LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1975, Page 100

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

100 RESOLUTIONS

To Decline to Rescind N.O.
Resolution 3-09

RESOLUTION 3-10

Overtures 3-76A—3-81F, 3-84, 3-85, 3-86A—Q, 3-87A,
3-87B (CW, pp. 86—89)

Wuereas, 1973 Res. 3-09 has been questioned
through letters of dissent to the Synod’s officials, to the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations, and to
others and through overtures by congregations, confer-
ences, and Districts; and

Wuereas, Much time has been devoted to the study of
N.O. Res. 3-09 by many individuals, conferences, and the
CTCR (cf. “Report on Dissent,” CW, p. 462); and

WHEREAs, Nothing affirmed in N -O. Res. 3-09 has
been shown to be contrary to Scripture and the Lutheran
Confessions; and

Wuereas, N.O. Res. 3-09 does not make judgments
on individuals but on theological positions and teachings
(cf. CCM Opinion, CW, p. 481); and

Wuereas, Each member of the former faculty major-
ity is free to state that the positions rejected in Res. 3-09
are not his personal positions; and

Wuereas, Channels of dissent are provided for those
who believe doctrinal resolutions adopted by the Synod
are in error (cf. Handbook 109 e, and the CTCR report
“Guiding Principles,” CW, p. 468); therefore be it

Resolved, That those who continue to believe that the
theology expressed in N.O. ‘Res. 3-09 is contrary to
Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions be encouraged to
present their concerns through the channels provided by
the Synod for this purpose; and be it further

Resolved, That those members of the former faculty
majority who do not hold the positions condemned in Res.
3-09 be encouraged to join the Synod in condemning
these positions; and be it finally

Resolved, That the above-named overtures (3-76 A,
etc.) be declined.

Action: This resolution died since it failed to receive
action before adjournment.

To Commend CTCR Position on
the Historical-Critical Method

RESOLUTION 3-11

Report 3-01, I, Rec. 8, 9; Overtures 3-128—3-130B,
6-115 (CW, pp. 40, 102, 352)

Wuereas, The Commission on Theology and Church
Relations has for many years given intensive study and
discussion to the problems raised by any use of the
historical-critical method in interpreting Scripture and
has distributed the study document titled “A Compara-
tive Study of Varying Contemporary Approaches to Bib-
lical Interpretation”; and

Wuereas, The historical-critica] method makes deci-
sions about the origin, nature, and interpretation of the
Biblical literature on the basis of a historical reasoning

which by definition is a procedure unable to deal with
supernatural intervention and operations; and

Wuereas, The use of such historical reasoning in
accounting for the origin of the Biblical literature tends
to minimize the “connection between the Spirit and
history” (“Revelation, Inspiration, and Inerrancy,” p. 3,
par. 9) and fails to take into account that in history the
Spirit creates that which is not of this world; and

Wuereas, The use of such historical reasoning not
only obscures the Spirit’s connection with the history of
the Bible’s origin but at the same time emphasizes the
human factors in the production of the sacred literature
in such a way that the Bible is virtually reduced to a
product of merely human thought and experience; and

Wuereas, Such historical reasoning, by accounting
for the production of the Biblical literature chiefly in
terms of merely historically conditioned responses to a
series of needs and situations among God’s people in the
Old and New Testament eras and by regarding the
Biblical literature as only human beings’ writings, so
tenuates the Spirit’s authorship as to evaporate the unity
of the Bible and to make inoperative the basic principle
that the Bible interprets itself; and

Wuereas, Such historical reasoning, which proposes
that each constituent unit of the Biblical literature must
be understood wholly in the light of its use through
various states of oral and written transmission, negates
also the principle that a Biblical text has only one
meaning; and

Wuereas, A view of the origin and nature of the
Biblical literature which denies the unity of the holy
writings and ascribes multiple meanings to a sacred text
in effect renders the Bible useless as the absolute and
final authority for all that the church does and teaches in
God’s name; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod reject and repudiate as
opposed to sound Lutheran theology and as injurious to
the Gospel any view of the Bible and method of inter-
preting it which relates history to the production of the
sacred writings in such a way as to diminish their “not of
this world” character and to deprive them of their divine
authority; and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod reassure its members that it
still adheres faithfully to its historic position that the
Scriptures are God’s very own inspired, inerrant, and
authoritative Word for all matters of doctrine and prac-
tice; and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod call upon its responsible
officers to implement evangelically the provisions of the
Synod’s Constitution and Bylaws which were intended to
assure that in all institutions under the Synod’s control
this position will be upheld and preserved; and be it
further

Resolved, That the Synod beseech the pastors, teach-
ers, and congregations of the Synod, by the mercies of
God, to continue to uphold the Synod’s Position; and be it
finally

Resolved, That the Synod commend the study docu-