# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_August 1855_S231
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

The Erlangen “Journal for Protestantism and the Church.” 231

If a member of the Lutheran Church who has subscribed its symbolical books has recognized the doctrine contained in them as divine truth drawn from Scripture, then we truly do not see how it can be objectionable to require such a person also to interpret Holy Scripture in accordance with the Church’s confession. Nothing more is asked of him than that he prove and demonstrate that he really regards as truth what he himself has already solemnly declared to be the truth he has recognized. For since error cannot flow from truth, and Scripture is analogous to itself, anyone who has recognized the doctrinal content of the Symbols as scriptural truth must, if he does not wish to contradict himself, himself presume that his further interpretation of Scripture can be correct only if it does not conflict with the truths already obtained from Scripture and set forth in the Symbols, but that it must stand in all the more perfect harmony with them, the more certain it is that there is an analogia scripturae. By this requirement the symbolical books do not become for the Lutheran teacher a law of interpretation imposed upon him and a norm supposedly standing above Scripture, but rather a reminder of the faith he has confessed; and since that faith, as he himself is convinced, accords with Scripture, his further interpretation of Scripture cannot conflict with it without condemning itself.

It is, of course, true that a Lutheran teacher may today be convinced of the correctness of the faith set forth in the Symbols, but tomorrow, through continued study of God’s Word, believe that he has found something different. In this case, he certainly cannot be obligated to interpret Scripture according to the Symbols merely because he once swore adherence to them. That would indeed oblige him to place the Symbols not only alongside Scripture but even above it. It never occurred to us to make such a demand. Our Synod therefore deliberately did not write, “Lutherans must interpret Scripture according to the Symbols,” but rather, “Lutherans as such.” By this, we believe, we have stated clearly enough that through that requirement we do not bind anyone’s conscience to human pronouncements as such, that we by no means make the Symbols a norm for the interpretation of Scripture in itself, and that we do not wish to restrict the study of Scripture in any way whatsoever. Rather, by this we intended only to maintain that anyone who wishes publicly to interpret Scripture within the Lutheran Church and with its recognition and approval should and can do so only as long as, from his own conviction of faith, he can interpret Scripture in accordance with our Church’s confession. If this is no longer compatible with his conscience—which is then undoubtedly in error—because he believes that through his further study of Scripture he has reached conclusions different from those reached by the Lutheran Church according to its confession, then we are