# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1971_S55
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

PRESIDENT’S REPORT 55

there can legitimately be a variety of interpretations
without affecting what they consider to be “doctrine.”

2. Some hold that our confessional subscription is
limited to the doctrinal points at issue, and that it does
not embrace doctrinal positions expressed in the Con-
fessions somewhat incidentally. For example, in the
confessional statement regarding original sin, some say
that the Confessions’ references to the historicity of
Adam and Eve do not bind us, since the Confessions
merely intended to talk about the fallen state of man.

3. Regarding the inspiration of Scripture, some in
our Synod hold that there is no precise and uniform
confessional position. Some believe that the inspiration
of the Scriptures is not qualitatively different from the
activity of the Holy Spirit in the tradition of the church
and in our preaching and witness today. Others hold
that the Confessions clearly teach that the Scriptures
are unique and different from all other literature in
that they are verbally inspired by God so that in all
their words they are the Word of God. In this view,
both the authors and the words of Scripture are in-
spired, for men of God wrote the words that the Holy
Spirit wanted them to write.

4. There is also a difference of opinion on the nature
of Biblical authority. Those who broaden the concept
of inspiration to include all Christians do not base the
authority of the Scriptures on their inspiration but on
the fact that they are primary historical documents
written by important Officials of Israel and the early
church. Some persons in our Synod also state that the
Scriptures have their authority only by virtue of the
faith they produce through their presentation of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ. In this view, the Scriptures have
only what theologians call material, functional, or so-
teriological authority, rather than formal authority; in
other words, the authority of Scripture lies in what they
do rather than in what they are. Traditionally we have
held that the divine authority of the Scriptures comes
from the fact that God inspired them and that they are
His written Word. According to this view, everything
in the Scriptures is authoritative and true simply be-
cause God said it; the Bible does not first become au-
thoritative through what it does.

5. We have a well-known difference among us on
the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. Some hold
that the Scriptures are inerrant only in their function,
that is, that they faithfully accomplish their purpose of
creating faith in man.

6. We also have problems with regard to the rela-
tionship between the material and formal principles of
theology. The “formal principle” is that the Bible is the
inspired Word of God and the source and norm of all
doctrine; the “material principle” is that Christ and
His gracious justification of the sinner is the heart and
center of the entire Scripture. In keeping with our
Lutheran Confessions, we have traditionally held to
a very careful distinction between these principles.
Thus we have held that the Scripture is the source and

norm of all doctrine, while the Gospel is the chief doc-
trine and a basic presupposition for the interpretation
of Scripture. But today there is a frequent confusion
of these principles, with the result that the Gospel,
rather than the Bible, is employed as the norm of our
theology. This is sometimes called “Gospel reduc-
tionism.”

Those who confuse these principles sometimes re-
ject the factual claims of a given text on the grounds
that it does not involve the Gospel. They assert that
interpretations of a Scripture passage need not be re-
jected if they do not harm the Gospel. For example,
it is said by some that although the Bible specifically
commands women to keep silence in the church, yet
since this does not impinge on the Gospel, the matter
of ordination of women to the pastoral ministry is
a matter of indifference and may be practiced or not
according to human convenience. By the same method
of interpretation, the fall of Adam and Eve, the univer-
sal flood, and other historical teachings of Scripture are
not accepted by some as factual because they are con-
sidered to be nonessential to the doctrinal lesson of sin
and grace. In spite of its obvious confusion, this form of
“Gospel reductionism” is often claimed as a truly Lu-
theran way of interpreting the Scriptures.

7. With regard to miracles, some members of our
church, while acknowledging that Christ could have
performed all miracles that are attributed to Him in the
Gospels, claim that it is permissible for exegetical rea-
sons to reinterpret Biblical miracle-stories so as to
eliminate their reality by regarding them as parables
or another type of literary device. According to this
view, it is permissible, for example, to deny that Christ
walked on water or changed water into wine. Such
stories, it is held, were intended to teach something
quite different from the performance of a miracle.

For similar reasons, some are evidently having diffi-
culty in affirming that there really are angels or a per-
sonal devil.

The question that has to be answered by this con-
vention is whether we are willing to allow such matters
(and many more) to be regarded as open questions on
which we may take any position we wish. If the Synod
feels that we should be this permissive and wishes to
understand Article I of the Constitution in this loose
sense, then let us realize that we have departed from
the position maintained by Dr. Walther and other
fathers of our church. If we do not want this kind of
latitude because we feel that it threatens the faith we
confess and the message of reconciliation with which
we have been entrusted, let us state clearly to all con-
cerned that deviations from the official position of our
church must be dealt with and cannot be permitted.

In keeping with the concern for doctrinal purity
which the Synod has always demonstrated, your Presi-
dent embarked on a course of action which created
a great deal of discussion in the Synod. It was a course
from which he did not feel that he could deviate with
good conscience. I have reference to the creation of