LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1975, Page 103

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 103

(congregations, pastors, parish teachers) is theologically divided:
and

WHEREAS. It is not possible under such circumstances to
carry on the work of the Lord effectively and joyously: therefore
be it

Resolved. That the President and Vice-Presidents of the
Synod be directed to conduct a canvass of the Synod’s member-
ship to ascertain which members choose to continue to adhere
to the Synod’s confession in Article II of its Constitution as well
as to its understanding thereof as this is expressed in synodical
resolutions; and be it further

Resolred. That each member respond in writing on a form
to be provided by the President and Vice-Presidents: and be it
further

Resolved. That said canvass include all individuals who are
in any way employed, elected, or appointed to an official position
in the Synod and in its Districts: and be it further

Resolved. That all who choose to pursue another theology
than that which is the Synod’s historic confession be advised
by the President of the Synod. who will do so in the name of the
Synod, that their membership in the Synod is cancelled: and be
it further

Resolred. That all who fail to respond be given a second
chance to do so and that failure to respond be interpreted as
a decision to follow another theology, in which case their
membership, too, shall be cancelled: and be it finally

Resolved. That the Synod be advised either through its
official publications or by special communication of the results
of said canvass.

Trinity Lutheran Church
New Haven, Mo.
Orville Meyer. Secretary

3-133

To Distinguish Between Dogma and
Theological Opinion

WHEREAS, A certain confusion exists in our midst because
the concept “doctrine” is understood in various ways: and

WHEREAS, The concept “doctrine” is often used with an
ambiguity which fails to distinguish between dogma (the teach-
ing of the Scriptural Gospel by which alone the saving faith can
exist) and theological opinion (points about Christian faith and
life not clearly established in Scripture, and in which there may
be legitimate differences of opinion); and

WHEREAS, Labeling theological opinions as “doctrine”
threatens to elevate them to a position which they cannot
legitimately hold; and

WHEREAS, Labeling dogma as mere theological opinion
undermines the necessary orthodox preaching of the Gospel:
and

WHEREAS, Our Confessions do distinguish between the two
(e. g., Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Art. VII, par. 20): and

WHEREAS, The Synod at Denver (Res. 2-24) ‘accepted and
commended” such distinctions in the document entitled “A Re-
view of the Question ‘What Is a Doctrine?’”’: therefore be it

Resolved. That the Synod maintain this distinction with all
possible precision: and be it further

Resolved. That the Synod uphold within itself the freedom
to hold various theological opinions about genuinely open
questions: and be it further

Resolved. That the Synod hold itself bound to the articles of
faith as based on Scripture and expressed in The Lutheran
Confessions; and be it further

Resolved. That the Synod foster wholesome discussions of
controverted matters on the basis of these clear distinctions
between dogma and theological opinion, rather than to use the
term “doctrine” interchangeably for both: and be it finally

Resolved. That the Synod bear with the weak in such dis-
cussions, mindful of its own weakness and fallibility.

(Twenty-five members of the faculty have recorded a
negative vote against this overture and desire this to be reported

together with the overture. The reasons for the dissent will be
filed with the floor committee.)
Faculty
Concordia Teachers College
River Forest, Ill.
Merle L. Radke. Secretary

3-134A

To Begin Work on a “20th-Century
Formula of Concord”

Preamble: In 1580 the authors of the Formula of Concord,
attempting under God to resolve the controversies which
confronted them in their day. set forth their loyalty to the
Scriptures and previously adopted Confessions in Prefaces.
first to the entire Book of Concord (Tappert edition. pp. 3—16)
and (in 1577) to the Formula of Concord itself (Tappert edition.
pp. 501 —503). As we read their account of the reasons for writing
these documents, we are struck by the similarity of the con-
troversies of their day to those of our own. In the Preface to
the Formula, for example. we read:

Herewith we again whole-heartedly subscribe this Christian and

thoroughly scriptural Augsburg Confession, and we abide by the

plain, clear, and pure meaning of its words. We consider this Con-
fession a genuinely Christian symbol which al! true Christians ought
to accept next to the Word of God. just as in ancient times Christian
symbols and confessions were formulated in the church of God when
great controversies broke out, and orthodox teachers and hearers
pledged themselves to these symbols with heart and mouth. Similarly
we are determined by the grace of the Almighty to abide until our
end by this repeatedly cited Christian Confession as it was delivered
to Emperor Charles in 1530. And we do not intend. either in this or
in subsequent doctrinal statements. to depart from the aforemen-
tioned Confession or to set up a different and new confession. (Tap-
pert edition, pp. 502. pars. 4-5)

Shortly thereafter they discussed the serious consequences

of the continued controversy in their midst, noting that:
The weak in faith, on the other hand. will be scandalized: some
will doubt if the pure doctrine can coexist among us with such divi-
sions, while others will not know which of the contending parties
they should support. After all, these controversies are not. as some
may think, mere misunderstandings or contentions about words, with
one party talking past the other. so that the strife reflects a mere
semantic problem of little or no consequence. On the contrary.
these controversies deal with weighty and important matters, and
they are of such a nature that the opinions of the erring party cannot
be tolerated in the church of God. much less be excused and de-
fended. For that reason necessity requires that such controverted
articles be explained on the basis of God's Word and of approved
writings in such a way that anybody with Christian intelligence can
see which opinion in the controverted issues agrees with the Word
of God and the Christian Augsburg Confession, and so that well-
meaning Christians who are really concerned about the truth may
know how to guard and protect themselves against the errors and
corruptions that have invaded our midst. (Tappert edition. pp.
502 — 503, pars. 8— 10)

We believe that these words very well could have been
written about our controversies. Indeed. perhaps they apply to
our time with even greater urgency as we look at errors intro-
duced by various humanists. historical critics, neoorthodox,
universalists, existentialists. evolutionists, charismatics, and
others that threaten the very foundation of our faith. These
doctrinal errors cry out for resolution! They cannot be ignored.
Therefore, in all humility, this resolution is submitted for con-
sideration by the delegates to the 1975 convention of the LCMS
meeting at Anaheim, with the prayer that it may contribute
under God to the writing of a “20th-Century Formula of Con-
cord"!

WHEREAS. From time to time the Christian church has re-
solved controversies and restored unity by speaking to the issues
of the time in new creeds and confessional documents: and

WHEREAS. These creeds and confessions have never been
considered to be new standards of truth but merely apply the
Bible to the issues of the day: and

WHEREAS. Just as orthodox Christianity was threatened by
Arianism in the early church and as true Lutheranism was
threatened by crypto-Calvinism and a compromising. unionistic
“Melanchthonian spirit’ in the years after the death of Luther.