Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1954, Page 33

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

i
i

Ev. Luth. Synodical Conference of North America, 1954 83

The expression “content and fitting word” first occurred in the
Declaration of the American Lutheran Church of 1938. It was used
again in the Pittsburgh Agreement of 1940, a joint confessional
statement of the American Lutheran Church and the United Lu-
theran Church. It has been publicly declared at various occasions
by representatives of the United Lutheran Church that the ex-
pression “content and fitting word” does NOT mean verbal in-
spiration as taught by the Synodical Conference.

The expression “the Holy Scriptures in their entirety” is also
subject to faulty interpretation, since it has been used by liberal
Lutherans to mean that the Bible “on the whole” contains the in-~
errant Word of God, but not in all its words and parts. This liberal
view is also referred to as the inspiration of the so-called “totality
of Scripture,” a denial of the truth that each particular statement
of the Bible is inerrant.

In Another Fraternal Endeavor, issued recently by the Mis-
souri Synod, exception is taken to the fact that we make such an
issue of the liberal interpretations of these expressions of the
Common Confession. It is maintained that we cannot hold the
American Lutheran Church responsible for liberal interpretations
made by individuals, especially since the same expressions have
been used in the past to uphold the correct view on inspiration.
“ETow can an expression which is good and adequate in itself be re-
jected because it reminds one of expressions that are not good and
adequate in themselves?” is the question raised (Another Fraternal
Endeavor, 1954, p. 20). We certainly do not imply that the authors
of the Common Confession have for their own part given up the
doctrine of Verbal Inspiration. Neither do we wish to pass judg-
ment upon their motives in using these expressions. We must still
maintain, however, that the use of them in formulating this con-
fession is unfortunate, to say the least, since the simple fact remains
that these terms have left and still leave room for two contradictory
views to stand side by side. The faulty interpretations placed upon
them are not isolated cases. They have been repeatedly expressed,
in official church periodicals, even since the adoption of the Com-
mon Confession by the American Lutheran Church. Our Union
Committee was justified in emphasizing their danger when it called
attention to the fact that a presentation of the doctrine of Inspir-
ation “for our times and conditions” should “speak clearly and
unmistakably on two points:

“a) that all that was written in the Holy Scriptures was given

by the Holy Ghost;

“b) that as a result of this inspiration, and as an article of faith,

inerrancy be claimed not merely for the Scriptures as
a whole, but for each particular statement that they
contain.”

They were also correct in their conviction that under present-day
circumstances we should not even yield the term “verbal inspir-
ation” in Part I. (Proceedings, 31st Convention, 1951, p. 131.)

E. The Antichrist

The articles treated thus far — Justification, Conversion,
Election, and Inspiration — might be considered the chief centers
of criticism by those who consider the Common Confession am-