the last year?
Dr. Cooper, is the papacy being identified as the Antichrist a doctrine that’s binding upon confessional subscription?
If I'm not mistaken, the confessional position is that the office of the papacy is an antichrist, not the antichrist
What webstie can I buy a decent hard or leather covered Augsburg Confession from?
I wanted a leather bound copy too but ended up getting the standard two tone hardcover off Amazon (Concordia, not just Augsburg confession) and I've got to say it looks really good on the shelf and stays open well on the desk. This was almost a year ago and my family has just begun the process of becoming Lutherans. The pastor gifted us a small catechism so we don't have to lug concord around and they look good together on our shelf. Plus the various prayer books and other resources Concordia publishing releases all match concord so in the long run we ended up being happy with the hardcover.
When were you on their show?
Oh, I see several times. Thought this was recent. Anyhow, good stuff.
Question for Dr. Cooper: You pointed out denominations have confessions and creeds (whether they know it or not) and their purpose is to clarify what scripture teaches when there are points of confusion. To what degree are adherents of a denomination allowed to rethink and/or not believe particular secondary or tertiary aspects of those creeds and confessions (where primary aspects are Christian essentials such as that Jesus is God, death and bodily resurrection, etc. which in no way should be up for debate)? Because if they're not free to rethink their confessions, I wonder how that is different than the Roman Catholic idea of Holy Tradition...."the church says it's this thing and not that thing, so you must believe it that way." But if they are free to rethink them because scripture alone is infallible, in what sense is the confession/creed binding, timeless and worthwhile? I find the debate between Sola Scriptura vs. Holy Tradition to be a difficult one. Perhaps if you commented on this from a Lutheran perspective it would be helpful for people of any denomination struggling with this.
All confessions are subject to correction. Scripture alone is the word of God.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 Right, thus my question, in what sense are the confessions binding and timeless? Because if they're not because they're subject to correction, isn't that like saying "This is what we think scripture means, but we could be wrong, so even though the scripture is infallible, we could be wrong about our interpretation." In which case, what is the nature and extent of the importance of the confession? I feel like I'm not articulating my question well. I was raised Pentecostal and lately find myself attracted to more confessional denominations, but I'm trying to grasp the full significance of how a denomination such as the Lutherans view their confessions. Right now I just see an endless loop. Scripture is the infallible authority, but it can be misinterpreted so we need church authority to settle disputes and keep us from error and heresies. But people are fallible and may be wrong in their interpretation, and thus need to be corrected by scripture. Which is infallible but can be misinterpreted..... Hopefully you see the question I have. Where does this endless loop stop, and how have the confessional denominations solved this problem?
@@Landon_R there is no way for confessions (or any other secondary authority) to be normatively binding or irreformable under Sola scriptura - all Protestant confessions have disclaimers precluding the authority to do so. This is why Sola scriptura ultimately reduces to solo scriptura even under confessional or high church Protestantism - every offered teaching/interpretation is subject to correction or rejection by the individuals private judgment of scripture. Your struggle seems to sense this fundamental issue.
I believe the LCMS holds to Young Earth Creationism. Does the LCMS demand that catechumens confess this to be confirmed?
No, catechumens only need to confess Luthers Small Catechism
@@quinnhunt6124 still think the LCMS should drop it from their confession of faith though.
I've never had to affirm this, very rarely have I heard pastors talk about it unless it's a specified talk. I'm personally fine with one of God's days being as long as he'd like it. A day is relative. For us it's how long it takes to revolve around the sun. God isn't sitting on earth to a limited "Day". His day might be a full revolution of the cosmos. So who knows and honestly who cares he made us out of love.
No
@@chowyee5049 technically is not in our confession of faith, it is just a stance the denomination has adopted as its teaching on the matter.
the distinction being that they dont require agreement or adherence to the view by its members.
What has always been frustrating to me are churches that make subscription to a written confession of faith a condition of church membership. I can almost always find something in the statement somewhere which debatable and rests on a weak exegetical foundation.
As far as i know, most confessional churches dont have It as a condition for membership but you need to affirm the Confessions to have a leadership or teaching position within the Church. Some of them allow pastors and elders to disagree with some statement.
This seems like the same position Catholics have on the Catechism.
The difference is that the Roman Catholic Church do affirm infallibility to the Magisterium and Tradition, while Protestans affirm that only Scripture is infallible.
If the Book of Concord isn’t definitively infallible, then why should one bind his or her will and conscience to it?
You don't have to as a Christian, necessarily, there are other denominations. But I think the answer is pretty obvious, you just wouldn't be a Lutheran. If someone defined "Standard American English Grammar" as a certain set of rules for "proper speak," you're not bound to them in so far as you cannot speak outside of the predetermined rules, but you would no longer be speaking using "Standard American English."
Same thing, we believe there's salvation outside of the Lutheran Church, but why wouldn't we have confession that defines what our denomination believes? I really feel this isn't the conundrum you're making it out to be.
its infallible in matters of doctrine because it is a true and right exposition of the teachings of an infallible source (scripture). as Dr cooper says its not infallible in historical or scientific anecdotes because those are not from scripture.
@@andrewborchelt305 I absolutely respect you saying that the BOC is infallible on matters of doctrine! I mean, if it’s not, why be a Confessional Lutheran? However Confessional Lutherans believe that only Scripture is infallible.
@@OrdoConcordis if there is salvation outside the Lutheran “church” (I am assuming you mean Confessional Lutheran denominations), then why be Lutheran?
@@fatimatriumphs you are kinda right, i think I should have said that Lutherans say that the confessions are 100% correct in its doctrinal statements and that's why you should believe them but only scripture is infallible since it has infallible authorship while the authorship of the confessions are certainly fallible.
confession of what... creeds, doctrine, personal conviction?
Lutheran confessions
what of other denominational confessions?
Read the book Facts about Luther it will open your eyes to the Truth.
Is that one of the anti-Luther books? Facts as the "facts" that our media like CNN present us with?
The real issue here is the perspecuity of scripture. It simply isn't clear, and in many places it flatly contradicts itself. It fails to speak univocally on the most important issues.
So one major foundation stone of the reformation is utterly false: that simply handing men a Bible in the vernacular would mend all error and bring unity.
It's quite the opposite. So now men's consciences are bound by onerous confessions that would have been foreign to the apostles.
you say that as if the RCC doesnt bind consciences left and right about issues foreign to the apostles all the time. additionally you seem to be implying that the early church would be against confessions but that is basically what the ecumenical creeds are so i dont think that is logically consistent.
@@andrewborchelt305 The earliest confession was the apostles creed.
It really should have ended there. It's minimally binding and serves to unify.
You would be shocked to know that only a very small percentage of Catholics adhere to the entire catechism. Yet few are ever excommunicated. It's not nearly so binding as some think.
Calcedon not necessary? Respect.
@@darewan8233 Chalcedon caused the first great division in Christianity between the Orthidox and the Oriental Othodox.
Very damaging, and the one thing gained was a very suspect definition of the incarnation.
Yes aware of the aftermath, so does that make it a loss. Division preceded and followed Nicea too?