# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1981_S400
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

ALC

JA, “The ALC holds that the inerrancy referred to
here [inthe ALC constitution] does not apply to the text but
to the truths revealed for our faith. doctrine and life.” F. 4.
Schiotz, The Church’s Confessional Stand Relative to the
Scriptures (Minneapolis: Office of Public Relatrons, ALC
1966), 9 7, quoted in E. Clifford Nelson, Lutheranism in
North America 1914—1970iMinneapolis: Augsburg Publish-
ing House, 1972), p. 195

& “The historical interpretation of Scripture has
made it clear that there are more or less diverse, if not
contradictory, theologies in the Bible itself As such. this
awareness 15 not entirely new, but it has been intensified by
Ernst Kasemann’s argument thai denominational diversity 1s
related to theological diversity within the canon.” Duane A
Priebe. “Theology and Hermeneutics.” Studies in Lutheran
Hermeneutics. 1979, p. 307

C. “The Constitution and the Laited Testimony of
Faith and Life’ of the ALC use the terms errant and
infallible Iris generally agreed within the ALC thatthe term
inerrant means ‘truthtul’ and the term infallible means
reliable.” The terms reler to the message and power of
Scripture, not to itstext.... This ts, of course, not the view of
the LCMS essays... Marquart writes: ‘If the sacred text is
subject to error, and therefore to human correction, then it
1s no longer the standard, rule. and norm of truth but is itself
in need of such a standard.” He refers to ‘the hopeless
self-contradiction involved in the affirmation of the Bible's
authority and the simultaneous denial of its inerrancy.” The

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS

LCMS

New Testament eras, and by regarding the Biblical literature
a5 only human beings writings. so tenuates the Spint's
authorship as to evaporate the unity of the Bible and to
make inoperative the basic principle that the Bible inter-
prets itself; and

“Whereas, Such historical reasoning which proposes
that each constituent unit of the Biblical literature must be
understood whoily in the hght of sts use through various
states of oral and written transmission. negates aiso the
principle that a Biblical text has only one Meaning. and

“Whereas, A view of the origin and nature of the
Biblical literature that denies the unity of the holy writings
and ascribes multiple meanings to a sacred text in effect
renders the Bible useless as the absolute and final authority
for all the church does and teaches in God's name
theretore be it

“Resolved, That the Synod reject and repudiate as
opposed to sound Lutheran theology and injurious to the
Gospel any view of the Bible and method of interpreting it
which relates history to the production of the sacred
writings in such a way as to diminish their ‘not of this world’
character and to deprive them of their divine authority
Resolution 3-11 "To Declare Ourselves on the Historical-
Critical Method.” Convention Proceedings. 1977. pp
132-33

+A. “With Luther, we confess that God's Word
cannot err’ (LC. IV, 57), We therefore belreve. teach. and
confess that since the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God.
they contain no errors or Contradictions but that they are in
all their parts and words the infallible truth. We hold that
the opinion that Scripture contains errors 15 a violation of
the sola scriptura principie, for it rests upon the acceptance
of some norm or criterion of (ruth above the Scriptures. We
tecognize thar there are apparent contradictions or discre-
Panctes and problems which arise because of uncertainty
over the original text

“We reject the following views

1. That the Scriptures contain theological as well
as factual contradictions and errors.

2. That the Scriptures are inerrant only in matters
pertaining directly to the Gospel message of
salvation

3. That the Scriptures are only functionally iner-
rant, that 1s, that the Scriptures are inerrant”
only in the sense that they accomplish their aim
of bringing the Gospel of sahation to men

4 That the Biblical authors accommodated them-
selves to using and repeating as true the errone-
‘ous notions of their day (for example. the claim
that Paul's statements on the role of women in
the church are not binding today because they
ate the culturally conditioned result of the

I]. THE LUTHERAN § Subscription

CONFESSIONS:

THE FODT REPORT

and Diversity

Another critical topic emerged, the quettion of confessional subscription and its relationship to the unity

of the church and the unity of Scripture. [FODT. p. 8

1

jerences have emerged within our church bodies on the implications of confessional tubacription for

biblical interpretation today. Representatives of the LCMS emphasize that the entire doctrinal content of the
Lutheran confessional writings, including the implications of confesonal statements dealing with the nature
and interpretation of Holy Scripture, is accepted and remains valid today because It is deawn from the Word of
God—that is, because It is a (aithful exposition of Holy Scripture.' On the other hand, some representatives of
the other two church bodies, while affirming theis continuing commitment to the gospel of jesus Christ as
witnessed to in the Lutheran confessional writings, tend to emphasize the historical character of those writings
and to maintain the possibility of dissent from confessional positions that do not deal directly with the goipet
itvell, such a3 some aspects of the confessional positions on the fall of humanity into sin and the nature and

interpretation of Holy Scripture. [FODT, p. 12]

The relation of confessional subscription to acceptable levels of theological diversity among us is another
continuing concern, Several criteria for determining the limits ol diversity appear to be acceptable, but they do

not resolve all the issuer.

One clear criterion is conformity to the Scriptures. But there bs some difference as to how this is
understood, both in relation to the question of unity and diversity and to the question of the significance of
historicity and historical distance for interpretation. The ALC and LCA are willing to speak of a wider range of
diversity within the Bible, including the possibility of different accents and theologies and of apparent

Contradictions. [EDIT. NOTE: See Section 1.]

Asecand criterion acceptable to all three groups ts that the gospel of God’s gr ace in Jesus Christ be clearly
expressed and not obscured. However, the ALC and the LCA tend to understand this criterion in terms of the
central accent on justification by grace alone, while the LCMS tends to understand K more broadly as a
reference to “the doctrine and afl its articles” (Formula of Concord, Solid Oectaration X). (EDIT. NOTE: See

Section IIt.}

A third criterion recognized by all three groups bs the role of the Lutheran Confessions. Here the
Continuing questions relate to the historical understanding of the Confessions and the rofe of historicity in
faithfulness to the Lutheran tradition today. [FODT. p. 13]

Documentation

ALC

TA, “The ALC scholars are simpty unable to find that
the Confessions describe themselves as logicaily infallible,
exegeucally perfect, and histoncally final systems of doc-
tne. Quanbeck argues that ‘while the Confessions have
indeed a certain confessionally qualified paradigmatic func:
Ton, to assert this function in an unqualified way ssn eHect
to deny that the Holy Spirit has granted any illumination to
the church since the sixteenth century.’ Therefore the ALC
representatives maintain that dissent 1s possible from con-
fessional positions that do not deal directly with the gospel
itself The ALC and LCA representatives insist that
exegesis Cannot be bound by the Confessions in the sense

40

LCMS

1A. “2 With the fathers, we recognize that not
everything in the Lutheran Contessions ts a part of its
doctrinal content, but we reject all anempts to abridge the
extent of this doctrinal content in an arbetrary of subjective
manner. We recognize. for example. that subscription to
the Lutheran Confessions does not bind us to all strictly
exegetical details contained in the Confessions, or even to
the confessional use of certain Bible passages to support a
Particular theological statement. However. since the Con-
fessions want to be understood as Biblical expositions, we
reject the notion that we are not bound by our confessional
subscription to the exposition of Scripture contained in the

ALC

ALC and LCA representatives clearly work with a difterent
understanding of the relanon between language and real-
tty Harold H Ditmanson Perspectives on the Her-
meneutics Debate. Studies in iutheran Hermeneuscs
1979. pp 82—B3

ALC

that its results are already tined in advance by the doctrinal
affirmations of the Contessions The Contessions can be
given that sort of authority only on the assumption that they
present an infallibly and exhaustively correct interpretation
of Scripture. But if that assumption 1s operative. then
Scripture can say nothing new and the doctrinal tradition
cannot be challenged at any point.” Harold H. Ditmanson,

Perspectives on the Hermeneutics Debate” Studies in
Lutheran Hermeneutics 1979. pp. 92. 94

& “While Luther's understanding of Scripture re-
stored the dual relationship between theology and God's
historical revelation in Jesus Christ. st was still possible for
him to understand his own theology as essentially identical
with the theology of the biblical texts. without a strong
sense of historical distance. The Enlightenment and the
subsequent development of historical methodology. cou-
pled with the emergence of historical consciousness 1n its
modern form, have made us much more aware of historical
relativity and historical distance. While that distance may be
stressed to a greater or lesser degree. tis no ionger possible
for many people today to assume that we can preserve any
past theology. whether that of the Bible or of the Reforma-
uon, by simply repeating their formulations. Nor «sit
possible 10 identify our theology with that of Scripture or
the Reformation in any simple way.” Duane A Prebe,
“Theology and Hermeneutics,” Studies in Lutheran Her-
meneutics. 1979, p 301

C. “When ALC. teachers use language patterns sug-
Resting that repentance encompasses the whole of life. that
means ruing not only moral infidelity but doctrinal inflexibi-
lity. A.L.C. people are not seeking thereby to destroy the
truth; they only want to say that all human formulations
have a tentativeness within them. They do not want
Christian doctrine to become the occasion for idolatry. Our
trust is in God. not in human formulation about hem." ALC
Commission on Fellowship, “Toward Understanding One
Another.” See Appendix A. p. 22

D. “The president of Wartburg Theological Sem-
inary, Dubuque, lowa. called for Lutherans to ‘adenit that
every single one of our treasured theological formulations
1s always an expression of our brokenness and separation as
well as a declaration that God has redeemed us. He
asked recognition of doctrinal pluralism. ‘even as it’s
present in the New Testament.” The Lutheran Standard.
Feb. 6, 1979, p. 22

Vv

399

LCMS

apostie’s sharing the views of contemporary
Judasm asa child ot histime "4 Statement of
Scriptural and Confessional Principles. Article
WF

Because the same God speaks the same message
of Chast and his salvation throughout the Scriptures, the
Scriptures present an ofganic unity of doctrine both within
and between the Old and New Testaments, The unity of
authorship. content. and purpose is reflected in the princi-
ple that Scripture interprets Scripture. whether applied to
indwidual passages of articles of faith

It goes without saving that God has chosen to speak
10 us in Holy Scripture in a vatiety of wavs and with a rich
diversity of concepts. pictures. and forms. fren parallel
accounts of the same event or saving present us with
different accents and emphases This diversity should be
gratefully recewed and emploved in our proclamation
rather than simply smoothed out and flattened. The
unity of Scripture means that the ultimate context of every
passage in Holy Scriptures the entire Scripture This in turn
1s retlected in the historic Lutheran emphasis on the self-
interpreting Scripture. This principles very obvious in the
actual exeges's employed by the contessional writings. Its
seen when the confessors use clear passages to clarity those
that are less clear !t 1s practiced when an article of faith
drawn from the Scriptures ts used to iuminate or exphcate
a problem or emphasis in another article of faith. (1 can be
recognized in the citation of the Old Testament to comment
on explicate. of clarity aspects of the work of Christ, Its
employed when New Testament passages are used to clariiy
concepts or passages in the Old Testament. In short, the
Contessions recognize a unity of content. authorship. and
purpose throughout the Scriptures

With this view it would be impossible tor the
confessional writings to affirm the contemporary notion
that the Scriptures include diverse and even conflicting
theologies.” Ralph A. Bohimann. “Confessional Biblical
Interpretation: Some Basic Principles.” Studres in Lutheran
Hermeneutics. 1979, pp. 205— 206.

LCMS

Contessions or to the doctrinal content which the Contes:
sions derive trom individual Bible passages.

“4. We recognize that the doctrinal content ot the
Contessions centers in Jesus Christ and the Gospel ot our
sustitication by grace through faith, bul we reject the view
that the doctrinal content ot the Contessions includes only,
those confessional statements which explicitly and directly
deal with the Gospel of Jesus Christ Accordingly. we donot!
accept the idea that our subscription to the Lutheran
Contessions permits us to reject such contessional posinions
asthe existence ot the devil and of angels or that Adam and
Exe were real historical persons whose fall into sin was areai
histoncal event

“5. We recognize that the Lutheran Contessions
contain no distinct article on the mature of Holy Scripture
and its interpretanon, but we acknowledge and accept the
contessional understanding of the nature of Holy Scripture
and ot the proper theological principles for its interpreta-
won.” A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Princ:
ples, Article VI

B. Our tirst thesis assumes not only thai there is a
coniessional position on the nature and interpretation o!
Hols Scripture but also that this position is itselt bibbcal. Al:
Lutheran contessional writings ask to be understood and
accepted as biblical exposition, and this holds true for the
contessional position on Holy Scripture no less than for
other points of doctrine. Moreover. our American Lutheran
church bodies, like Lutheran churches around the world
accept the Contessions precisely because they are regarded
as true expositions of Scripture Imphicit in this claim 1s that
the principles of interpreting Scripture emploved by the
contessional writings are also consistent with the contession-
al view of the nature and authority of Holy Scripture In
other words, it 5 the claim of our first thesis that Lutheran
church bodies today that seek to be faithful to their
confessional heritage should subscribe to the confessional
position on Holy Scripture and its interpretation no less
than to the confessional position on other biblical truths
Moreover. we should do so not simply because this position
is Confessional but also because of the fundamental pring
ple that what is confessional 1 biblical

In this connection we should nate the inadequacy
of contemporary notions of contessional subscription that
regard the Confessions as being only historically correct or
treat them only as sy mbols of a movement, companions in
our venture into an unexplored future. of expressions of
the ‘spirit’ of Lutheranism. Not anly do such postures make
confessional subscription a waxen nose. but they are also
untrue to the very notion of subscription ewdent in the
confessional writings themselves. For confessional subscrip-
tion then. as well as now. was a pledge to uphold the
docirinai content of the Confessions. not merely to honor it
o+ ta regard it fondly as a position once viable but no longer
vahd “Ralph A. BohImann. “Confessional Biblical !nterpre-
tation: Some Basic Principles ” Studies in Lutheran Her-
meneutics. 1979, p. 191