The Lutheran Confessions and Sola Scriptura

This is the sixth post in a series looking at the reasons why some Lutheran pastors left the LCMS for Eastern Orthodoxy. The focus is an article written by the Reverend Thomas L. Palke in 1999 entitled “MY JOURNEY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST: A Son of the Reformation Enters the “Mighty Fortress” of the Orthodox Church.”

LCMS Lutherans teach Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone). However, we also have the Book of Concord. I was taught that our Confessions are the correct interpretation of Scripture. This led me to have several questions. For example:

• If Scripture is all I need, why do I need the Book of Concord?

• If the Book of Concord is the correct interpretation of Scripture, should I read Scripture through the "lens" of the BoC?
  

• If I can determine the correct interpretation of Scripture without the BoC, then why do I need it?

• How do I know if the Book of Concord is the correct interpretation of Scripture?
  

Here are the answers I have received from LCMS pastors:

• Read Scripture and see for yourself that the Book of Concord accurately interprets Scripture.
  

• Scripture is clear and don't use the BoC as a "lens".
  

• Use the clear passages of Scripture to interpret the unclear parts (i.e. use Scripture to interpret Scripture).
  

• Use the BoC to make sure that all personal interpretations are correct.

Let you head go down these rabbit holes for a few hours and you will need more than an aspirin.

Rev. Palke discusses the Scripture/Confessions issue when he states:

“Lutherans, in contrast to other Protestants, seem to be inconsistent in their approach to sola scriptura. On the one hand, they support the concept of sola scriptura, yet, on the other hand, rely heavily on their confessional writings as a form of tradition. In order to explain away this inconsistency, Lutherans admit that the Scriptures are the “norms that norm” and that the confessional writings are “norms that are normed.”

The Lutherans who corresponded with Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople indicated that the Scriptures were self-sufficient and clear “so that even the most simple person can understand them.” Yet, a cursory reading of the Lutheran Confessions will reveal appeals to patristic sources. It finally occurred to me that the Confessions employed patristic sources on a selective basis. For example, they utilized the Orthodox objections to the primacy of the pope. When they espoused unique teaching, the teachings of the Fathers were silenced in favor of the opinions of the theologian(s).

In Luther’s forensic understanding of justification, a lack of patristic evidence is strangely apparent. In reacting to Roman abuses of Holy Tradition, Luther may have forgotten to ask whether his teaching had been taught “everywhere, always, and by all (see the rule of St. Vincent of Lerins)” This selective use of the Fathers has also given rise to the priority of human reason. Luther, at the Diet of Worms, stood by his own teachings, unless persuaded otherwise by Scripture and reason. The use of reason has been elevated to such an extent that it has led countless numbers of Lutheran scholars of the past century to reject many of the essential doctrines of Scripture, and even to reject the inspiration of the Scriptures themselves. Thus, for much of Lutheranism today, the very foundation of its faith has been questioned and even rejected. Without the Church and its holy tradition, Lutheranism, in varying degrees, will continue to flounder in the wake of mainstream Protestantism.”