# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1973_S135
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

SEMINARY ISSUES 135

the Scripture are thus placed in false opposition to each
other; therefore be it

Resolved, That Synod reject those statements and views
which call into question the factuality and historicity of the
Biblical accounts regarding the existence of Adam and Eve,
the fall into sin, details regarding the life of Jesus, and the
miracles; and be it further

Resolved, That the Svnod direct the administrators and
professors of the St. Louis seminary to adhere to the Scrip-
tural doctrine in regard to these matters and to desist from
calling into question the factuality and historicity of the
Biblical accounts concerning them.

EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF OuR REDEEMER
Overland, Mo.

Oreon Wesche, President

Raymond Singer, Secretary

Identical or Similar:

3-63B

St. Paul Lutheran Church, Sanford, Mich., Ernest O. Sut-
ton, President; A. Lynn Robinette, Secretary.

3-63C

Grace Lutheran Church, Bakersfield, Calif. L. W. Faul-
stick, Pastor: C. F. Billingsley, Secretary.

3-644
To Restrict Use of Historical-Critical Method

Wuereas, For many years there has been a controversy
in our Synod about the propriety and even necessity of
using certain modern techniques and procedures in studying
and interpreting the Bible; and

Wuereas, The name for the use of such techniques and
procedures, The Historical-Critical Method, means different
things to different people so that the discussions have de-
generated into endless quibbling over the meaning of a term
instead of focusing on what a method, no matter what it is
called, actually does to the Bible; and

Wuereas, There is much fruitless bickering about whether
tenets associated with these techniques and procedures
should be called “presuppositions” underlying or “conclu-
sions” deriving from the use of such techniques and pro-
cedures; and

Whereas, In the meantime the main question as to the
compatibility of the use of such techniques and procedures
with the Lutheran Confessional view of the Bible remains
unanswered to the utter confusion of many in the Synod
who are waiting for the Synod to investigate and settle this
dispute; and

Wuereas, Failure on the part of the Synod to speak to the
issues, because it has allowed itself to become entangled in
interminable wrangling over secondary matters, may actually
be encouraging and promoting the use of techniques and
procedures of Bible study and interpretation which are
wholly out of keeping with the Lutheran view of the Bible;
therefore be it

Resolved, That any method of Bible study and interpre-
tation, no matter by what name it is called, which either
operates with assumptions or arrives at conclusions such as
the following, be rejected, namely:

(1) that the Bible is not uniquely inspired by the Holy

Ghost;

(2) that the Bible is not the very Word of God Himself
and therefore is not qualitatively different from all
other literature;

(3) that the Bible is historically conditioned in the sense
that it contains errors and contradictions;

(4) that the historical narratives in the Bible are in-
accurate and that there are discrepancies between
the actual course of events and the Bible’s report
of the course of events;

(5) that there are conflicting theologies in the Bible;
and be it further
Resolved, That no method of Bible study and interpreta-

tion which directly or by implication approves these rejected
positions be employed at the Synod’s schools or recom-
mended as useful.
IMMANUEL LUTHERAN CHURCH
Olivette, Mo.
Kenneth Eckert, Secretary
Walter J. Hoffmann, Pastor

Similar:

3-64B

Trinity Lutheran Church, Casper, Wyo., Don Eckelberg,
Secretary; LaVern R. Bellamy, Pastor.

3-65
To Request Both Seminary Faculties
to Respond to Questions Concerning
Historical-Critical Method

Wuereas, The St.Louis seminary faculty has dissemi-
nated a two-booklet publication entitled, Faithful To Our
Calling, Faithful To Our Lord, in which they aver “detailed
evidence of [their] own solid Lutheran convictions” (ac-
companying Tietjen letter); but

Wuereas, Faithful To Our Calling, Faithful To Our Lord
begs the question of the use and results of the historical-
critical method of Bible interpretation; and

Wuereas, The results of using the historical-critical
method have been amply demonstrated by competent schol-
ars to be chaotic, confusing, and destructive of Christian
doctrine; be it therefore

Resolved, That Synod request every faculty member of
both seminaries to respond with a simple “Yes” or “No”
answer to the following questions concerning the historical-
critical method:

1. Do you believe all the sub-methods used under the
historical-critical method, including literary criticism, form
criticism, redaction criticism, content criticism, etc., must be
used in the usual way as they are used by historical-critical
scholars?

2. Do you fully agree with the stance document of
the CTCR regarding “necessary controls” needed for the his-
torical-critical method? Do you also agree with the CTCR
that the canonical Word, not precanonical sources, forms, or
traditions, is the historical Word for the church today?

3. Do you believe in the inerrancy of Scripture as Wal-
ther, Pieper, and other orthodox Missouri Synod Lutheran
theologians used the term? If so, do you believe this to be
compatible with the historical-critical method?

4. Do you believe that the historical-critical method can
show Paul, or Matthew, or Jesus to be in error in their
understanding, interpretation, or application of an Old Tes-
tament text?

5. Do you believe there are different, contrary, or con-
tradictory theologies or presentations of the same event or
saying in Scripture?

6. Do you believe the use of the historical-critical method
can lead to unified doctrine in the church?

7. Would a Lutheran historical-critical scholar insist that
the New Testament is free of all historical errors?

8. Can a Lutheran exegete hold the view that Jesus did
not establish the church in Matt. 16:18?

9. Can the Personality of the Holy Spirit be held as an
“open question” by a Lutheran exegete? Can the doctrine
of the Trinity be asserted on historical-critical grounds?

10. Can the historical-critical conclusions on the Resur-
rection (the empty tomb is a legend), the post-resurrection
appearances, etc., be regarded as “open questions”?

11. Do you agree with the new hermeneutic which speaks
of a “meaning then,” and a “meaning now,” of a text, and
may such a hermeneutic be taught at our seminaries?

12. Would you agree that the temptation of Jesus, His
baptism, the virgin birth, whether or not the Lord instituted
the Lord’s Supper, the raising of Lazarus, and whether or