# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1973_S139
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

138 RESOLUTIONS

third use of the Law in the life of the Christian believer.
(Cp. FC, SD, V, 17; VI, 15, Epit. VI, 1)

These three areas of concern are sufficient to demon-
strate that the theological, doctrinal stance of the fac-
ulty is at variance with our Synod’s teaching. Other
specific points of deviation could be listed (e.g., the
eroding of the doctrine of original sin by a de facto
denial of the historical events on which this doctrine is
based), but these have already been accounted for in the
President’s A Statement and the Fact Finding Commit-
tee’s “Report.” The validity of this charge, that another
theology has intruded into our Synod through the fac-
ulty majority’s stance, is borne out by their own docu-
ments, which corroborate and underscore the specific
points at variance.

It now becomes evident that by: (1) the subverting
of the Scriptural Word as the formal principle, or touch-
stone, by which all teachers and all teaching are to be
judged; (2) by introducing a Gospel-reductionism (by
whatever definition it is considered); (3) by adopting
neo-Lutheranism’s rejection of the third use of the Law;
the faculty has in effect and in fact put itself in opposi-
tion to Article II of the Synod’s Constitution. While
subscription of that article is professed — and in given
individual instances may indeed still be true and real
—the fact remains that by the de facto denial of the
formal principle, sola Scriptura, by the establishing of
the “Gospel” as the “governing principle” in theology,
and by all the attendant aberrations and reductions of
Scriptural teaching which follow upon such method-
ology, the end result is that Article II has been effectu-

Dr. Lewis Niemoeller reporting for Committee 3

ally, but sadly, eroded. The faculty majority exults in
the “freedom of the Gospel,” but the documents show
another course of freedom: not merely that two sides
are talking past each other, or that so-called allow-
able variations in theological opinion are at issue, or
that unwisely the faculty has accused Dr. Preus, the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations, et al. —
all who have expressed their support of A Statement and
its supporting evidence—of being unLutheran, un-
Scriptural, unConfessional; but also that the faculty it-
self has opted for neo-Lutheran theological stance which
allows historical-critical methodology to dictate given
judgments, both against Scripture and also against the
Confessions. To claim at this point that the Synod’s con-
cern for doctrinal discipline is “Law” and “legalistic,”
and to plead that we must deal “pastorally with one
another,” “evangelically,” and, with a wringing of the
hands, to claim that the “Gospel alone must rule,” is
to confuse the issue. As the apostle Paul makes sharply
plain in Gal. 1:8-9, the Gospel, and all of the facts and
acts of God that belong to it, are, if anything, even more
intolerant of deviation than the Law. The “freedom in
the Gospel” does not allow us to depart from the “old
paths” spelled out by our Constitution in Art. II with
its unequivocal upholding of and subscription to the
Scriptures and the Confessions.

WuerEas, The Synod is pledged under its Constitu-
tion, as the first objective of its organization, to “the con-
servation and promotion of the unity of the true faith
(Eph, 4:3-6; 1 Cor. 1:10) and a united defense against
schism and sectarianism (Rom. 16:17)” (cf. Art. III, 1);
and

Wuereas, “The Synod, and every member of the
Synod, accepts without reservation:

“1. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament
as the written Word of God and the only rule and norm
of faith and of practice;

“2. All the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lu-

theran Church as a true and unadulterated statement
and exposition of the Word of God .. .” (Art. II); and

Wuereas, The theological, doctrinal stance of the
faculty majority of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, has
been shown to be in violation of Art. II of the Synod’s
Constitution, specifically on

1. the three points listed and explained above:

a. subversion of the authority of Scripture
(formal principle);

b. “Gospelism” or “Gospel reductionism” whereby
the authority of Scripture is reduced to its
“Gospel” content;

c. denial of the third use of the Law, i.e., the func-
tion of the Law as guide for the Christian in
his life;

2. the issues as described in the Fact Finding Com-
mittee’s Report of the Synodical President, Sept. 1, 1972
(p. 25 and previously listed above); and

Wuereas, The St.Louis faculty majority, with Dr.