Apologies to Tomster and Stew for coming across a bit ‘bulldoggish.’ I thought you were ‘puting words in the Lutheran horse’s mouth,’ so to speak. I see now your question wasn’t at all uncharitable. There was no need for my final sentence. Forgivesies? :o
[quote=Tomster] We Catholics are searching for accuracy and consistancy. We are searching for a lot more precision from the Lutheran side.
I wonder if explanations and defenses of Lutheran doctrine will intrinsically seem “imprecise” to modern Catholics for the simple reason that Lutheranism, in general, does not see a need to dogmaticize or codify in the same way that Rome does? Forgive this little sidebar and its broad generalities, but the authors of the Lutheran Confessions intentionally left certain topics ambiguous because, in their view, Scripture did not give more precise explanations. Lutherans were/are just fine accepting what Scripture does not explain as a divine mystery. Modern Catholics may feel that Lutheranism does not give substantive answers to Catholic questions, but that’s just the point - Catholic questions have Catholic answers. In many cases, Lutheranism doesn’t even ask the question; instead, the Lutheran paradigm simply invites scholarly debate like that which took place in pre-Tridentine Catholicism. Just food for future thought…
[quote=stewstew03] Isn’t this just tripping over one’s self to avoid the words infallible or inerrant?
Not at all. Again, I’ll refer to the link I posted:
In other words, non-doctrinal portions of these confessions may contain human opinion and even certain errors of fact. However, this doesn’t mean that we pick and choose among the clear, Scriptural doctrines enumerated in our confessions.