Lutheranism, Reformation Theology, theology

Adhering to the Book of Concord: “In So Far As” or “Because” it agrees with Scripture?

A title page of the Book of Concord

A title page of the Book of Concord

Lutheran theology is derived from and reflective upon not just Martin Luther but also the Lutheran Confessions, as found in the Book of Concord. Within Lutheranism, there is much debate over exactly how tightly one must adhere to the Book of Concord. On one side, there are those who insist we must affirm the Book of Concord “because” it agrees with the Bible. On the other side, others maintain we should affirm it “in so far as” it agrees with the Bible.

Because it Agrees

Representative of the view that one must agree with the Book of Concord because it teaches what the Bible teaches is the following:

Authentically Lutheran churches insist on a subscription to the Confessions [The Lutheran Confessions/Book of Concord are used interchangeably] because they agree with the Bible, not merely in so far as they agree with Scripture. Otherwise, there would be no objective way to make sure that there is faithful teaching and preaching of God’s Word. Everything would depend on each pastor’s private opinions, subjective interpretations, and personal feelings, rather than on objective truth as set forth in the Lutheran Confessions. (Book of Concord (.org) FAQ)

Note some important aspects in this quote. First, the Book of Concord just does agree with the Bible. That is insisted upon. Second, the Book of Concord is said to be “objective truth” as opposed to the “subjective interpretations” of the individual. These considerations frame what I’d like to comment on regarding those who hold to the view that we must agree with the book of Concord “because…”


I’ll start with the second aspect noted above. There are, of course, all kinds of increasingly detailed issues people on either side of the debate might raise here. For example, how are “objective” and “subjective” being here defined? I’m going to set that kind of issue mostly aside and focus on a few difficulties I see.

The first is that one cannot simply read the words off the pages of the Book of Concord without going through the necessary step of interpreting them. That is, I as a reader of the Book of Concord must try to make sense of the words I am reading, and thus I am participating in the act of interpreting the Book of Concord. If, as the quote above states, the problem is the individual’s subjective nature, then the problem is completely unavoidable. Indeed, even if we grant that the Book of Concord is “objective truth” in its entirety, all we’ve done is moved the problem of subjective interpretation one step back. Now the reader must interpret the Book of Concord in order to get to the objective truth about Scripture found therein.

Another difficulty with this objective/subjective distinction is that it assumes the writers of the Lutheran Confessions were themselves either not subjective (which seems impossible) or explicitly guided by the Spirit to write out objective truth only. I would not dispute that the Holy Spirit could bring about a completely faultless writing, but the question is whether those who affirm the “because” position would like to argue this. The first thing we should do if they do want to argue this would be to see whether the writers of the Book of Concord assert the Holy Spirit did bring about such a completely objective, 100% correct work.

In the Preface to the Book of Concord, we can read:

Finally, with invocation of God Almighty and to his praise and glory and with careful deliberation and meticulous diligence through the particular grace of the Holy Spirit, they wrote down in good order and brought together into one book everything that pertains to and is necessary for this purpose. (Preface, 12)

Later, the Preface makes clear (15) that this Book was “the correct, Christian understanding of the Augsburg Confession…” In the closing of the Preface, we read (23) that those who signed on to it that they “are minded not to manufacture anything new… nor to depart in either substance or expression… from the divine truth… by the grace of the Holy Spirit we intend to persist and remain unanimously in this truth and regulate all religious controversies and their explanations according to it.”

These are all strong statements, and they clearly called upon God the Holy Spirit for guidance in the composition of the various works that make up the Book of Concord. But does it follow that they were explicitly, inerrantly inspired and guided by the Spirit to never once get a single thing wrong in this book? Those who affirm the “because” position must answer yes. There is no wiggle room.

But a close reading of the Preface seems to suggest that although the writers certainly believed everything in the Book of Concord to be without theological error (otherwise they would not have it regulate all controversies, etc.), I have yet to find anywhere that a claim could be made that the book is explicitly inerrant. It would have to be, however, for the “because” position to be true. This human composition would have to be 100% correct in every single minute detail down to the last proof text cited in order for it to be acceptable to affirm that we must agree with it “because” it agrees with Scripture.

Among other things, what follows from that is that anyone who subscribes to the Book of Concord “because” position must have read the entirety, looked up every citation, and assured themselves that every single interpretation, doctrinal position, and the like is 100% correct, lest they be saying that it is a human-made book without error on God’s Word without actually knowing every detail it contains.

The first issue raised above will be addressed in the section named “A Case Study,” below.

In So Far As

A supporting argument for the “In So Far As” position is that we should always only affirm that which is true. If we can agree that the Bible is true in all it teaches, then we should only agree with other writings about the Bible so far as they agree with the Bible. This seems like an obvious conclusion, but the whole debate centers on whether this argument is sound. It is difficult for me to figure out how to support this argument, not because I think it is a poor argument, but because it seems just intuitively clear.

It may help to use an analogy. Historians have debated how to write history and whether writers of history can ever fully get at the “true” history as it happened. Yet very few would deny that there is such a thing as a “true” history. There must be some absolutely correct sequence in which events occurred such that if we had a complete set of writings that simply reported those events, that would be the “true” history. Thus, there is an objectively true history, against which historians can be measured. Granting some of the hand waving involved in this thought experiment, suppose we had a book, The True History of the World, and we looked up the John F. Kennedy assassination therein. We would then have the objectively true report of that hotly-debated historical event as it really did happen. Now suppose I wanted to write a book about the JFK assassination based upon The True History of the World. However careful a historian I am, however excellent and detailed my mind is, however much guidance I may have had, would it be reasonable to say that you agree with my book, The Objective JFK Assassination “because” it agrees with The True History of the World or “in so far as” it does? It seems that the reasonable conclusion would be “in so far as” it does, because we know that The True History of the World is objectively true.

Though imperfect, this analogy gets at the argument written above. We can agree the Bible is inerrant. Thus, if I were to write a book entitled The Objective Bible, I think we can agree that we should only agree with my book so far as it agrees with the Bible, right? No matter how detailed I am, no matter how meticulous, no matter how large a group of thoughtful interpreters I got together to vet my work, it would be entirely reasonable to only affirm agreement with my book so far as it is biblical. Then why would such a standard not also apply to the Book of Concord? I see no reason why that standard would not.

Indeed, to argue against those who affirm the Book of Concord only “in so far as” it agrees with the Bible would mean that one would have to assert that the caution and respect for God’s word implicit in that position–that I would not want to affirm anything, even by mistake, as biblical if it is even possibly in error anywhere–are mistaken. That the care and caution necessary to say “I will only agree with any book in so far as it agrees with the Word of God” is mistaken, and that that the Book of Concord must also be included under the umbrella of books against which all others must be judged.

For the “because” position ultimately, unswervingly leads to the conclusion that we should only affirm any other book “in so far as” it agrees with the Book of Concord. After all, if it is true that the Book of Concord is affirmed because it agrees with Scripture, then it follows that the authority of the Bible is effectively equivalent to the authority of the Book of Concord. The Bible is God’s word, and the Book of Concord is the objective teaching of God’s word without even possible error. That is not simply rhetoric; it is what must follow from the “because” position. Any interpretation of the Bible must be judged against the Book of Concord; hence, any reading of the Bible must also be judged against it.

A Case Study

Finally, we are in position to ask whether the Book of Concord does indeed have any error therein. That is a crucial question, of course, and one not easily resolved by those who remain faithful Lutherans. If, however, there is even one incorrect use of a proof text in the Book of Concord, the “because” position fails.

In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article XXIII (XI) on the Marriage of Priests, section 25, we read:

Therefore this law concerning perpetual celibacy is peculiar to this new pontifical despotism. Nor is it without a reason. For Daniel 11:37, ascribes to the kingdom of Antichrist this mark, namely, the contempt of women.

Daniel 11:37 reads (ESV) “He shall pay no attention to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women. He shall not pay attention to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all.”

The whole passage is difficult to interpret given its prophetic message about the Kings of the North and the South. I’m not going to enter into whether this is specifically referencing “Antichrist” or “the kingdom of Antichrist” or anything of the sort. Instead, the issue is with the reading as “contempt of women.” The Reformers were obviously not using the ESV or anything in English. But older English editions like the KJV might support this text as a proof for contempt of women: “Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.”

But the problem is that critical editions of the Old Testament don’t support a reading as contempt of women. Without going into depths of detail, and because I’m not a Hebrew scholar by any measure, I would just point out that the Hebrew does seem to clearly state “the one desired by women.” So if we are to read 11:37 as a proof text for contempt of women, it doesn’t seem to be a right reading. It’s a minor difficulty, but one nevertheless. Did the citation above from the Book of Concord properly exegete the Bible? I would assert that the use of this proof text is mistaken. If we are to take “paying no attention” as “contempt”–itself a move that could be disputed, then the subject remains “the one desired by women” not “women.”

Now, if the Book of Concord should be agreed with because it agrees with the Bible, then how are we to take this? I don’t know. It seems to me that this is more an example of the way people read the Bible at the time and used proof texts–often stripped of context–in defense of their positions. A single dispute over a citation is not a paradigm shift; indeed, I think that the authors of the Apology were correct on this notion about the marriage of priests. But that doesn’t mean everything they wrote is correct.


I agree with and affirm the Book of Concord in so far as it agrees with Scripture. I think it is correct on a huge amount of the things it teaches. I am currently re-reading it (slowly) and checking citations as I go. I have found it to be edifying and a source of profound theological insight. But it is not the Bible, and I do not think that to be Lutheran–or even a confessing Lutheran–I need to affirm that the Book of Concord is without possible error.


Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, eds. with Charles P. Arand, translator, The Book of Concord.


Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!



The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.


About J.W. Wartick

J.W. Wartick is a Lutheran, feminist, Christ-follower. A Science Fiction snob, Bonhoeffer fan, Paleontology fanboy and RPG nerd.


13 thoughts on “Adhering to the Book of Concord: “In So Far As” or “Because” it agrees with Scripture?

  1. I too would fall into the “insofar as” camp. I think you are right that its argument is “intuitively clear”. To make this argument one is essentially saying that “I support the Book of Concord when it agrees with the Bible.” In my opinion, it would be foolish to say otherwise. Really, even the “because” camp is implying that they agree with the Book of Concord insofar as it agrees with the Bible, they just think that agreement is 100%.

    Also I’d like to mention that theology, though a “soft” science is still a science. I am therefore always a bit skeptical when people make definitive and unqualified statements especially when it is made without strong supporting evidence. I think there needs to be a level of humility when making truth claims particularly when they are made about God. Though not always the case, it has been my experience that the “because” camp often lacks that supporting evidence and tends to use the Book of Concord more as a symbol than an actual document.

    I really appreciated your discussion of interpretation. It is indeed a bit presumptuous to suggest that there was absolutely no interpretation bias in the minds of the reformers. Also, I think you are spot on when you bring up that even if the Book of Concord was an “inerrant” book so to speak you would still have the issue of subjective interpretation of that document by individual interpreters. This is complicated by the fact that many people reading the book are probably reading translations of the Latin and German which is itself an act of interpretation. Indeed Kolb and Wengert’s translation into English which you cited differs from Theodore Tappert’s earlier translation. In all of this, the issue of bias and interpretation is simply one step removed from Scripture.

    An insightful argument all around. Thank you for sharing!

    Posted by CJ | October 29, 2015, 5:21 PM
  2. I am not a Lutheran, and I can agree completely with your statement and make it myself. This is a problem, because a Lutheran should have the ability to make a statement I cannot make.

    It also seems like it would be wise to require pastors to make a statement that the congregation needn’t make.

    Posted by Wm Tanksley Jr | October 30, 2015, 7:43 PM
    • I’m not sure how to take your point. I can say that I think the Book of Concord is essentially correct, but that doesn’t bind me to saying it is 100% correct. Can you say that you agree with the vast majority of what the Book of Concord states regarding things like baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and the like? If you do say yes, then perhaps you are more Lutheran than you thought.

      This post is focusing primarily on this fine point of distinction within Lutheran circles, but Lutherans would all agree that the Book of Concord is largely sound and that its interpretation of Scripture is almost entirely correct. Your comment seems to make it seem as though I’m advocating a completely neutral stance towards the Book of Concord, whereas what I’m actually arguing is something more akin to “I agree with the Book of Concord in so far as it agrees with Scripture–which is the overwhelming majority of the text.”

      So given that, and given that I didn’t think that specific point needed to made–now that it’s been clarified, I think there would be a significant difference between how you and I would envision the interpretations given in the Book of Concord, given that you’ve said you’re not a Lutheran.

      Moreover, I think that “in so far as” is the approach Christians should take with regards to any extrabiblical book. So, even if my previous points don’t change your perspective, I would agree that you can agree completely with my statement, and I would also think that I should be allowed to say I agree with any doctrinal statement insofar as it agrees with Scripture.

      But what you seem to be missing is the previous point–that I think the Book of Concord is largely (almost entirely) correct on the issues it touches. Being Lutheran doesn’t mean you have to say the Book of Concord is 100% correct on everything. That’s what this debate is over, and I think that my argument here demonstrates that.

      Posted by J.W. Wartick | October 30, 2015, 8:32 PM
    • “This is a problem, because a Lutheran should have the ability to make a statement I cannot make.”

      I guess I could have made my comment much shorter by saying: Can you make the statement: ‘I believe the Book of Concord faithfully teaches biblical theology’? If so, not sure why you think you’re not a Lutheran. If not, then because I can make that statement alongside this “in so far as” statement, then I’ve answered your charge.

      Posted by J.W. Wartick | October 30, 2015, 8:35 PM
  3. “In so far as” the Book of Concord agrees with the Bible, I – a Roman Catholic – also agree. “In so far as” the Book of Concord disagrees with the Bible, I also disagree. As I interpret the Bible & as I interpret any book, I am the arbiture of what is true. If I change my mind, I am still correct “in so far as” I’m correct! Ha Ha! And you Lutherans thought Rome was screwed up!

    If no one on the “because” side argues for what you claim they stand for, then haven’t you misunderstood the other argument?

    Posted by Dave | September 17, 2017, 3:12 PM


  1. Pingback: Another Problem for Book of Concord Inerrantists | J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - January 11, 2016

  2. Pingback: Practical Lutheranism: Luther on the 5th Commandment and Refugees | J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - February 8, 2016

  3. Pingback: Who is Worthy?- A reflection on closed communion in Lutheran churches | J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - May 9, 2016

  4. Pingback: Practical Lutheranism: What is Sabbath? | J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - July 25, 2016

  5. Pingback: Jews and the Book of Concord: Why we cannot affirm “unconditional subscription” | J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - November 1, 2018

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,864 other subscribers


Like me on Facebook: Always Have a Reason
%d bloggers like this: