# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1981_S163
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 163

suggestion that you or your circuit conference memorialize the
Synod to ask the CTCR to carry out such a study [letter dated Sept.
18, 1979];

and

WHEREAS, Our pastor has explained to us his concern as
follows:

Within our fellowship (LCMS) we have confessed and taught
that the Sacred Scriptures are the inerrant and infallible Word of
God, utterly trustworthy in all things to which they speak. We
realize, however, that the identifying of the Sacred Scriptures is
presupposed in what we have said. When we therefore identify these
Scriptures, we dare not use or tolerate a process of identification
which denies their infallible character, a character which they
themselves claim and which we must echo.

There is no problem in identifving the Old Testament Scriptures.
Christ and the apostles and evangelists make use of and direct us to
the Scriptures of the Palestinian Jews of that day. These are the 39
books of the Old Testament which we use.

The extent of the New Testament is another matter. The
congregations of the early Christian church used books which had
convinced their users of their inspired authority (canonicity). Be-
cause, however, there was not agreement among the congregations
as to the inspiration of seven books, these “disputed” books have
been properly distinguished from the “agreed upon” books /antile-
gomena and homologoumena).

It is essential to note that this distinction is based on the
existence of the problem of authenticity, i.e., the evidence is not
unanimous that the book is written by the apostle who by some is
credited with the authorship. To illustrate: the Apostle Matthew was
known to be the author of the Gospel bearing his name. The book is
acknowledged to be by an apostle and authentic. It is therefore a
homologoumenon (“agreed upon” book). The authorship of Hebrews,
however, was disputed. Those who claimed that Paul wrote Hebrews
acknowledged it as inspired and canonical. Where Paul's authorship
was denied or was not known, the inspiration of the fourth century
A.D. did accept Hebrews as a part of the New Testament, i.e.,
inspired and canonical, they did so by crediting Paul with the
authorship. Hebrews was accepted as authentically Pauline and
canonical. The other disputed New Testament books were also
accepted into the New Testament canon on the assumption that they
were by apostles and were authentic.

This proper distinction between the homologoumena and anti-
legomena has been classically set forth by Martin Chemnitz (cf.
Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part 1, Fred
Kramer, translator, CPH, 1971, pp. 43-272). It has been defended by
C.F. W. Walther, A. L. Graebner, F. Pieper, and J.T. Mueller, among
others. It was recently acknowledged by the CTCR (1979 Convention
Workbook, pp. 75, 80 [Appendix 3-01A]). However, in seminary
teaching and in the pastoral and congregational handling of the
doctrine of Scripture, this distinction and its significance have been
often minimized and ignored, if not denied. Already in the late 30's
and early 40's the position was defended that one could deny the
authenticity of the “disputed” books and still maintain their inspi-
ration and canonicity. This latter position in essence asserts that
merely the fact that a book is numbered within the 27-book New
Testament canon proves that the book is inspired. This positon
denies authenticity as an essential mark of inspiration and
canonicity for New Testament books. It asserts the errors of the
inspired community and of inspired canonization, both of which
Scripture repudiates.

A fruit of these errors emerged in the 1958 resolution of the
exegetical department of the St. Louis seminary:

Resolved, That it is the considered opinion of the exegetical
department that a dating of the canonical Gospels later than that of
early patristic tradition, including the implication of such later
dating for the authorship of the individual Gospels, need not be
incompatible with a proper view of the divine inspiration of Holy
Scriptures.”

It is easy to see the significance of such a view of the authenticity,
or lack of it, in the New Testament books as the resolution espouses.
Historical-critical scholars argue that the New Testament books are
unreliable, i.e., not infallible. One reason given is the claim that
various of the New Testament books are not authentic. E.g., a
Matthew which is the product of who knows how many writers and
editors, and is not finally written by the Apostle Matthew, cannot,
they claim, be infallible; it is just another man-made book. When
now the student of the Bible, e.g., a Missouri Synod professor or
pastor, agrees that a New Testament book need not be authentic in
order to be inspired, small wonder that he may begin to view the book
as no longer infallible, even though somehow inspired. And aclergy
that has been instructed to accept this kind of inspired “un-
authenticity” is likely to find little difficulty in tolerating or even
embracing various negative views and conclusions of historical-
critical scholarship concerning the Scriptures.

The testimony of Scripture on this matter is clear. Jesus Himself,
in a writing which the earliest congregations kept because it was
authentic and by an apostle, tells His disciples (apostles) that they

will give His Word to future believers (John 14:26; 15:26, 27: 16:13-15;
17:20). Paul as an apostle claims to write God's Word (1 Cor. 14:37: 2
Thess. 3:17). He warns against false apostles and forged letters
(2 Thess. 2:2: 3:17). He makes congregations responsible for giving to
others copies of the letters they have from him (Col. 4:16). But the
Christians are not able of themselves to know that a written
document is God’s Word except by knowing that it is authentic, i.e.
written by the person to whom credited, and that this person is
inspired (2 Thess. 2:2: 3:17). The authentic writings of the apostles
and evangelists are those writings which proved themselves to the
early congregations. (Mark and Luke, students of apostles, wrote at
atime when there were living apostles, e.g., John, to commend these
writings to the congregations as written by inspired known men.)

Authenticity is therefore a “must” in New Testament canonicity.

Our church ought therefore, at the same time that it has
reaffirmed its support of the doctrine of the infallibility of the
Scriptures, likewise insist that there be taught in our seminaries and
presupposed in our pulpits the quality of authenticity as a mark of
New Testament canonical books and as a part, even if not always
expressly stated, of the doctrine of inspiration and Biblical authority.

therefore be it

Resolved, That we petition the Synod to ask the CTCR to
make a study of the matter of the relationship between
authenticity in New Testament books and their canonicity and
inspiration, including in the study the matters of the inspired
community and inspired canonizaton, in the process of the
study giving a hearing to our pastor, thereafter reporting the
conclusions of the study to the Synod; and be it further

Resolved, That the CTCR in its report give specific answer
to the following questions:

1. Does a proper view of Scriptures permit one to deny the
Matthean authorship of Matthew and still maintain its can-
onicity, inspiration, and infallibility?

2. Does a proper view of Scripture permit one to deny the
Pauline authorship of Hebrews and still maintain its can-
onicity, inspiration, and infallibility?

3. What is the relative authority of the homologoumena
and the antilegomena?

4. Does a proper view of Scripture permit a pastor to remain
silent toward his congregation as to the distinction between
the homologoumena and antilegomena and their relative
authority?

5. How does the authenticity of a variant reading relate to
its use as authentic Scripture? E.g., may one properly use John
7:53-8:11 as a source of doctrine in the church?

6. Did Luther in dealing with Hebrews, James, Jude, and
Revelation demonstrate a false view of Scripture?

Mt. Zion Lutheran Church
Castle Rock, Colo.

John W. Dugopolski, President
Patrick F. Hood, Secretary

3-11
To Develop Statement on Justification

WHEREAS, The proper expositon of the doctrine of justifica-
tion has become a matter of controversy in our Synod; and

WHEREAS, There must be proper weight given to the various
aspects of the doctrine; namely, Christ’s payment for all sins,
forgiveness through faith in Christ, God’s anger at unrepented
sin; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod ask the CTCR to study the matter
of justification as it is set forth in the Scriptures, in the
Lutheran Confessions, in the orthodox Lutheran theologians,
and in our synodical doctrinal statements, to the end that there
may be developed a statement which gives proper expression to
all the aspects of what the Scriptures teach on the matter of
justification.

Mt. Zion Lutheran Church
Castle Rock, Colo.

John W. Dugopolski President
Elmer Moeller, Pastor