# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1973_S103
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

SEMINARY ISSUES 103

nevertheless affirm the teaching that we, because of our native
sinfulness, need a Savior.’ (Professor D)

“| Professor [A] explained his understanding of Genesis
2 and 3. He stated that from his study he had come to the
conclusion that the sacred author, under God. had written a
narrative which was not intended as historical narrative as
we of the twentieth century understand history writing. His
was a symbolical narrative which affirmed the reality of the
events of creation and the fall but which cannot be pressed to
describe exactly how those events took place He stated
that the fall narrative is a symbolic account which affirms that
there was a fall without giving precise details about how it
harpened and which is designed to show that we are so in-
volved in that event that we are born losers.’ (Professor A)

“Asked about certifying a student who did not accept the
historicity of Adam and Eve, Professor [LJ] pointed out that
in the original text of Genesis the titles for man and woman
are generic rather than proper nouns and that our assumption
that they refer to individuals stems from St. Paul's use of Adam
in his epistles. He added that he would want to work with
the student to be sure what the Bible means to him.” (Pro-
fessor L)

Originally our concern was the position held by the faculty:

A. (2) That the Apostle Paul sees Adam as the representative
of mankind and does not discuss the historicity of Adam and
ve,

From the official summaries of the interviews held by the
Board of Control we now read:

“Professor [S] dealt with the significance of Rom. 5:12-14
and 1 Cor. 15:21-22 for a literal understanding of the account
of Adam and Eve by pointing out that St. Paul was making
a theological assertion rather than speaking literally. From a
literal standpoint St. Paul would not be correct since according
to Genesis sin came into the world by Eve and not by Adam.
Since Paul is speaking theologically the emphasis must be placed
on the theological thought involved and not on an incidental
figurative or histcric reference. It is not unusual in such a
context to refer to a fictional character (Hamlet, Don Quixote)
or a fictional name (Mark Twain) or even a fictional event
(Romulus, the founder of Rome, suckled by a she-wolf), with-
out regard to their historicity, in an effort to make a point in
a discussion. Paul does that in 1 Cor. 10:4 in sneaking of the
Rock that followed Israel in the desert, providing them with
water. This was a Jewish legend which Paul utilized to empha-
size a truth. These questions are a matter of interpretation and
not of doctrine, Dr. {S] asserted.” (Professor S)

Originally our concern was the position held by the faculty:

A. (3) That the Confessions do not discuss the historicity of
Adam.

From the official summaries of the interviews held by the
board we now read the position of the professor as:

“It is not the case the Lutheran Confessions ‘believe, teach,
and confess’ that ‘Adam and Eve were real historical persons.’
There is no reflection on their historicity. It was not in con-
troversy. The Confessions speak the language of the sixteenth
century as they set forth their doctrine. The doctrinal con-
tent is to be affirmed.” (Professor H)

Originally our concern was the position held by the faculty:

B. (1) An unwillingness to pass an adverse judgment on one
who does not accept the virgin birth until, for example
it is ascertained whether the person understands the Gospel
or unless such a denial of the virgin birth limits, denies or
destroys the Gospel process.

From the official summaries of the interviews held by the
Board of Control we now read the position of the pro-
fessor as:

Question: ‘Do you believe that Jesus Christ was conceived
by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary without having
a human father... ?”

Answer: “Central among the doctrines of the Christian faith
are the teachings of the incarnation of God's Son and his resur-
rection from death. Without the incarnation we have no Gosvel!
The mystery of the incarnation is expressed by the biblical
message about the work of the Holy Spirit in the conception
of our Lord. The text of Matthew indicates that the voung
wornan, whom we know as Mary. through whom the Spirit was
working this miracle of the incarnation, was a virgin. God,
with whom nothing is impossible, could have wrought the in-
carnation by someone other than a virgin. The Gospel message
of the incarnation is therefore primary and the reference to
Mary’s virginity in Matthew is secondary. That Matthew affirms
that Mary was a virgin I do not doubt.’ (Professor D) (Note
that Professor D does not sav that he himself affirms that Mary
was a virgin. He says only that Matthew did.)

“In response to questions he rointed out the reasons why he
sometimes has had a problem with the teaching [virgin birth
of Christ]. He pointed out that his responsibilities as a teacher
of history have made him aware of references to virgin birth
in Roman literature to make affirmations about Roman em-
perors. As a historian he had to ask himself whether something
similar might not be true of the reference to the Virgin Birth
of Jesus in the New Testament. However. Professor {G] stated
that for him the Scriptures are the ultimate authority and that
he gladly affirms that our Lord was born of the Virgin Mary.”
(Professor G)

Originally we listed our concern over the faculty position
that:

C. The patriarch Abraham lacked the Gospel faith of sureness
in a forthcoming Messiah. (Note: Compare this with the Form-
ula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article V, 23.)

From the official summaries of the interviews held by the

Board of Control we now read the position of the pro-

fessor as:
“Abraham, without even a segment of the Old Testament as
we know it today, or as Jesus knew it in his day believed in
the promises that he had. Those were promises that assured
Abraham of a merciful God who by his covenant with him
confirmed for him that God was merciful, gracious and for-
giving and that he would make Abraham a father of many
nations, even though in his old age he did not as yet have a
single heir.’ (Note the significant omission of the reference to
a forthcoming Messiah.) (Professor S)

Originally we said that the faculty position was that:
D. (2) It is a viable option to accept theistic evolution.

From the official summaries of the interviews held by the

Board of Control we now read the position of the pro-

fessor as:
“In response to further questioning as to whether it is permis-
sible for a Lutheran to hold a view of theistic evolution Pro-
fessor [Y] stated that it would be permissible if he believes
in God's grace in Christ and affirms that God's Word is respon-
sible for life and man.’ (Professor Y) (Note: This also applied
to a faculty member.)

Originally we were concerned over the faculty position:

E. (2) That one should not exclude the possibility of miracles
at every point on principle, but the other principle of the
economy of miracles may induce acceptance of an alternate
solution in certain cases.

From the official summaries of the interviews held by the

Board of Control we now read the position of the pro-

fessors as:
“Asked about his attitude toward a person who denies a mir-
acle, Professor [L] stated it would depend on his reason for
doing so. He would have a different attitude toward a person
who did so on the basis of his interpretation of the evidence in
the text than toward a person who did so because he denied
the Lordship of Christ and_ the supernatural meaning of the
Christian faith.’ (Professor L)
Asked about the miracle of the raising of Lazarus. Professor [O]
said, “If another interpreter, working with prayer and in sub-
mission to the text. should conclude on proper exegetical
grounds that the text of John 11 does not and never intended
to portray a miracle, I should not immediately rush to accuse
him of being unfaithful to Article I of the LCMS Constitution,
or more seriously, of being unfaithful to Holy Scriptures and
the God who gave them and speaks in them. I should first
have to ask what his exegetical reasons are, examine them,
evaluate them on the basis of the text and sound hermeneutics
and then make my conclusions. He might be indeed unfaithful
to Article II, but not automatically so.” (Professor O)

Originally we were concerned over the position:

F. That the following are acceptable exegetical treatments of
Matt. 12:38-42 and Luke 11:29-32, namely: 1) that Matthew
himself made uv the story; 2) that Jesus held to the swallow-
ing of Jonah by a fish as child ot his times and 3) Jesus wasn't
really attempting to answer the question whether Jonah was
history or parable but used the account for purposes of illustra-
tion (admonition).

From the official summaries of the interviews held by the
Board of Control we now read the position of the pro-

fessor as:
“It would be possible for our Lord to affirm that His stay
in the grave would be like Jonah staying in the fish for three
days without thereby asserting that the Jonah account is in
fact historical.” (Professor B)

Originally we were concerned over the position:
G. That any discussion of the authority of Scripture must be
considered in relation to the Gospel and not on the basis of
“thus saith the Lord.”

From the official summaries of the interviews held by the
Board of Control we now read the position of the pro-
fessors as:

“Asked on what basis the Scriptures are normative, Dr. {F}
stated that they are normative because Christ is normative and
the New Testament scriptures are the normative apostolic testi-
mony to him. They are normative because he is the normative
content of their witness.” (Professor F)

“Infallibility is likewise not a term used in the Scriptures.
For me the Scriptures are reliable. not because of some argu-
ment from reason which demands their infallibility in matters
of biology. geology. zoology. or any other modem scientific dis-
cipline. but because of the truth which has changed my life.
namely Jesus Christ and His Gospel. In disclosing to us that
truth, the Lord of the nniverse does not err: in working through
the sacred Scriptures to accomplish His purpose of leading men