# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1969_S508
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS RAISED REGARDING THE DOCUMENT
“A Lutheran Stance Toward Contemporary Biblical Studies”

1. Does the commission suggest that there are some
plain teachings of God's Word for which we need not
contend because erroneous opinions regarding them
would not be divisive of church fellowship?

No, the commission does not suggest this at all. On
the contrary, it states clearly that “the church will never
be indifferent to or condone departures from the truth
of God’s Word” (p. 7). For this reason the commission
also reminds the church that our fathers “considered it
their duty ‘on the basis of God’s Word, carefully and ac-
curately to explain and decide the differences that had
arisen with reference to all articles in controversy, to
expose and reject false doctrine, and clearly to confess
the divine truth.’” (P.6)

2. Does the commission's document regard some Biblical
teachings as unimportant because they do not treat of
salvation in Christ or are not related to the Gospel
as such?

No, the commission’s document nowhere proposes
such a classification of doctrines. Rather it tries to make
clear that the Gospel has a bearing on all Biblical teach-
ings. Furthermore, the document states that “it is clear
that the writers of the Lutheran Confessions were
totally committed to the Scriptures. They themselves
were not indifferent to any departure from God’s Word.
nor did they approve of such indifference in others.”
(P. 6)

3. Does the commission exaggerate the importance of
the Law-Gospel dialectic as the means for determin-
ing what is true or not true in Scripture?

The commission does not suggest that the Law-
Gospel dialectic is the means for determining what is
true or not true in Scripture. Everything that Scripture
teaches is true. The emphasis on the distinction be-
tween Law and Gospel is intended to exalt the specifi-
cally Christian use of the Scripture in the proclamation
of the divine Word. One may lecture on Biblical history,
cite texts in the process. and thus be speaking the
“truth.” A secular historian may speak the “truth” of
the Scripture in this way. It is quite another matter.
however, to use a Biblical text as a means of confronting
the secure sinner with the Law that exposes his guilt
and the judgment of wrath that rests upon him, or the
despairing sinner with “the truth of the Gospel” (Gal.
2:5, 14), that is, the Word of comfort. which declares
him freely forgiven for Christ’s sake and a child and
heir of the heavenly Father. To cling to that Word of
Promise, and thus to rest in God alone. is Christian
faith. To believe the lecture on Biblical history to be
“true” in the sense that things really happened as de-
scribed in Scripture is not yet faith in the Biblical or
Lutheran sense. The Christian “faith” appropriates the
true meaning of the Scripture and is a work of the Spirit
of God through the external Word (cf. L. C. IV, 49: S.A.

III, viii, iii). The other “faith” is a historical assent
which by itself falls short of the heart of the Scripture.
Therefore we declare, in full agreement with the Lu-
theran Confessions, “that the right understanding of the
Gospel (including the proper distinction of Law and
Gospel as grounded in the article on Justification) is the
key that finally unlocks the meaning of sacred Scripture
(Apology IV. 2—5, German: Formula of Concord, Solid
Declaration, V, 1).” (P. 8)

4, The commission appeals to the Gospel as the criterion
by which to distinguish necessary controversy from
needless contentions. Does the commission thereby
set up another norm in opposition to Scripture itself?

No. “We believe, teach, and confess that the pro-
phetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testa-
ments are the only rule and norm according to which all
doctrines and teachers alike must be appraised and
judged...” (Formula of Concord, Epitome, The Com-
prehensive Summary, etc., 1). It is this sole norm of
Holy Scripture which leads us, in agreement with the
Lutheran Confessions, to recognize and acknowledge the
Gospel of Jesus Christ as the criterion by which to dis-
tinguish necessary controversy from needless conten-
tions (Gal. 1:8: see also F. C., ibid.). For the Gospel is
not one doctrine among many in Scripture but is the
sum and substance of the whole Scripture (Apology IV,
87, German). Even the Law (without which the Gospel
would be meaningless) cannot be rightly or fully com-
prehended apart from the Gospel (F. C. Epitome V,
5—8).

5. What does the commission mean by “technical ques-

tions involved in interpretation”? (P. 8—9)

There are various kinds of technical questions that
may arise in the interpretation of a passage of Scripture.
There are, for instance, questions of grammar, such as
whether the verb “search” in John 5:39 is indicative or
imperative: whether the genitive in “yighteousness of
God” (Rom.1:17) is subjective. objective. qualitative,
or of still another sort; whether “by faith” (Rom. 1:17)
is adjectival or adverbial. There are also questions ofa
lexical nature, such as whether “Law” in Rom. 3:31 re-
fers to the Law in the sense of God’s holy demands or
in the sense of God’s Old Testament Word; whether “pa-
tience” (Greek: hypomone) as used by Paul refers to
the virtue of patience in the Stoic sense of endurance, or
to the attitude of hope and expectation characteristic of
the Old Testament believer (cp. Ps. 71:5). Further,
there are questions of a literary kind, such as at what
point in John3:10 ff. the words of Jesus end and the
testimony of the evangelist begins. These are just a few
of the kinds of “technical questions involved in interpre-
tation” of which the commission declares that if they
“neither aid nor impair the right understanding of the
Gospel (in its full sense) [they] ought not become a
matter of controversy in the church.” (P. 9)