LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1965, Page 203

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

2. DOCTRINAL MATTERS 203

WHEREAS, The December 1960 Lutheran Education
reported that the text of a new Sunday school memory
course will be in the text of the Revised Standard
Version; and

Wuereds, The Revised Standard Version of the Bible
is the “official Bible’ of the National Council of
Churches; and

Wuereas, Such fundamental doctrines of Christianity
as the virgin birth of Christ, His physical resurrection,
and His deity are rejected by many of the translators
of the Revised Standard Version; and

Wuereas, It is a thoroughly documented fact that
many of the translators of the Revised Standard Ver-
sion have been affiliated with Communist-front organi-
zations and have refused to admit that they erred in
joining such organizations; and

Wuereas, The modernistic views of these translators
are frequently reflected in the text of the Revised Stan-
dard Version (Isaiah 7:14; Philippians 2:6; Romans
9:5); therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod refuse to authorize the
publication of the above mentioned Catechism, Bible
history text book, and a new Sunday school memory
course which would use the text of the Revised Stan-
dard Version; and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod direct the Board of Parish
Education and the Advisory Committee on English
Bible Versions to refrain from distributing pro-RSV
propaganda material published by the Division of Chris-
tian Education of the National Council of Churches.

also:

(5) Memorial 616, pp. 276 and 277 of the Book of
Reports and Memorials, 45th Regular Convention of
The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod. Three of the
Whereases of this memorial state:

Wuereas, All Scripture truth is binding. The distinc-
tion of the true and the binding is a piece of modern
church politics not of Lutheran theology. To say that
something is Scripturally correct is to say that it is bind-
ing. Therefore it is not true, as widely reported in the
press, that the San Francisco convention in 1959 adopted
a “stricter” stand on the “Brief Statement.” This docu-
ment became binding in the Synod not in 1959 but as
soon as the Synod adopted it as Scripturally correct; and

Wuereas, To tolerate, in a Synod, public rejection of
its public doctrine is of the essence of unionism. Only
a unionistic body can have an official “doctrinal position”
to which not all public teachers are bound and to which
therefore none are bound. Hence the real issue at San
Francisco was not the merit of particular documents but
the simple question of honesty, namely whether the
Synod’s confession of definite public doctrine was sincere
and is to be sincere in the future; and

Wuereas, It is dogmatically false to assert that only
the Symbolical Books of 1580 can be binding, due to the
ordination vow. The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod
has always maintained that “all doctrines revealed in
Holy Scriptures are to be accepted and believed, for the
very reason that they are propounded in Holy Scripture,
no matter whether ‘decided’ in the Symbolical Books and
agreed upon by the theologians or not. To declare doc-
trines revealed in the Bible to be ‘open’ or ‘free’ for the
reason that they are not yet ‘symbolically fixed’ in the
Confessions of the orthodox Church . . . would, in fact,
be the same as to put the Church, her Confessions and

theologians in the place of Holy Scripture, and to ascribe
to the Church and her theologians the authority of estab-
lishing articles of faith.” (Francis Pieper, The Distinc-
tive Doctrines and Usages of the General Bodies of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in the United States, 1902
pp. 139, 140)

and

Bi

Wuereas, The issues contained in these memorials
are still relevant; therefore be it

Resolved, That we request that the above five (5)
memorials be submitted to the 1965 Detroit convention
of The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod.

REV. WALTER OTTEN
Rev. Cart HoFFMEYER
Rev. PauL LEHENBAUER
Rev. Roy Favurstick
Mr. FreD BENDEWALD
Dr. WaRREN HAMULA
Dr. Ropert Taylor

[2-46 Un]
To Consider Critique Titled
“Missouri in Detail”

The undersigned herewith respectfully petitions the
Synod to take note of “The E. L. C. A. at the Crossroads
in 1965 — A Report on two pressing problems, compiled
especially for laymen and issued by The Parish Educa-
tion Committee, Queensland District, Evangelical Lu-
theran Church of Australia,” two copies of which ac-
company this petition.

In order that the portion of this report bearing di-
rectly on the Synod may be thoroughly considered, the
undersigned further respectfully petitions the Synod:

I. To make available to all convention delegates the
second chapter of the aforementioned report, the title
of the chapter being “Missouri in Detail”;

II. To approach this report in a spirit of Christ-hon-
oring humility, with an open-minded attitude of readi-
ness to check this report according to the norm of Scrip-
ture, and with willingness to bring “into captivity every
thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5);

Ill. Humbly, penitently, and conscientiously to make

a Scripture-based evaluation of the conclusions of the

Parish Education Committee of the Queensland District

of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Australia, as

found on page 44 of the aforementioned report, and
reading as follows:

Leaving the larger judgments to history the evidence

herein presented yields at. least the following conclu-
sions:

(1) There is Liberalism and “Ecumenical” unionism —
and hence false doctrine — in the Missouri Synod.

(2) The Liberal element is on the increase.

(3) The problem exists primarily not among the “grass
roots,” but among the theological leaders and per-
sons of influence, with access to the printed page.

(4) Despite some admirable attempts and intentions, the
Synodical administration has so far not been able
to arrest, much less to quell, the Liberal rebellion,
nor even to wrest the initiative from it, but has
continued to lose ground. (The San Francisco Con-