Ruling by COP makes Bible errant word of God?

[C.F.W. Walther]

February 6, 2007


"CCM Ruling Stops LCMS Congregations from Confessing Bible Is Inspired"


Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod Pacific South West District (PSWD) President,
Larry Stoterau, asked the LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) to
overrule his own District Convention.

The PSWD voted that the words "inspired," "inerrant," or "revealed" may be
used in LCMS congregational constitutions to describe what a congregation
believes about the Bible. In response, Stoterau appealed to the LCMS CCM to
overrule his own District Convention's resolution.

This is the order of events:

1. Redeemer Lutheran Church, Huntington Beach, California, asked the PSWD to
approve its constitution that confesses the Bible is the inspired, inerrant,
and revealed Word of God.

2. President Stoterau's handpicked nominees to PSWD Constitutional Committee
ruled that new or revised church constitutions may not use the words
"inspired," "inerrant," or "revealed" when confessing what they believe
about the Bible.

3. The PSWD Convention overruled the PSWD Constitutional Committee.

4. Stoterau appealed to the Synod's CCM to overrule the PSWD Convention
resolution.

5. The LCMS' five-member CCM, appointed by President Kieschnick, responded
that Districts may not add or remove wording to Article II in the LCMS
Handbook.

With help from the CCM, Stoterau may now argue that the words "inspired,"
"inerrant," or "revealed" do not appear in Article II of the LCMS Handbook.

Article II in the LCMS Handbook reads:

"The Synod, and every member of the Synod, accepts without reservation:

1. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the written Word of God
and the only rule and norm of faith and practice;

2. All the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as a true and
unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of God, to wit: the three
Ecumenical Creeds (the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian
Creed), the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, the Apology of the Augsburg
Confession, the Smalcald Articles, the Large Catechism of Luther, the Small
Catechism of Luther, and the Formula of Concord."

This is a quotation from the CCM ruling of September 7-8, 2006:

"In a more recent August 15-16, 2003 opinion [the current CCM] (03-2352),
the Commission opined: Members of the Synod are required to accept without
reservation and subscribe to the Synod's confessional position as set forth
in Article II of its Constitution (Bylaw 1.03 [1.6.1]). Although the Synod
has provided for itself the right to adopt doctrinal resolutions and
statements (Bylaw 1.09 [1.6.2]), even these are not to be regarded as
additions to the confessional basis for membership provided in Article II.
Accordingly, individuals or congregations may not add to or remove items
from Article II.." You may see the entire ruling at
http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CCM/CCMMin9-06.pdf (http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CCM/CCMMin9-06.pdf)

Stoterau is also the Vice President of the LCMS Council of District
Presidents (COP) and a man after the COP's own heart.

If the CCM did not want to give back-handed support to District President
Stauterau they could have easily said, "This is a doctrinal matter and
should be referred to the Commission on Church Relations and Theology."

It is true that the LCMS Agenda's require pastors to confess that the Bible
is the inspired Word of God. However, it doesn't matter if the pastor
confesses the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible, revealed,
perfect, unified, complete Word of God, no pastor can be held to any
ordination vow in the LCMS that exceeds the words of Article II in the LCMS
Handbook.

On pages 135 (b) and 158 (b) of the 2004 LCMS Handbook it says that Seminary
Professors should be ordained in the LCMS but any layman working at the
Seminary must agree that the Bible is inspired. It doesn't say the
Professors have to agree that the Bible is inspired.

The LCMS Handbook only says the Scriptures are the written Word of God, not
the inspired, inerrant, and revealed Word of God

[Confess]

:sigh: :sigh: :sigh:

[Studeclunker]

GO REDEEMER!!!:clap:
Go gettem pastor Deuer!

We need to fight this, Rad! Don't think, any of you, that this is where they will stop. You will see the same back-sliding that the ELCA is currently dealing with in it's leadership. The veracity of the Holy Bible must be defended. Otherwise bible criticizers will strip the Bible down to the level of Grimms Fairytales.

As for those of you in WELS and the other conservative churches, if you think this will stop here, think again. As each branch of the Lutheran church is pruned away from the tree of Christianity, they will slowly attack the conservative core till there's nothing left.

WE MUST FIGHT THIS!:preach: :liturgy: :crossrc: We must stand together.:groupray: Otherwise... Well, I hope you're good with clay.

[Flipper]

You know, we might have disagreements on interpretation, but saying that the Bible is not inerrant or inspired? That's a pretty basic concept. I can't imagine what that can do to your faith if you don't believe that.

[Studeclunker]

It's essential that all these idiots who claim that the Bible isn't the inerrent, inspired Word of God, need to be moved out of office. I know we are called not to challenge the people put in authority over us. Still, there comes a time that someone has exposed themselves as such a moron, that they must be removed. They have no place leading congregations (let alone the entire synod) if they do not believe in the foundation of our faith.

SOLA SCRIPTURA!
What good is this cry, if we don't have an inerrent and inspired source to draw from? It's sheer idiocy to say that 'scripture is the writings of men and not the word of God.' GOD FORBID!:eek: :doh:

SOLA FIDE!
What good is faith if it has nothing to anchor to? "On Christ the solid Rock I stand, all other faith is shifting sand..." Christ becomes shifting sand without the support of scripture itself!

SOLA GRATIA!
Grace from whom? Without the inerrency of scripture, we are lost.

[DaRev]

We recently updated our church constitution. It contains the word "inspired" concerning the Bible. It always has. And it has been approved by our district constitution chairman.

He had no problem with it.


I would be interested to know whether previous Handbooks included the words "inspired" and "inerrant."

[filosofer]

I know we are called not to challenge the people put in authority over us.

Where do you get this? I read in the Bible that we are to honor leaders (Heb 13.17, etc.), but I also read that we should test everything that is taught (Acts 17.11; 1 John 4.1; etc.).



These people seek to knock the very foundation out from under the church.

I think we need to be clear on the issues; this is not the foundation of the Church. Jesus Christ is the foundation of the Church; the Church will continue whether a denomination or its leaders change the stance regarding Scripture.

The following is helpful when confronting these problems.

Material Principle:
What matters most? justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

Formal Principle:
What is the basis for determining that? Scripture

I mention this because sometimes we get into more trouble by trying to make Scripture into the Material Principle. In the long run that will cause even greater havoc because it makes us fundamentalists in the worst sense of that word.

So, Scripture is the inspired, revealed Word of God and the basis by which we determine what is most important. But Scripture as the inspired, revealed Word of God is not the central article of Faith.

In Christ's love,
filo

[filosofer]

We recently updated our church constitution. It contains the word "inspired" concerning the Bible. It always has. And it has been approved by our district constitution chairman.

He had no problem with it.


I would be interested to know whether previous Handbooks included the words "inspired" and "inerrant."

I think for Lutherans, the term inspired is the preferred word.

Historically, the word "inerrant" comes from B. B. Warfield (Princeton) and the Reformed theology bringing in "lower criticism" associated with textual criticism. But significantly, his use of the term was re-applied to the "original text" (hypothetical, since no "original text" has ever been found); whereas up until then the terms "inspired", etc. were used of the "original language texts" (existing texts).



In Christ's love,
filo

[C.F.W. Walther]

In the long run that will cause even greater havoc because it makes us fundamentalists in the worst sense of that word.
Do you mean that we could fall into the fundies idea that "the Bible is the law" principle?

Interesting idea. Never thought of it that way.

[Studeclunker]

Filo, I never said that these two principals were the foundation of the Church. I said that the enemies seek to knock the very foundation out from under the Church.


After all, when demolishing a building one does it by degrees. It's exactly what is spectacularly done with implosions of large buildings. First they blow the foundation. This way the building has no support. Then they systematically attack the support structure of the rest of the building, from the centre outward. In this way, the building collapses inward. Thus the term 'implosion'. This is exactly the technique the evil one's minnions are employing against the church to this very day.


If one follows with Biblical Criticism to it's finality, the conclusion can only be drawn; that Christ was just a man and scripture was written as a collection of storys and fables for our enrichment. This is indeed the position of many liberal churches. As such, Christ loses his diety, we lose the need for salvation, and the Gospel becomes a fairy tale. Thus these evil people seek to knock the foundation (Christ and salvation from sin) out from under the Church by small degrees.

[filosofer]

My point is that we need to be clear about what is the foundation, and the role of the Scriptures.

Word (enfleshed) > Word (proclaimed) > Word (written)

And my second point is that "lower criticism" has led to the same result as "higher criticism", only it wears a mask of "acceptability", through the efforts of Warfield. That is why fundamentalists and liberals often end up with the same position, arrived at from different directions.

In Christ's love,
filo

[pastorjimg]

I don't know how to do the quote thing but this is from Rad's first post:

5. The LCMS' five-member CCM, appointed by President Kieschnick, responded
that Districts may not add or remove wording to Article II in the LCMS
Handbook.

With help from the CCM, Stoterau may now argue that the words "inspired,"
"inerrant," or "revealed" do not appear in Article II of the LCMS Handbook.


"IF"I am tracking everything correctly- could a possible action item be to change the wording in Article II? It seems to me that this would be a great place to add the word innerant- or any of the others mentioned.

Yes, I know the misery involved with changing constitutions but it seems that this would be the first place to start.

Thoughts???

[Studeclunker]

Originally Posted by Studeclunker http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=31614028#post31614028)

I know we are called not to challenge the people put in authority over us.



originally posted by Filosofer:

Where do you get this? I read in the Bible that we are to honor leaders (Heb 13.17, etc.), but I also read that we should test everything that is taught (Acts 17.11; 1 John 4.1; etc.).


Um... this is where I plead foot-in-mouth-disease. I meant honor, Filo. I must confess of a passionate nature and sometimes my mouth (or in this case fingers) gets away with me. Beta reading of my posts is also not a strong suit of mine. Even at that though, your response simply fortifies what I was trying to say.

Pastor Jim,
you are entirely right. Still, we want to be careful what is changed so that we don't, to quote Martin Luther, "Throw the baby out with the bath water." I still think it would be safe to say we DO need to throw out President Kieschnick, at any rate.

[filosofer]

Um... this is where I plead foot-in-mouth-disease. I meant honor, Filo. I must confess of a passionate nature and sometimes my mouth (or in this case fingers) gets away with me. Beta reading of my posts is also not a strong suit of mine. Even at that though, your response simply fortifies what I was trying to say.


I do that all the time. :)

I suspected we were in agreement. Buts, as you note below....




you are entirely right. Still, we want to be careful what is changed so that we don't, to quote Martin Luther, "Throw the baby out with the bath water." I still think it would be safe to say we DO need to throw out President Kieschnick, at any rate.

Unfortunately in the 1920's the LCMS (and the Synodical Conference) followed the way of Warfield in this specific issue, with less than satisfactory results. It put us into some positions for which we are not necessarily prepared.

And yes, the problem with the ALC of 1960 was the attempt to contain liberalism by focusing on Scripture, rather than the chief doctrines. By doing so, the ALC lost the war, even though the battle to retain "inerrancy" was won.

In Christ's love,
filo

[filosofer]

I wonder if you are confusing the ALC with the LCA. LCA was the one that went liberal before ALC.

In Christ's love,
filo

[BigNorsk]

The Lutheran Brethren use rather modern wording for Lutherans but being just 100 years old it really fits in with the time of our origin. If the LCMS would like to borrow it, feel free.

The Bible, including both Old and New Testaments as originally given, is the verbally and plenarily inspired Word of God and is free from error in the whole and in the part, and is therefore the final authoritative guide for faith and conduct.

Marv

[Studeclunker]

ALC, LCA, ULC, ELCA, LCMS, WELS, OI VAY!
I'm getting a headache...:sigh: It's so sad that the church that finally successfully kicked off the Reformation, is so fractured and weak.:(

God help us all...:crossrc:

[RegularGuy]

The ELCA constitution says:

2.02.c The canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the written Word of God. Inspired by God’s speaking through their authors, they record and announce God’s revelation centering in Jesus Christ. Through them God’s Spirit speaks to us to create and sustain Christian faith and fellowship for service in the world.

2.03. This church accepts the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its proclamation, faith, and life.

You can see the document here:

http://www.elca.org/secretary/consti...utions2005.pdf (http://www.elca.org/secretary/constitutions/ConstitutionsBylawsandContinuingResolutions2005.pdf)

[jcj3803]

I think Filo has made the most logical posts yet as I struggle with exactly what inerrancy means. Or to put it as a preschooler once did, "When did Noah go to Australia to get the kangaroos?"

[wcwirla]

I wouldn't get too hung up on the issue of biblical inerrancy, infallibility, inspiration, revelation, and whatever else we are given to say about the Scriptures. This latest fiasco, brought to you by the presidentially appointed Commission on Constitutional Matters, is a classic case of the Law of Unintended Consequences coupled with the logical fallacy commonly known as dicto simplicter.

The CCM apparantly intended to stifle those congregations who were signing on to "extra-confessional" statements such as the Consensus document. Using blind, uncritical application of the rule without regard for the obvious exception (dicto simpliciter), the PSW district's committee in cahoots with the CCM ruled that constitutions must conform "word for word" to the synodical confessional statement, which does not include the words inspired, revealed, inerrant, etc. This is obviously an unintended consequence of a rule intended to accomplish something else.

The greater concern here is that the CCM is functioning as both a legislative and judicial body in the LCMS, ruling on the interpretation and application of its own Guidelines, which are being applied as binding on congregations. (To be fair, the CCM's Guidelines "recommend," they do not require, but that has somehow gotten lost in translation.) This is a troublesome consolidation of institutional authority in the LCMS and needs to be reigned by the synodical convention.

Fortunately, the presenting issue will make it easy to pass on the convention floor, which is not known for its theological or political acumen.

[jcj3803]

I wouldn't get too hung up on the issue of biblical inerrancy, infallibility, inspiration, revelation, and whatever else we are given to say about the Scriptures. This latest fiasco, brought to you by the presidentially appointed Commission on Constitutional Matters, is a classic case of the Law of Unintended Consequences coupled with the logical fallacy commonly known as dicto simplicter.

[...]

Fortunately, the presenting issue will make it easy to pass on the convention floor, which is not known for its theological or political acumen.

LOL! I can rest easily now... :D

[Studeclunker]

This is a troublesome consolidation of institutional authority in the LCMS and needs to be reigned by the synodical convention.

Fortunately, the presenting issue will make it easy to pass on the convention floor, which is not known for its theological or political acumen.


In otherwords you are suggesting that the CCM has over-stepped their authority? Interesting. Theological acumen is important to the Synodical Convention. It is their guideline. Political acumen is not. Politics really have no place in the Synodical Convention. Remember, as the 'salt of the Earth', we are to season the world, not vice-versa.

This is obviously an unintended consequence of a rule intended to accomplish something else.


A case, perhaps, of using the letter of the law, to defeat the intent of the law?

[wcwirla]

A case, perhaps, of using the letter of the law, to defeat the intent of the law?



Not so much "defeat" as to do things not intended by the spirit of the law. It's like those "zero-tolerance" drug laws that bust a kid at school for carrying a couple of Tylenol.

As for theology guiding a synodical convention rather than politics, that would be a welcome change in the weather, but I wouldn't hold my breath for that one. Whatever salt there once was seems to have long lost its saltiness. Theology by majority vote is inevitably political.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.



Ladies and gentlemen.....


Martin Luther wrote in teaching about the Eighth Commandment, "We should fear and love God so that we do not tell lies about our neighbors*, betray him, slander him, or hurt his reputation, but defend him, speak well of him, and explain everything in the kindest way."


* Includes District Presidents, Synodical Committees, and other Lutheran church bodies?


I think the doctrine of the LCMS regarding Scripture is crystal clear, and a poster informed us of the stance of the ELCA. We therefore need to acknowledge the respective positions.


What may and may not be included in legal constitutions is governed by the laws of the state in which the denomination is incorporated - in the LCMS case, in Missouri. Constitutions are legal documents, not theological statements. In noting what is or is not legally prudent, it should not be surmised that anyone is denoucing the clear belief of the denomination to which they belong and to which they have publicly pledged their full agreement with the official teachings thereof.




Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah

[CaliforniaJosiah]

MOD HAT ON...



Please remember the rule concerning flaming...





MOD HAD OFF...


Someday I'm going to get myself one of those fansy hats some mods have and figure out how to do that nifty background....

[wcwirla]

What may and may not be included in legal constitutions is governed by the laws of the state in which the denomination is incorporated - in the LCMS case, in Missouri. Constitutions are legal documents, not theological statements. In noting what is or is not legally prudent, it should not be surmised that anyone is denoucing the clear belief of the denomination to which they belong and to which they have publicly pledged their full agreement with the official teachings thereof.

I completely agree. This is why I think the issue over the words "inerrant," "inspired," etc. is an unintended consequence of applying a rule without regard for the obvious exceptions.

This is not at its heart a theological matter so much as it is a constitutional/governance matter. All the people involved, according to their public profession and vow, hold to the inspiration, inerrancy, and revelation of Holy Scripture.

This is about the relationship of the local congregation to the synod.

[TheCosmicGospel]

LCMS position on Scirpture is clear. But the last major controversy in LCMS was not solved by application of Scirpture but the wrangling of a constitution. Big House wants the say so. And if it cannot get it from Scriptures, it will find it in the constitution. Is there a pattern here?

Unless Scripture guides LCMS, "inerrancy" is just another flower on the table. Go to the ELCA forum here and get their take on it. Political expediency in the LCMS is no different than political expediency in the ELCA.

As one ELCA poster put it. "We do not say the Bible is inerrant. We just say that it is not errant." :scratch:

LCMS might not be far behind if it is only guided by consitutions or twists of interpretations thereof.

Peace and Joy,
Cosmic

[DaRev]

As one ELCA poster put it. "We do not say the Bible is inerrant. We just say that it is not errant." :scratch:


Actually you have that quote backwards. It said "The ELCA does not teach that the Bible is errant. We simply do not insist that it is inerrant."

Makes no sense either way.

[RegularGuy]

Actually you have that quote backwards. It said "The ELCA does not teach that the Bible is errant. We simply do not insist that it is inerrant."

Makes no sense either way.

Makes no sense to you, but that's all right.

The ELCA does not insist on the inerrancy of Scripture in matters of history and science. There are certainly members of the ELCA who believe in biblical inerrancy. There are even ELCA congregations, I believe, who have the word "inerrant" in their constitutions. But inerrancy is not an official position of the ELCA.

This however is far from saying that the ELCA teaches that the Bible is errant.

I hope that this clarifies the matter. If not, perhaps someone else can explain it more clearly. I do not, of course, expect you to agree with this position, but I do hope that you can understand it.

[DaRev]

Makes no sense to you, but that's all right.

The ELCA does not insist on the inerrancy of Scripture in matters of history and science. There are certainly members of the ELCA who believe in biblical inerrancy. There are even ELCA congregations, I believe, who have the word "inerrant" in their constitutions. But inerrancy is not an official position of the ELCA.

This however is far from saying that the ELCA teaches that the Bible is errant.

I hope that this clarifies the matter. If not, perhaps someone else can explain it more clearly. I do not, of course, expect you to agree with this position, but I do hope that you can understand it.

Remember also that there is a big difference bewteen inerrancy and literalism. As I have always said, context is king. :)

[RegularGuy]

Remember also that there is a big difference bewteen inerrancy and literalism. As I have always said, context is king. :)

Duly noted and appreciated.

:thumbsup: