# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1973_S104
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

104 SEMINARY ISSUES

to salvation the Holy Spirit does not lead us astray."’ (Profes-
sor D)

“Accordingly the inspiration of the written Word pertains to
the effective power of the Scriptures to bring men and women
to salvation.” (Professor E)

“. . . mot everything that is in Scriptures is by that token
binding upon us; therefore that reason by itself would not ex-
Plain why the Virgin Birth is part of our Christian faith.”
(Professor R)

“T ean cheerfully and enthusiastically affirm the infallibility
of the Gospel in the sense that it is absolutely reliable, trust-
worthy, and true. Likewise the Scriptures contain no errors,
mistakes, or unreliable statements which would undermine or
jeopardize the doctrine of salvation,” (Professor E) (Note the
clear inference that there are errors of other kinds.)

Originally we were concerned over the position:

H. That it is possible Abraham, Jacob and Isaac never really
lived.

From the official summaries of the interviews held by the

Board of Control we now read the position as:
“Tt is also clear from the transcript that I do not believe that it is
the intent of the Biblical authors to discuss the historicity of
the patriarchs and Adam and Eve. Therefore. in answer to
question 1, I would again say it is not the expressed intent of
the canonical scriptures to teach that the patriarchs ‘were his-
torical people who really lived in the same sense you are a
living person.’ "' (Professor K)

Originally we were concerned over the position:

J. That the Scriptural record of a world flood need not be ac-
cepted,

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

“In response to a question asking if it is possible that the Old

Testament flood account is barabolic in nature {Professor Mi]
acknowledged such a possibility.” (Professor M)

“In response to a question as to whether archaeology can
correct Scripture [Professor B] stated that outside evidence can
change a theologian's conclusions.” (Professor B)

“Professor |K] was asked about the intent of Matthew 24:36.
He pointed out that the intent is stated in verse 44. The mes-
sage of the pericope was readiness for the second coming of
our Lord. Asked whether the comparison with Noah did not
assert the historicity of the flood, Professor [K]| stated that the
subject being treated by our Lord was not the historicity of the
flood but readiness for his return, The purpose of the passage
is not to get one to affirm the historicity of Noah since that
will do nothing to make us ready for our Lord's return but to
move us to hang on to Jesus so that we will be ready. In a
discussion of the relation of the Matthew 24 passage to Genesis
5—6 and whether the relation did not presuppose a historical
flood, Professor |K] stated that his methodology did not deny
the historicity of the Genesis passages but instead emphasized
the intent of the Biblical writers.” (Professor K)

Other items of concern not in our original listing, but indeed
in the report of the Fact Finding Committee which were
corroborated in the interviews the board held with the fac-
ulty members include:

1. A strange reluctance to interpret Old Testament
prophecies as being direct predictive prophecies, the testi-
mony of the New Testament notwithstanding. For example:
“In commenting further on Is.7:14, Professor [A] stated
that in his exegetical opinion the passage is not a direct
prediction of the coming Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. It is,
however, a prediction of a child to be born and named
Immanuel, who would be a sign and a reminder to Ahaz,
when he saw Syria and Israel destroyed (Is.7:16), that he
should have trusted to Yahweh to protect him.”

2. The use of an isagogical principle that allows denying
the apostolic authorship of New Testament books despite
the clear words of the book itself. This amounts to an
erosion of the authority of the Biblical text. For example,
a professor said with regard to Pauline authorship of Ephe-
sians, “ he had raised a question, though only pro-
visionally, about whether Paul did the actual writing and
compositing of the Epistle. However, his substantive point
was that Paul was the author of Ephesians if by that we
mean that the ideas in that epistle are from him, which
Professor [R] affirmed.”

We must conclude that the report of the minority made
9 months ago was correct. The report concluded in part:
“These are more than mere theological details. They in-
volve doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures... . Once the
authority of the Scriptures has been qualified or eroded,
who knows what the next development will be?”

Exhibit B

Voting of the Board of Control in determining whether
to commend or correct:

Professor

1

Commend Correct Abstain

the
bh

1 To Interview

1 To Interview

i laa oe eee
SCOAMUAWNHE SOO MONIDBE Bw

we
TSA OMRWOIAMIMOMOOUNMMMOMOO~T004

DON DS hp
CoRR ODOR
iy

WHIM rt
SCweCMND
ANNO ROM RN ROM WOH USWOUSSCUNIUWNAOONNWNOOHNHOS

BoP BBD ts to We Ow wo tO
PWNHEOBDOAIAUAODHA
SOAMAIIANOHRONMMMHOOAIDDHO

CRE OPOMOMNHSSOHNOWOHCOWOHH OOH EEN NH OONWONEN

roy
So
m

It should be understood that a number was randomly
assigned by the writers of this supplemental report to each
professor. It should also be understood that to “correct”
was the equivalent of saying that the professor was not
teaching in accord with the Scriptures and the Confessions
and was therefore open to the charge of false doctrine,
(The entire board was not present throughout the voting
procedure, which explains the variance in the total votes
cast.) The Chairman of the Board of Control ruled that
wherever there was a ballot to “Commend with reservation”
it should be counted as a ballot to “Commend,”

3-01C
Supplemental Report

Dear President Preus:

We are aware that some members of the Board of Control
of Concordia Seminary, Saint Louis have submitted to you
a report “on the basis of the [Fact Finding Committee] re-
port” of their concerns regarding doctrinal matters relating
to the St.Louis seminary administration and faculty. We
have read the report and concur in the content of it. They
are telling a true story. However, in our opinion, there is
more to be told ... much more. We are extremely grateful
for the blessings which the Lord has brought to the church
through the long and honorable history of the St. Louis
seminary in particular. It is because of this deep interest
and love for the true mission of the church that we have
concluded to also make you aware of some of the concerns
which have deeply disturbed us regarding administration