Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 1973 · 50th Convention › Page 39
LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1973, Page 39
front matter 1
front matter 2
front matter 3
front matter 4
front matter 5
front matter 6
front matter 7
front matter 8
front matter 9
front matter 10
front matter 11
front matter 12
front matter 13
front matter 14
front matter 15
front matter 16
front matter 17
front matter 18
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
Page 142
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147
Page 148
Page 149
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 153
Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Page 163
Page 164
Page 165
Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
Page 179
Page 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
Page 184
Page 185
Page 186
Page 187
Page 188
Page 189
Page 190
Page 191
Page 192
Page 193
Page 194
Page 195
Page 196
Page 197
Page 198
Page 199
Page 200
Page 201
Page 202
Page 202
Page 203
Page 204
Page 205
Page 206
Page 207
Page 208
Page 209
Page 210
Page 211
Page 212
Page 213
Page 214
Page 215
Page 216
Page 217
Page 218
Page 219
Page 220
Page 221
Page 222
Page 223
Page 224
Page 225
Page 226
Page 227
Page 228
Page 229
Page 230
Page 231
Page 232
Page 233
Page 234
Page 235
Page 236
Page 237
Page 238
Page 239
Page 240
Sheet 260
Page 6
Page 242
Page 243
Page 244
Page 245
Page 246
Page 247
Page 248
Page 249
Page 250
Page 251
Page 252
Page 253
Page 254
Page 255
Page 256
Page 257
Page 258
Page 259
Page 260
Page 261
Page 262
Page 263
Page 264
Page 265
Page 266
Page 267
Page 268
Page 269
Page 270
Page 271
Page 272
Page 277
Page 280
Page 281
Page 282
Page 273
Page 276
Page 283
Page 284
Sheet 301
Page 7
Page 286
Page 287
Page 288
Page 289
Page 290
Page 291
Page 292
Page 293
Page 294
Page 295
Page 296
Page 297
Page 298
Page 299
Page 300
Page 301
Page 302
Page 303
Page 304
Page 305
Page 306
Page 307
Page 308
Page 309
Page 310
Page 311
Page 312
Page 313
Page 314
Page 315
Page 316
Page 317
Page 318
Page 319
Page 320
Page 321
Page 322
Page 323
Page 324
Page 325
Page 326
Page 327
Page 328
Page 329
Page 330
Page 331
Page 332
Page 333
Page 334
Page 335
Page 336
Page 337
Page 338
Page 339
Page 340
Page 341
Page 342
Page 343
Page 344
Page 345
Page 346
Page 347
Page 348
Page 349
Page 350
Page 351
Page 352
Page 353
Page 354
Page 355
Page 356
Page 357
Page 358
Page 359
Page 360
Page 361
Page 362
Page 363
Page 364
Page 365
Page 366
Page 367
Page 368
Page 369
Page 370
Page 371
Page 372
Page 373
Page 374
Page 375
Page 376
Page 377
Page 378
Page 379
Page 380
Page 381
Page 382
Page 383
Page 384
Page 385
Page 386
Page 387
Page 375
Page 376
Page 377
Page 378
Page 379
Page 380
Page 381
Page 382
Page 383
Page 384
Page 385
Page 386
Page 387
Page 388
Page 389
Page 390
Page 391
Page 392
Sheet 423
Sheet 424
Sheet 425
Sheet 426
Sheet 427
Sheet 428
Page 396
Page 397
Page 398
Sheet 432
Page 400
Sheet 434
Page 402
Sheet 436
Sheet 437
Sheet 438
Page 406
Sheet 440
Page 408
Sheet 442
Page 410
Sheet 444
Page 412
Sheet 446
Sheet 447
Sheet 448
Sheet 449
Sheet 450
Sheet 451
Sheet 452
Sheet 453
Sheet 454
Sheet 455
Sheet 456
Sheet 457
Sheet 458
Sheet 459
Page 427
Sheet 461
Page 430
Sheet 463
Page 432
Sheet 465
Sheet 466
Sheet 467
Page 436
Sheet 469
Sheet 470
Page 4
Page 440
Sheet 473
Page 442
Sheet 475
Page 444
Sheet 477
Page 446
Sheet 479
Sheet 480
Page 449
Page 450
Page 451
Page 452
Page 453
Page 454
Page 455
Page 456
Page 457
Sheet 490
Sheet 491
Sheet 492
Sheet 493
Sheet 494
Sheet 495
Sheet 496
Sheet 497
Sheet 498
Sheet 499
Sheet 500
Page 1
Page 470
Sheet 503
Page 472
Sheet 505
Page 474
Page 13
Page 476
Page 1
Sheet 510
Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
⤓ Download page image (full resolution)
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected
THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 39
Davidie authorship of the Psalm.” (Cf. The Witness of Jesus and
Old Testament Authorship)
8. On the subject of Biblical authorship, the commission has
stated:
The Synod has affirmed that we are to accept whatever the Bible
says about itself, including its human authorship, but has also recog-
nized that isagogical matters not conclusively answered by the
Scriptures are not matters of doctrine and should therefore not be
treated as factors affecting the Christian fellowship.” (An Evaluation
of “A Call to Openness and Trust’. p. 6, point 4 b)
The commission has also discussed the question of authorship in
its document The Witness of Jesus and Old Testament Author-
ship and in A Response to Questions on “The Witness of Jesus
and Old Testament Authorship.”
9. Holy Scripture is the sole standard for determining what
is “doctrine” and whether “doctrine” is true or false. The
Lutheran Confessions, because they are “drawn from the Word
of God” (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Rule and Norm,
10), are a secondary norm for the faith and life of the church.
But the confessions do not claim to deal with all doctrinal ques-
tions. Treatment or nontreatment in the confessions is therefore
not a criterion for determining whether a question is doctrinal.
Accordingly, questions not treated in the confessions but dealt
with in the Scriptures may well be “doctrinal” questions.
Conclusion
The Commission on Theology and Church Relations holds
that the document entitled “A Review of the Question ‘What
Is a Doctrine?’” does not maintain that matters pertaining to
the authorship of Biblical books and the historicity of certain
Biblical accounts are outside the scope of “doctrine.” Teachings
and judgments on such matters ordinarily are not considered
“doctrine” or “doctrines” in themselves. However, any teaching
or judgment which denies or contradicts what the Scriptures
teach must be considered “false doctrine.” For such a denial
or contradiction is in conflict with the doctrine of the authority
of Holy Scripture, the only infallible source and norm of all
doctrine. Moreover, the doctrine of the person of Jesus Christ
is also involyed in the consideration of any of His statements,
including those which deal with isagogical or historical matters.
In short, the commission holds that it is a doctrinal matter to
contradict or deny whatever the Bible teaches on any subject.
Adopted by the CTCR. May 24. 1971
APPENDIX C
“Key 73° Guidelines
We thank and praise God for all those who with us realize
that the Gospel of Christ is His power unto salvation to all who
believe it and for the opportunity that the “Key 73” program pre-
sents to proclaim that saving message in “Calling Our Continent
to Christ.”
Unfortunately, not all church bodies are in doctrinal agree-
ment. Therefore participating in a venture such as “Key 73”
involves pitfalls and inherent dangers which ought to be avoided
in the interest of the proclamation of Scriptural truth. It was for
this reason that Synod’s decision to participate in the “Key 73”
program was under the explicit condition that such participation
“not violate our doctrinal positions’ and be ‘to the extent that
our fellowship principles permit” (Res. 8-02, 1971, Proceedings.
p. 187). To aid members of the Synod, the CTCR was directed
to draft guidelines for participation in the “Key 73” program.
Under the theme ‘Calling Our Continent to Christ,” the “Key
73” program is so structured as to provide for participation on
essentially three levels:
a. Separately: Those parts of the program done by the
churches on their own.
b. Simultaneously: Those things done by the individual
church concurrently with other participating churches.
c. Cooperatively: Those things done jointly by the churches.
Each church has the privilege of determining for itself the
degree and level of participation.
The greatest degree of tension would arise for members of
The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod on the cooperative level
of participation. It is especially urgent that The Lutheran
Church— Missouri Synod avoid any activity that would negate
its distinctively Lutheran witness. Care should be taken that we
do not implicitly or explicitly convey an attitude of indifference
to Scriptural truth and thereby negate the witness that confes-
sional Lutheranism can and must make in our day. This concern
would apply particularly to joint participation in rallies, worship
services, prayer meetings, and such other cooperative activities
where our doctrinal position may be compromised. But the prin-
ciple must also be applied to all aspects of the program.
Lutheran theology has a unique contribution to make in such
an evangelization effort. The Christ-honoring proclamation of
God's pure grace and of man’s need for it because his nature is
depraved, the proper distinction and use of Law and Gospel.
and the emphasis upon the depth of God's love seeking an es-
tranged and alienated mankind when man would have none of
Him are such distinctively Lutheran doctrines to which we must
bear witness in any evangelism program in which we participate.
In light of the above factors, it is the recommendation of the
CTCR that:
1. The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod’s participation be
principally on the separate level. Many things for which The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod assumes separate respon-
sibility, however, may well be carried out simultaneously to
maximize the impact on the community.
2, The Synod’s Board of Evangelism provide literature.
tracts, worship and publicity materials which communicate what
is distinctively Lutheran.
3. The training of callers, canvassers, and counselors be
carried out by our own personnel using materials recommended
by the Synod's Board of Evangelism.
4. Worship services, prayer meetings, rallies, and such
gatherings be conducted under Lutheran auspices. either by
members of the Synod or with others with whom the Synod is in
fellowship.
5. The Board of Evangelism provide Bible study materials
suitable for neighborhood Bible study groups for use by our
people.
6. The members of the Synod in all things try to uphold and
observe the doctrinal position and the fellowship policies of
The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod.
7. The members of the Synod implore the blessing of Al-
mighty God that the efforts of the “Key 73" program, under His
grace and by the power of His Holy Spirit, may lead many to
faith in Jesus Christ and salvation.
‘Adopted by the CTCR. March 14, 1972)
APPENDIX D
An Evaluation of the Faculty Document
“Faithful To Our Calling. Faithful To Our Lord. Part I:
A Witness to our Faith”
The Commission on Theology and Church Relations is grate-
ful to the faculty of the St. Louis seminary for the preparation of
this document in which they give a corporate expression of their
faith and for the insights which it gives the church into certain
of their teachings. The Commission on Theology and Church
Relations also rejoices with them in the expression of their faith
in Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. a faith shared
by all true Christians.
As the Commission on Theology and Church Relations seeks
to respond to the many requests for an evaluation of this docu-
ment, it will not attempt to deal exhaustively with all the ques-
tions raised by the document. Rather, it will address itself prin-
cipally to two considerations: (1) Does the document reflect
a correct understanding of the issues under debate in the
Synod? (2) Is the document suited for use in discussion forums
throughout the Synod where the issues under debate are to be
studied?
This approach is suggested by the document itself. The docu-
ment has been presented to the church as a ‘‘corporate expres-
sion of our faith and a discussion on the issues under debate”
(p. 3; emphasis added). It is further stated that “the discussions
provide us with a responsible set of statements which are suit-
able for use in discussion forums throughout Synod.” (Ibid..
p. 4; emphasis added)
The purpose of this evaluation, then. is to determine whether
or not the document Faithful To Our Calling. Faithful To Our
Lord. Part I, carries out its stated purpose. It is not the intent of
this evaluation to investigate the personal faith of individual