LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1973, Page 133

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

SEMINARY ISSUES 133

WHEREAS, Commission members have left no doubt about
the destructive nature of this method —it destroys the
authority of Scriptures (historical principles are applied to
the Bible as though it were an ordinary book or set of doc-
uments. Such a view leaves no room for the living God of
the Bible, for the action of God in human affairs, for mira-
cles large or small. — Report of the President, p.58); and

Wuereas, While Lutheran presuppositions are said to be
the controls imposed on the method as safeguards, yet
there is little reference to such presuppositions as the in-
spiration, inerrancy, and authority of Holy Scripture (Re-
port, p.60); and

Wuereas, Our synodical President, together with others,
have been contending against those who would force this
destructive method upon our church; therefore be it

Resolved, That we at St. Paul’s publicly and officially
stand opposed to this destructive method of Bible interpre-
tation; and be it further

Resolved, That we encourage our synodical President,
in his battle against this satanic method: and be it further

Resolved, That our church, meeting in convention in
New Orleans, take the necessary steps against this destruc-
tive method of Bible interpretation; and be it finally

Resolved, That we encourage all our people to pray for
our Synod, our President (Synod and District), our faithful
servants of the Word as well as those who have been blinded
by confusion or Satan's lies. That we invite our people to
seek the Lord’s intervention and assistance as we seek to
retain His Word and strength to stand strong on His sure
Word no matter what the cost.

Sr. Pau, LUTHERAN CHURCH
Williamsburg, Iowa

Milford G. Heitman, Chairman
Allen W. Doehrmann, Secretary

Similar:

3-59B

Bethlehem Lutheran Church, Milwaukee, Wis., W. R.
Lewis, Pastor. Same whereases, but different resolveds:

1. That the LCMS in convention accept the CTCR's study
and evaluation of the historical-critical method as it has
been reported to the Districts of our Synod: and

2. That the Synod restrict the use of this method in
our theological institutions — that it may not be used as an
acceptable method of Bible interpretation and that our stu-
dents be taught, on the basis of the CTCR’s report, what the
historical-critical method is, that they might combat its use.

3-60

To Condemn Methods of Biblical
Interpretation Which Question Historical
Reliability of Scripture

Wuereas, The historical-critical method is strongly ad-
vocated by the majority of the faculty members of Con-
cordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo.; and

Wuereas, Many of these faculty members are saying that
the question of the use of a particular method of interpreting
Scripture is essentially a neutral matter: but

Wuereas, Those who employ the historical-critical method
of interpreting the Scriptures typically distinguish between
the report of an event described in the Scriptures and the
eyent itself to the extent that the actuality of the event
(including persons, sayings, things done) is separated from
the report of it in Scripture; and

Wuereas, Those who employ the historical-critical method
affirm that the gospels, for example, have to a certain extent
been created by the early church and, therefore. are not
necessarily accounts of what Jesus really said and did; and

Wuereas, Such an approach in essence regards the Bible
as lacking in historical reliability, and

Wuereas, This fact is evident in the following cases of
the St.Louis seminary faculty:

1. Professor K— Was asked by the Fact Find!-7 Com-
mittee if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were “historic persons
who really lived.” He answered: “I would prefer to answer
your question by saying 1 simply don’t know whether the
Yahwist who is writing this history to tell us about God,
conceived of these people as historical persons or not: if you
want my opinion, yes.” (Quoted in Report of the Synodical
President, p. 67)

2. Professor G— Was asked by the Fact Finding Com-
mittee if it is permissible to treat the gospel’s account of
Jesus walking on water as “something that is written in and
not historical, didn’t happen.” He answered, “Let me first
of all affirm that the walking on water presents no problem
to me whatever and that I wouldn't take this particular
route. Now let me try to defend the guy who may go that
route whoever he may be. If I were to find in the literature
of that period this kind of story told once, or twice. or three
times, then I in full honesty would have no choice but to
ask myself, May this have been a literary device used for
a certain purpose? This is not the final answer.” (Report
of the Syiedical President. p. 74)

3. Professor Habel states: “Any teaching which does not
promote the truth and sufficiency of the Gospel dare not be
made a test of orthodoxy. Hence questions of the six-day
creation, the historicity of the account of Adam and Eve.
the facticity of all geographical or historical data and similar
questions are of secondary importance. They may be sub-
jects of theolagical debate but they must not be made the
touchstones of Biblical truth.” (Faithful To Our Calling.
Faithful To Our Lord, Part IJ. p. 68). therefore be it

Resolred, That the Synod declare that the matter of
methods of interpreting the Scriptures is not a matter of
indifference: and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod judge to be unscriptural and
a violation of Article II of the Constitution any method of
interpretation which casts doubt on the divine authority of
the Scriptures and thus also on the Gospel itself by «ues-
tioning the historical or factual reliability of events de-
scribed in Scripture as actually having taken place, by
calling into question the reality of any Biblical miracle, or
by casting a doubt on the factualness of the accounts given
in the gospels of the ministry of our Lord and Savior, Jesus

Christ. REDEEMER [LUTHERAN CHURCH

Wayzata. Minn.
Al Lavanger, President
Edwin Grimm, Secretary

3-61A

To Reaffirm Lutheran Principles
of Interpretation

Wuereas, All doctrine in the Christian church is to be
based upon the Sacred Scriptures: and

Wuereas, The Confessions of the Lutheran church pur-
port to present doctrine which is based only upon the Sacred
Scriptures (Introduction to the Book of Concord: FC Rule
and Norm passim.), and Lutheran pastors and theologians
subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions because (quia) they
agree with the Scriptures; and

Wuereas, In the light of the foregoing there can be no
agreement (consensus) concerning doctrine in the church
unless there be agreement in the interpretation of specific
passages in Scripture upon which doctrine and the articles
of faith are based; and

Wuereas, These principles have been denied in our Synod
and even called un-Lutheran*; therefore be it

Resolved, That our Synod in convention assembled reaf-

firm the above principles as correct, Biblical and Lutheran;
and be it further

Resolved, That all teachers, preachers, professors, and
administrators in Synod who have denied or undermined
these principles be dealt with by their responsible superiors
and officers in Synod so that they retract their errors.

* See, e. g., District Essay, Atlantic District convention, June 14,

1970, p.6: “It has been a jong-established Lutheran position that
there can be no one official and correct interpretation of a passage