16

II. ALLTHESEPROBLEMSRELATETOOURATTITUDETOSCRIPTURE

WhileearlierreformersconcentrateduponcleaninguptheimmoralityinthechurchLuthersawveryclearlythatitwasthedoctrinalcorruptioninthechurchofhisdaythatwasthecauseofthemoraldecay.Hebelievedthatifthatwerecorrectedthenthelifeofthechurchwouldimproveaswell.

Itappearstomethattheonecommondenominatorthatliesbeneathalltheproblemsthatwehavediscussed,andmanyothers,isanewattitudetowardsHolyScripture. Actuallyitisnotreallyverynew(ithasbegaininggroundinourchurchforthelast20yearsorso)butitsimpactisbeingfeltkeenlytodaybecauseithasnowwellandtrulyinfiltratedthechurch.

Indealingwithsomanyproblemsandissuesofthekindthatwehavediscusseditbecameperfectlycleartome–asalsootherpastorstoldmepersonally–thatthereisnopointinfurtherdiscussiononthesematters,wecangetnowhere,becausetherealpointofdivisionliesmuchdeeper,namelyinthewholeattitudetowardstheHolyScriptures.

ToillustratethisIreferagaintothedebateontheWomenSynodsmenissueattheGattonPastor’sConference,QLd.1981. WhenithadbeenshownquiteclearlythatChristandtheapostleswouldhaverejectedtheideaofwomenexercisingthekindofauthorityinthechurchthatwasbeingofferedintheproposaltoenablethemtobesynodsmenrepresentingcongregationsandparishesatthedistrictandgeneralsynodicallevels,thentheanswercamebackinessence:“SoWhat!!!Doesthatblindus?”Thethinkingisapparentlythatwemustnotbecomeguiltyof“absolutizing”thetheologyofPaulatCorinthforourday. Asifwecan’tapplythetheologyofthosetimestoourpresenttime.TheapostlesaskedtheearlyChristianchurchalsotoabstainfromblood. Weeatbloodtodayinsausages. Wearenotboundbytheirtheology. ElsewhereitwassubsequentlyspelledoutthattherearenumerousdifferenttheologiesintheNewTestament,thetheologyofMatthewisnotthesameasthatofMarkorofPaulorofJohnetc. IfonetriestomaketheonetheologyofPaul,forexample,fitallages,hebecomesinvolvedinlegalismormakingtheScripturesintoa“bookofdoctrinallaw”.

WhenthatpointisreachedtheprimaryimportanceoftheScriptureissuemustbeevidenttoall.Unlesstherecanbegreaterclarityandagreementonthiscentralissueallotheragreementswillbeimpossibleormereillusions.

Itappearstomethatanimportantaspectofthiscommondenominatorthatrunsthroughalltheotherissuesiswhathasbeencalled“Gospelreductionism”. BythisitismeantthateverythingmustsomehowbeconnectedwithChristortheGospelifitistohaveanyvalue.

ChristisindeedtheCentreofScripture. TosetforththeGospeljustificationbyGod’sGraceforChrist’ssakethroughfaithisindeedthecentralpurposeofScripture. Therecanbenodebateaboutthat(46). ItiscorrectalsothattheGospelistrueofitself,apartform,andbefore,itwaswrittenupintheScriptures.Itiscorrectalsothatthegospelisjudge

(46) ThesesofAgreementI,4,b.”…alldoctrinesofHolyWritareequallybinding;neverthelessnotallthingsinScripture

17

andnormintheScripturesinthesensethatwearenottointerpretpassagesofScriptureinawaythatcontradictstheGospelassetforthinclearScripturepassages. NothingintheWordofGodcancontradictitsveryheart.

ThelieofGospelReductionism,however,isthattheGospelissocentralinScripturethateverythingelseinScriptureistruebecauseoftheGospel. AsifessentialtruthsoftheChristianfaithandothermattersandinformationintheScripturessomehowderivetheirvalidityortruthfulnessfromaconnectionwiththeGospel,ratherthanfromthefactthatGodhasspokenthesethingsinHisWord.TheGospelisseentobesocentralintheScripturesthatitbecomesthejudgeofwhatistrueinScriptures. ThisconfuseswhatScripturesaysbytheauthorityofGodwiththemainpurposeforwhichthesemattersarerevealed. MuchofwhatGodtellsusinHolyScriptureistrueandauthoritativesimplybecausetheScripturesareGod’sWordsgivenbyinspiration(as,forexamplethedimensionsoftheark)andnotbecauseitissomehowconnectedwith,orderivedfrom,theGospel. TheGospelReductionistpositionultimatelymakestheGospelnotmerelythecentralandmostimportanttruthofdivinerelationbutreallytheonlytruthofdivinerevelation.AsifGodcouldrevealtousnothingbuttheGospelorasifnothingcanhaveanyvalueorworthforusforitsownsakebutonlybecauseitissomehowrelatedtotheGospel.

InpracticeweseetheGospelReductionist’spositionexposingitselfinargumentsbyalwaysaskingthequestion:“DidtheGospelgetthrough?”ItisassumedthatiftheGospelgotthrough,thisthen,somehow,justifiesalltherest. TheendjustifiesthemeansbecausetheonlyvalidprincipleofevaluationistheGospel.

Thenatureofrecentworshipordersandtheirsupportingargumentswouldindicatethatsuchconceptsas“beauty”,“art”“refinement”,“reverence”etc.indicatetosomenovalueofthemselves.TheyhavevalueonlyiftheybecomeameansforpresentingtheGospel. Butthen,iftheoppositequalitiessuchas“ugliness”,“coarseness”,“cheapjunk”,“profanity”etc.canalsoconveytheGospelthentheymustbejustasgoodorvaluable. ThisfollowsnaturallyfromthefalsetheorythattheGospelistheonlycriterionofevaluation.

Howpointless,then,totrytodiscusswhetheranyspecificorderofservice,forexampleisappropriate. Theonlyquestioncanbe:DoestheGospelcomethrough? Thatjustifieseverything.

ThesameassumptionsofGospelReductionismofferaneasyshort-cutapproachtocounselling. TheoneandonlyconcernistohavetheGospelcomethrough. WhateverelseScripturesaysonmattersoflifeandtheLawonlyneedlesslycomplicatestheprocess. IfthepersonisconfrontedwiththeGospeltheobjectivehasbeengained.

ThePointneedbelabourednofurther:OURATTITUDETOTHESCIRPTURESWILLAFFECTEVERYTHINGINOURCHRISTIANFAITHANDLIFE.

areofthesameimportance,whenviewedfromthecentreandcoreoftheScriptures,Christandjustificationbyhimthroughfaith.”

18

III. ABRIEFHISTORYOFTHESCRIPTUREISSUE

EventhoughtheThesesofAgreementVIIIonScriptureandInspirationwasadoptedonthe13thDec.1951,yettherewasconsiderabledivergencefromthepositionofourThesesinthefacultiesofbothchurchespriortounionin1966.

ItwastheDeclarationandPleawhichreallysmokedoutthefoxes.ThissolemndeclarationofconscientiousconvictionswasrecommendedbytheQld.DistrictPastor’sConferenceoftheE.L.C.A.tobeinsertedintotheconstitutionsofthecongregations(47)andadoptedbytheQld.DistrictSynodMay6-7th1966.(48)Itspecificallyrejectedthepositions“that‘inerrancy’asappliedtoScripturemightmeansomethingotherthantotalabsenceofanyerrorsorcontradictionswhatsoever”. ThiswasfoundtobetotallyunacceptabletothetheologiansinAdelaide.ComingasitdidjustbeforeplannedunionthiscausedgreatrepercussionsamongsttheleadersandofficialsofbothLutheranchurches.

FourofuswererequestedtoattendaspecialmeetingatConcordiaSeminary,Adelaide,onJuly20-21st1966atwhichmembersofbothfacultiesandanumberofofficialsoftheformerchurcheswerepresent. We,PastorsK.Marquart,M.&V.Grieger,andPres.F.W.Noack,weretoldquitefranklybyvariousseminaryprofessorsfrombothchurchesthattherewerenumerous(somesaidhundredsof)MISTAKES,ERRORSandCONTRADICTIONSintheScripturesandthattheHolySpiritmadeuseofthesehumanweaknessesandERRORSingivingusHisWord. Thiswasbeforethedisguise“discrepancies”,ratherthanthemorehonest“errors”and“contradictions”,hadcomeintoregularuse.AfewexamplesoftheseERRORSandCONTRADICTIONSweregiven,namely:thetwoassesofMatthew21,1-7comparedwithMark11,1-7andLuke19,29-35;the“obviousexaggeration”ofthe600,000IsraeliteswhocameoutofEgypt;thealleged18,000menworkingonthetemple(butc.f.1Kings5,13ff);thehearingofthevoiceontheroadtoDamascus(c.f.Acts9,7.WithActs22,9.)andtheallegedpseudonymof2Peter.

WeexpressedshockthattheverymenatwhosefeetwehadsatandwhohadtaughtusaclearconfessionoftheinerrancyoftheHolyScriptureswerenowopenlydeclaringthattherewerenumerousERRORSandCONTRADICTIONSintheScriptures.

Weweretoldbyaseniorseminarylecturerthatthosewhostillholdtothe‘oldview’ofScripture–thattheBibleiswithoutERRORandCONTRADICTIONhaveaveryweakfaith,becauseifitcouldbeshownthatevenonerealERRORexistedintheScripturestheywouldthendistrustthewholeofScriptureandtheirfaithwouldbelost. Those,ontheotherhand,whoacceptedthepossibilityofnumerousERRORSandCONTRADICTIONSinthehumansideofScripturewouldnotbeatallaffected.(49)

(47) SeeofficialMinutesofQld.Dist.Past.Conf.ofE.L.C.A.5thMay1966Toowoomba.

(48) SynodicalReportofQld.Dist.E.L.C.A.SpecialConventionToowoombaMay6th–7th1966pp.52&35ff.

(49) SeeRevV.S.Greiger’sreportin“TheInerrancyofScripture–TheStruggletoMaketheChristianMessageMeaningfultoModernMan–“HistoricalIntroduction”p.1. AlsoOfficialMinutesoftheMeetingwithQld.Pastors20-21/7/66p.2,andnotestakenduringthemeeting.

19

AsamatterofurgencymembersofthefacultywereaskedtoattendthenextQld.DistrictPastor’sConferenceoftheE.L.C.A.tocontinuethediscussiononthesematters. DrH.P.HamannandDr.SasseattendedthisconferenceatToowoomba15th–17thAug.1966.AlthoughthespecialAdelaidemeetinghadrequestedthatDr.Hamannpresentanessayon“InterpretationofScripture”attheToowoombaconferenceDr.Koehnepresenteditspresentation“becausehecouldnotattendourconferenceandhaddiscoveredafterDr.HamannhadleftforQld.thattheessaywascontrarytoanagreementwhichhehadresearchedwithDr.HamannbeforeheleftforQld. (50). WhiletheexpressionsaboutERRORSandCONTRADICTIONSinScripturewerenowmuchmoreguardedatthisPastor’sConferencemanysimilarthoughtswereexpressedwhichgavemoreofourpastorsinQld.theopportunitytobecomeawareofwhatwashappeninginourseminaries.Genesis1-3werenotregardedasHistory. ThatbeginsonlywiththecallofAbraham,accordingto Sasse.Canwereallybelievethatthestarsandthevastuniversewerecreatedonlyaftertheearth? Dr.SassequestionedthestatementintheDeclarationandPleathattherecanbenocontradictionsin Scripture. (51).

Shortlyafterthis,Sund.Sept.16th1966anothermeetingwithQld.pastors:C.Preiebbenow,K.Marquart,D.Hoopmann,M.&V.Greiger,andPresidentF.W.Noack,washeldatConcordiaSeminaryHighgate,todiscussfurthertheissuesoftheinerrancyofScriptureandtheThesesofAgreement. Atthismeetingastatementwasadopted:“SinceGodindeedcannotlieorleadastray,noChristianshouldsaythattheBibleendorseserrorsormistakenhumannotions. Itis,infact,God’sinerrantandnon-deceivingWord…”PastorK.Marquartsaidthathewouldnotvoteonthisbecausehedidnotwanttopretendthatthisstatementsettledanything. Hewouldwait,amongotherthings,forthefacultyopinionontheDeclarationandPlea.(52)

Onthefollowingday19thSept.1966atameetingwiththeChurchCouncilandQldPastorsitwasresolvedthat“NoteachingortheologicalworkshallberegardedasinharmonywiththeThesesofAgreementifitconflictswiththisstatement”(v.s.thestatementadoptedonthepreviousevening)(53).

Thoughvariousassurancesweregivenattemptingtocalmthetroubledwatersafterthesehigh-levelchallengestotherealinerrancyofScripture,yetitwasquiteclearthattherewasnotrueagreementonthequestionoftheinerrancyofScriptureatthetimeoftheunion.(54).

(50) SeeMinutesQldELCAPast.Conf.5-6thOct.1966par.3.

(51) SeeofficialminutesoftheQldPast.ConferenceE.L.C.A.Toowoomba15-17thAug1966pp.1-2.

(52) SeetheveryinterestingdetailedaccountofthismeetingintheofficialminutesbyF.J.H.Blaess.

(53) SeeMinutesofthemeeting19thSept1966atFlindersStreet,beingacontinuationofthemeetingattheSeminaryon18thSept.1966. Membersofthefacultieswerenotpresentatthismeeting,butthestatementwassubsequentlyagreedtobytheJointfacultieswiththeunderstandingthatthisdoesnotprecludefurtherstudyofthenatureoftheWordandtheinvestigationofpresentdayBiblicaltheoriesandthepresentationoftheresultsofsuchstudytoPastoralConferences…

(54) SeealsoConfidentialMemorandumre:DistrictresolutiontoseekagreementtotieConcordiaMemorialCollegetoDeclarationandPlea.

20

AftertheUnionthequestionoftheinerrancyofScripturebecameamatterfortheCommissiononTheologytograpplewithanditwasdifficulttohavefurtheropenandfrankdiscussionsonthismatterbecauseitwouldupsetthemuch-cherishedassumptionof“completedoctrinalagreement”atthetimeofunion. Inprivatediscussion,however,somepastorsstilldeclaredquitefranklythattheBibleisfullofERRORSandCONTRADICTIONS(55).

In1968theCommissiononTheologyproposed,andtheAlburyConventionadopted,atestamentontheinspirationandinerrancyofScripturewhichshouldhaveresolvedtheissue,foritdeclared:

1. “Intheexerciseoftheirteachingfunction…pastorsoftheL.C.A.shouldnotruncountertotheletterandthespiritoftheThesesofAgreement.

2. TheThesesofAgreementusetheterm‘inerrancy’initsnormalsenseoffreedomfromallerrorandcontradiction,‘factual’aswellas‘theological’…” (56)

ThiscanonlybeseenastheChurch’sofficialdeclarationthatthekindoftheologyforcedtosurfacebytheDeclarationandPleainbothfacultiespriortotheunionattheAdelaidemeetingswasindeedcontrarytotheThesesofAgreement.

Itwastobeexpected,however,thatthisstatementonthetruemeaningoftheThesesofAgreementwouldproveuncomfortablynarrowandrestrictiveforthosewhoobviouslydidnotwishtogiveuptheideasforwhichtheyhadcontended. Wewerenotsurprised,therefore,whentheCommissiononTheology,earlyin1969receivedarequestfromseveralquarterstoreconsider theAlburystatementon“InspirationandInerrancy”(57).

ThesubsequentreportoftheCommissionrevealedthesituationthatwasevidenttousin1966,namely:thatthereareintheChurchtwodifferentunderstandingsoftheThesesofAgreementVIII,10.inthematterofinerrancy: Theonesideholdsthatallbiblicalstatementsareauthoritativeintheirintendedsense,alsothosewhichspecificallydealwithmattersofhistory,geographyorscienceetc.,andthatthelimitationsofthehumanwritersofScripturedidnotfindexpressioninanystatementofGod’swrittenWordinsuchawayastoresultinerror. TheothersidehoweverholdsthatthewritersofScripturewereactuallypermittedbytheSpiritofGodtogiveexpressiontotheirlimitationsofknowledgeinthehumansideofScriptureinmattersofhistory,geographyandscienceetc.sothatsuchstatementsofScripturemaynotbefactualinthelightofmorecertainhumanknowledge. NeverthelesstheyholdthatthisinnowayinvalidatesthetruthorinerrancyorauthorityofGod’swrittenWord.(58).HoweversincerelyitmaybemeantitappearstomethatwhenitisassertedthatScripturestatementsmaynotconformtofactinthelightofmorecertainhumanknowledgeandyetaretruthfulandinerrantthisissimplydouble-talk,adeceptiveuseofwordsthatshouldnotbetoleratedintheology.

(55) SeeV.S.Grieger:“HistoricalIntroduction”toTheInerrancyofScripture–TheStruggle…etc.asinNote(49)

(56) ConventionReport1968AlburyN.S.W.p.260.

(57) OfficialReportofThirdGeneralConvention–IndooroopillyAug.1970p.244.

(58) Ibid.pp.224-225.

21

TheCommissiononTheologydiscussedthismatteratgreatlengthandfinallycameupwithastatementwhichwaspresentedtoandadoptedbytheChurchattheHorshamconventionin1972.InthisstatementtheauthorityofScriptureislinkedwithitsinerrancyinitsveryfirstsentence.

“TheThesesofAgreementinapplyingtheterm‘inerrancy’toScripturemeantostressitsfullyauthority…”

ThemembershipofourChurchshouldseeveryclearlythatthepresentassertionsthattheauthorityofScriptureisnotaffectedbyerrorsor“peripheralinexactitudes”arecontrarytotheChurch’sdeclaredposition.

TheHorshamStatementalsoclearlyaffirmsthattheterm‘inerrancy’isusedintheThesesofAgreement“inthenormalsenseoffreedomfromallerrorandcontradiction,‘factual’aswellas‘theological’”,andthat“althougherrormayappeartobepresentintheScripturesitisnotreallyso.”(59).

TheStatementspecificallyrejectsascontrarytosounddoctrine:

1. TospeakoferrorsintheHolyScriptures.2. Toholdthatwhataccordingtoclearbiblicalstatements“actuallyisoractuallyhappened”

mayberegardedaswhatactuallyisnotoractuallydidnothappen.(60).

ApartfromafewrumblingstherewasnofurtheropenconflictontheScriptureInspirationandInerrancyissueinourchurchbetween1972and1979.ItwasthenthatDr.H.Hamann,atthattimeVice-PrincipalofLutherSeminary,gavehislecturesatValparaisoUniversityonTheBibleBetweenFundamentalismandPhilosophy. InhisfirstlecturehechastiseswhatheregardsasthefundamentalistviewthattheScripturesareinerrantbecausetheyareGod’sWord,sinceGodcannoterr.(61).ButhereheeitherknowinglyorunknowinglyopposestheThesesofAgreementwhereourchurchconfesses:

“WebelievethattheScripturesaretheWordofGodandthereforeinerrant.”(62).

Dr.HamanntherealsorejectstheideathaterrorsintheScripturesonperipheralmattersinanywayaffecttheauthorityofScripture(63). ButthatispreciselywhatourChurchassertsintheveryfirstsentenceofitsHorshamStatement:“TheThesesofAgreementinapplyingtheterm‘inerrancy’toScripturemeantostressitsfullauthority.”(64).

InthelastchapterofhisbookwhichgrewoutofhisValparaisolecturesDr.HamannmadesomemoreverymisleadingandoffensivestatementsonScripture. ThiscalledforththecriticismofconservativepastorsandfinallyrequiredaretractionandpublicapologytotheChurchformisleadingstatementswhichwaspublishedintheLUTHERAN. (65).Wemustrespectsincereandfrankapologiesandretractionsforerror.

(59) OfficialReportofFourthGeneralSynodHorsham1972p.360.

(60) Ibid.

(61) SeeTheCressetNov.1979p.24,2ndcolumnpar.2.

(62) ThesesofAgreementVIII,10.

(63) SeetheCressetNov.1979p.25,firstColumn,par.2.

(64) SeeHorshamGeneralSynodReportBook1972p.360orDoct.StatementsoftheChurchontheThesesandInerrancy.

(65) SeeTheLutheranFeb.23rd1982p.27.

22

During1981theconflictinourChurchonScripturebroadenedtotheverymuchwiderissueofthenatureofBiblicalauthority.Theissueofinspirationandinerrancywasnowonlyasmallpartofthetotalareaofconflict.Allthewhile,however,wewereneverlackinginofficialassurancesthatitwasallamatterofmisunderstandingandvariousover-emphasesbutthatinrealityweareallagreed.PresidentC.I.Kochproducedthepaper,whichlatergrewintothebooklet:INSPIRATION,INERRANCY, andAUTHORITYofSCRIPTURE. Thispaperfacedthemanyquestionswhichwerenowindebateand attemptedtoanswerthemonthebasisofScripture,theConfessions,andourL.C.A.Statements.ThiswaspresentedtotheGeneralPastor’sConferenceinToowoombainSept.1981.

Inordertoconcludeoursurveyofthenarrowerissueofbiblicalinerrancy,however,wemustrefertoaseriesoflecturesgiventotheSouthAustralianpastorsofourChurchatTatachillaYouthCampNov.2-4th 1982.ByDr.H.Hamannpresidentof LutherSeminary. While Ihesitateto criticiseDr.Hamann in these lectures for he has very clearly and properly made very many importantstatements in these lectures onmany issues concerning the Scriptures and Scriptural authoritywhichare indebateamongusatthistime,andwithwhichIwhole-heartedlyagree,yet Ihavetosay quite frankly that I findmany statements in his last lecture to be confused, confusing andobjectionable. Considerthefollowing:

Wecanmakealegitimatedistinctionbetweenbasictruthandperipheralinexactitudesinhistoricalmatters…inspirationandauthoritymaystillbelegitimatelyclaimedinspiteofleveserrores(Latinforslighterrors,M.G.)forthatishowtheBibleis. (66)

Thisdrawingofadistinctionbetweenthecentralthingtalkedabout,assertingitsbasictruth,facticityorwhathaveyou,andmattersontheperipherywhereinexactitudeormistakesofvariouskindsmaybefound,itseemstome,doesnotunderminetheauthoritynorthebasicreliabilityoftheScripture…IdosaythatifthereiserrorontheperipherythisisnotanattackonthetruthfulnessoftheScripture,sothatwecanstillspeakmeaningfullyandwithoutprevaricationofauthority.Inspirationisnot,Ihold,involved. (67)

IknowthattheConstitutionoftheLCA,theThesesofAgreementandtheDocumentofUnionall solemnlycommitthemselvestotheinerrancyofScripture. Butthevocableisnotthe sacrosanctthing…IamconcernedaboutthevocableinVIII,10. Andnotaboutwhatthe vocableissaidtomean…(68)

Thenfollowsastatementwhich,comingfromthechiefteacherofourChurch,theprincipalofLutherSeminary,wouldappeartometobeanopenproposalforFabian-typemutinyandtreasonagainsttheunalterableconstitutionalpositionofourChurch.

(66) Lecture5:“TheScripturesandtheThesesofAgreement”byDr.H.P.Hamann.givenatTatachilla S.Aust.inNovember1982p.6.

(67) Ibid.p.7.

(68) Ibid.

23

…Idon’tproposeexcisionofthetermfromthevenerabledocumentsbutsimplyneglectoftheterminfuturepreachingandteachingintheChurch.Asatermitisanuisanceandcausesendlesstrouble…(69)

Itwouldappearthatthevocable,theterm“inerrant”canbeanuisanceandanembarrassmentonlytothosewhowishtomakeroomforrealerrorsintheScripturesinperipheralmattersorelsewhere.ThattheChurchhasrejectedeventhispossibilityispreciselythesubstanceconfessedinourvenerabledocumentsbytheuseoftheterm“inerrant”.

Whilethusspellingouthisreservationsabouttheterm“inerrant”itisdifficulttoseehowanyonecanstillsincerelyconfesstheverydoctrinalbasisofourChurchwherewedeclare:

“We…acceptwithoutreservationtheHolyScripturesoftheOldandNewTestament,asawholeandinalltheirparts,asthedivinelyinspired,written,andinerrantWordofGod…(myunderlining)(70).

ThegreattragedyofthiscaseisthatDr.H.Hamanncomestohisanti-constitutionalconclusionsbya fundamentallyfalseanddangerousmethodwhich,hedoesnotseemtorealise,isalsospecificallyrejectedbyourThesesofAgreement,namely,thathebaseshisdoctrineofScriptureNOTONLYuponwhattheScripturesteachaboutthemselves(thegold),BUTALSOuponhumanobservationandstudy(theclay). Dr.Hamannsaysquitecandidly:

WehavetheScriptureclaimtobeinspired,andthisclaimmuststand;butwealsohavetheactualstateoftheScripturesaswerecogniseitbystudy(71),andthismuststandalso. (72)

TocompoundadoctrineontheHolyScripturesinthiswaymixingthegoldofdivinerevelationaboutitselfwiththeclay(Dan.2,33)ofhumanempiricalobservationandresearchisexpresslyrejectedinourThesesofAgreement:

WethereforeaccepttheScriptures,i.e.,thecanonicalbooksoftheOldandNewTestamentsastheONLYSOURCE andultimateJUDGE,ruleandstandardofALLDOCTRINEoftheChurch,alsoINTHEDOCTRINESONTHEHOLYSCRIPTURESANDONINSPIRATION. IndoingsoWEREJECTallattemptswhichhavebeenmadeevensincetheReformation,ormaystillbemade,tointroduceintotheChurchunderwhatevernameOTHERSOURCESOFDOCTINREBESIDESHOLYSCRIPTURE.(myemphasis) (73)

InasimilarwayZwingliandtheReformedtemperedthedifficultteachingoftheScriptureontheRealPresencewithhumanempiricalobservation. ThismustberejectedinourChurch.

(69) Ibid.

(70) ConstitutionofLCAinitsunalterableclauseII.c.f.1968ConventionReportAlburyN.S.W..p.271.AlsoDocumentofUnion,seeDoctrinalStatementsLCAp.A27.

(71) Dr.Hamannrecognisesthatthereareerrors(leveserrores)inScriptureforhesays:“…inspiteofleveserrores,forthatishowtheBibleis.”TatachillaLecture5.p.6

(72) TatachillaLecture5page7par3.

(73) ThesesofAgreement VIII,1.WeobserveinScriptureproblemswhichmayappeartobeerrorsandcontradictions. Toconcludethattheyareerrorsisahumanjudgementbasedonhumanobservation,notonScriptureteaching.

24

Havingbroughttheinerrancyissueuptodate,wemustreturntothewiderissuesthatsurfacedinthe controversiesonHolyScripturearound1981. Mostoftheserelateinsomewaytotheauthorityof Scripture.Byauthorityweunderstandtherightandpowertosaywhatisbindinginallteachingand practice. (74) Someofthequestionsbeingdebatedare:IsthenormativeauthorityofScripture establishedbyGodwhoisitsultimateauthor,orbyitsGospelcontent,orbythedeclaredteachings oftheChurch? IstheChristiantoacceptandbelieveallthattheScriptureteachesashavingdivine authority,alsointhosematterswhichdonotappeartorelatedirectlytotheGospel?Isitaformof legalismtoinsistthattheLawremainsGod’snormativeWordalsoforthepersonwhobelievesin JesusChrist? Istheformalprinciple(Scripturealone)givenauthoritybythematerialprinciple(Faith Alone,Christalone)?(75).

PresidentC.I.Koch’spaperonInspiration,InerrancyandAuthorityofScripturereceivedfurtherdiscussionattheQld.DistrictPastor’sConferenceheldatMooroochydoreinApril1982.Thereitwasstatedbysomepastorsthattheycouldn’tseewhythiswholematteroftheScripturesshouldberaisedagainbecausethereisnoproblemamongstusonthisissue. Andyet,afterthediscussiononPastorKoch’smaterialtherewasanobviousattempttohave“theotherside”presentedtotheconferencewhenitwasresolvedthatDr.F.HebartbeaskedtopresentapaperontheTheologyoftheWordandtheCanonofScriptureatournextConference.

AsaresultofthisresolutionwewerelateralarmedtoseethatfourhoursofconferencetimewasnowtobedevotedtolecturesgivenbyDr.S.P.HebartonTHETHEOLOGYOFTHEWORD,threelecturesofoveronehoureach,andfifteenminutesfordiscussion. Thisobviouslydisproportionateallottingoftime(C.I.Koch’spresentationwasgivenonlyabout20minsoftimeplusdiscussion)generouslyfavouringDrHebart’stheologyoftheWordshowedanunfairnessofopportunitywhichwe,bynow,havecometoexpect.

Dr.Hebart’slectureswerepresentedinJune1982atCoolumLutherHightsYouthCamp. Ibelievethattheselectures,morethananythingelsethatIhaveseen,“letthecatoutofthebag”andmadeitcleartouswhyithadprovedsofutiletodiscusstheothertheologicalissuesanyfurther. Aradicallydifferent,and,asfarasweareconcerned,anentirelyunacceptableattitudeandapproachtotheScriptureswaspresentedinthoselecturessuchaswehadnotheardinourchurchbefore,andwhichbetrayedakinshipwiththeneo-orthodoxtheologyofKarlBarth.

InthefaceofouroppositionDr.HebartassertedthathispositionexpressedinthoselectureswasthepositionoftheThesesofAgreement. Tomethisappearedtobeobviouslyfalse.Eitherwehadbeenbetrayedanddeceivedallalongbyourleaders,orelseDrHebartwaslyingbythatstatement.HehadbeenonthecommitteethatdrewuptheThesesofAgreement.ButneverhadwebeengiventhatkindofaninterpretationoftheThesesofAgreementbefore. ThewholeapproachofDr.HebarttoScripturewassoradicallycontrarytoourtheologicaltrainingthatitwasimmediatelyapparentthatwehadnowbeenplungedintoaconflictintheDoctrineoftheScripturesthatwould

(74) c.f.C.I.KochInspiration,InerrancyandAuthorityofScripturep.2.

(75) Ibid.pp.2-3.

25

makeallthepreviousbattlesontheinerrancyofScripturepaleintoinsignificance.

DrHebart’spapersraiseddozensofissuethatneededtobeanswered. Imovedthatsimilartimebegivenatournextconferencetohearanddiscusstheothersideofthesematters. Thepastorsconferencerejectedthatmotion,somedeclaringthatwehavehadenoughofthisandthatDrHebart’spresentationshouldendthematter. Manydidnotseemtorealisethatthatvotewasasuicidalplungeintoirrelevanceandextinctionasaresponsiblepastors’conference.TheChurchCouncil,however,wasaskedtosetupanotherforumfordiscussiononthesematterswithattendancebypastorsoptional. Thepastors’conferencewasapparentlysohappywithDr.Hebart’spapersastorequesttheBoardofPublicationstomakeavailableinapublishedformthisseriesofthreelectures. (76)

TheQld.DistrictChurchCouncilarrangedforaseminarontheWordofGodtobeheldatToowoomba26-27thOct.1982.Attendanceofpastorswasoptional. PastorP.Wiebuschwasaskedtobethechairman.AtshortnoticeIwasaskedtopreparepapersforthisseminar.IdidsopresentingaCritiqueofDr.Hebart’slecturesin27pagesofwhichalittleoverhalfwasreadattheseminar,andapaperofPositiveandNegativeStatementsdefiningtheissuesraisedinHebart’sTheologyoftheWord. Thislatterpaperwaspreparedespeciallybecauseweunderstood thattheobjectiveoftheseminarwasclearlytodefinewhereweagreeandwherewedisagree.Nothingofthatnature,however,wasevenattemptedattheseminarthoughsomeuseful discussionswereheld.

MyCritiqueshowedconclusively,Ibelieve,thatDr.HebartinmanypointsisindirectconflictwiththeThesesofAgreement. AndyetatthecloseoftheseminarthePresident,indefendingHebartemphasisedthewonderfulunityamongus. ButinasubsequentlettertoalltheQldPastorsPresidentMayerstatedthatmypaperclaimedinmanyinstancesthatDrHebart’sviewseitherborderedon,ordirectlyconstitutedheresy. (77).Whilethatwasnotmychoiceofwordsyettheintendedsubstance,Isuppose,wouldbecorrect. However,inhisfollowingPersonalletterthePresidentagainassertedtheunityamongus.

Weareleftinanintolerablesituation. Afterthegreattheologianandex-presidentofLutherSeminarywithmonthsofnoticehadpreparedandgiveninwritingthefruitsofmanyyearsofspecialisedstudyandteachingexperience,aninsignificantbushpastor,inahastilyprepareddocumentpresentedacaseexposingmanyofthepositionstakenuptobecontrarytotheThesesofAgreementandtheofficialpositionofourchurch. ThepresidentbecameveryvocalintryingtocontainHebart’spaperstoassmallanaudienceaspossible,certainlypreventingitfromcomingintothehandsofthelaymen. Butwhyshouldeffortsbemadetopreventwidedistributionofthoselectureswhich“letthecatoutofthebag”allegedlybecausetheymightbemisunderstood? IstheauthorsomehowthreatenedbyapublicexposureofthetheologywhichformanyyearswashispositionashetaughtintheChurch’snameatLutherSeminary? Onesuspectsred-facedembarrassmentifthebigstrategicallyadvantagedtheological“cat”needstobeprotectedagainstthetinyvulnerabletheological“mouse”.

(78) Minutes,CoolumPast.Conf.21-24thJune1982p.5.

(77) President’sPersonalLetter2/11/82p.1.

26

IV. DRHEBART’STHEOLOGYOFTHEWORD

ThethreelecturesentitledTheologyoftheWordgivenbyDrS.P.HebarttothePastors’ConferenceoftheQld.DistrictoftheLCAatCoolumon22ndand23rdJune1982willbeseenasimportantdocumentsinthehistoryoftheLutheranChurchofAustraliabecausetheysetforththetheologicalbeliefsofamanwhowasinapositiontoinfluence,perhapsmorethananyotherman,thedoctrinalthinking,attitudeandpositionofthepastorstrainedintheLutheranChurchofAustralia.

Dr.Hebart,alreadypriortoLutheranUnioninAustralianwasforyearsthePrincipalofEmmanuelSeminaryandalsolecturerinDogmatics. AftertheunionhebecamethePrincipalofLutherSeminary,theonlyseminaryoftheLCA. Heheldthatpositionuntilhisretirementacoupleofyearsago. ThemajorityofministersintheLCAtherefore,wouldhavecomeundertheinfluenceofDrHebartand,generally,theystillholdhimingreatrespect. Dr.HebartwasalsoprominentontheIntersynodicalCommitteewhichdrewuptheThesesofAgreementwhichhavebecomepartofthedoctrinalbasisoftheLCA.

Theimportanceofthesethreewrittenlecturesarisesnotonlyfromtheeminenceoftheirauthor,butalsofromhisfirmassertion,inthefaceofouropposition,thatthepositionhehadtakenupintheselecturesisthepositionofourThesesofAgreement.

WehaveinDr.Hebart’sTheologyoftheWord,therefore,thematurefruitofamaturetheologianofourChurchwhosethinkinghashadaprofoundinfluenceupontheministryofourLutheranChurchofAustralia.

WearefullyawarethatthebrevityofthissummarypresentingthecrucialcontroversialsubstanceofDr.Hebart’slecturesmakesitveryeasytopleadthatitisinaccurate. Itiscertainlynotourintention,however,tomisrepresentthevenerableDoctorinanywaybutmerelytosummarisesimply,forthelaymenofourchurch,whatwebelievewouldbethestrangeandun-accustomedthrustsofDrHebart’slectures. Ifanyoneisabletodothismoresimplyandmorefaithfully,lethimdoso.

1. LECTUREI. THEOLOGYOFTHEWORD

DrHebartshowsthatthe“WordofGod”isawiderexpressionthan“HolyScripture”. HemaintainsthatthewrittenwordoftheOldandtheNewTestaments“istheauthenticrecordofthevariousformsofGod’sself-disclosureinhismightyacts.”(78)AlreadyweareuncomfortablewiththissimilaritytotheNeo-OrthodoxtheologyofKarlBarthwhereScriptureisheldnottobeGod’sinspiredrevelationinsentencesbutratheranauthenticrecordofhowGodhasrevealedHimselfinHismightyacts.

“Itisnoteasytosay”,declaresDr.Hebart,“whythiswrittenwordisWordofGod”.(79).Webelieve,onthecontrary,thatitisveryeasytosaywhythewrittenwordisGod’sWord,namelybecauseitwasgivenbyinspirationofGod. Godistheauthor. Thetwopassages,however,whicharerepeatedlyused

(78) Dr.S.P.Hebart,TheologyoftheWordlectureIp.1bottomc.f.alsoHebart’saversiontoScripturepresentingpropositionaltruth(truthinsentences)p.6par.4.

(79) Ibid. p.2,par.2.

27

inourThesesofAgreementtoprovethatGodgaveHisWordbyinspiration (2Tim.3,16.and2Peter1,19-21)arethenset asideasnotprovingthatScriptureisGod’sinspiredWord: Dr.Hebartassertsthat2Tim.3,16.“AllScriptureisgivenby inspirationofGod”,saysnothingaboutthenatureandoriginofScripture,butsimplythatGod’s Spirit(pneuma)ispresentintheOldTestament.ContrarytotheThesesofAgreementDrHebarttakes thewords“givenbyinspiration”(theopneustos–Greek)tomeanrathersomethinglike“givinginspiration”or“breathingGod”. (80)Thesecondpassage2Pet.1,19-21 “…holymenofGodspokeasthey weremovedbytheHolyGhost”,isnotregardedbyDrHebartasprovingtheinspiredoriginof ScripturebecauseitoccursintheBookofSecondPeterwhichhesaysisattheveryedgeofthecanon ofScripture.(81)

Dr.Hebartadmits,however,thatChristandtheapostlesagreewiththeJewishrabbisandtheologiansoftheirdayinunderstandinginspirationinthesensethatGod’sHolySpiritspokethroughmentousintheWord.(82).Butthen,strangely,heshowshisdisapprovalofthis“Jewishdoctrine”ofinspirationonthefollowingpage(83),andfinallyinLectureIIIhestates:“Wehavenotedinapreviouslecturethatatthebackofallthisisanunbiblical,Jewish,medieval conceptofinspirationwhichliftstheholywritersbeyondtheirstanceinhistory.”(84) Wearesorry toseethisdegeneratingsetofstatementsfromDr.Hebart’spenbecauseitappearstoustoassume thatChristandtheapostlesheldadefectiveviewoftheScriptures,which,accordingtotheChurch’s ownofficialStatement(85)isanattackupontheveryLordshipofChrist.

ToDrHebart1Corinthians12,3“…nomancansay‘JesusisLord’exceptbytheHolySpirit”teachesdivineinspiration.Thatwhichsays:“JesusisLord”,isinspired. ButthatiscertainlynotinspirationinthesenseoftheThesesofAgreementwhereitisdefinedas“theuniqueactionbywhichGodtheHolyGhostgaveHisWordofRevelationtomen.”(86)

ThisbringsustothecentralthrustofthewholelecturenamelythatScriptureistheWordofGodbecauseitpresentsChrist:“IfthewrittenwordoftheOldTestamentandtheNewTestamentisWordofGodthenitisbecauseChrististhethrustandcentreandultimateconcernofGod’sself-disclosureintheOldandintheNewTestament.”(87)HereitisapparentthatNOTdivineinspirationBUTtheChristcontentofScripturemakesittheWordofGod.(88) TheNegativesideofthis: “NOTinspiration”isshownparticularlyinDrHebart’s rejectionofthisaspectoftheOrthodoxLutheranteaching.

Dr.HebartemphasisesthefallibilityandimperfectionofthehumanauthorsofScripture(89). Hequestions,then,what,inthelightofsuchobvioushumanfeaturessuchwordsas“perfection”

(80) Ibid.,comparepars:6&7ofp.2andThesesofAgreementVIII,6.

(81) Ibid,p.2-3par.1.

(82) Ibid.p.2par.7.

(83) Ibid.p.3par.2

(84) TheologyoftheWordIII,TheWordandtheChurchp.7par.2.

(85) c.f.Genesis1-3ADoctrinalStatement,LCAStatementsB2.

(86) ThesesofAgreementVIII,6.

(87) TheologyoftheWordLect.I.p.3,par.2.

(88) Ibid.c.f.alsolaterparagraphs.

(89) Ibidp.4par.3

28

“truth”,and“inerrancy”mustmeanwhenappliedtoScripture(90). HerejectstheargumentthatbecauseGodistheauthorofScripture,andGoddoesnotlie,thereforeeverydetailandeverystatementintheBibleistrueandthereforeauthoritative(91).DrHebartappearstoholdincontempttheviewthat“inerrancyis absoluteandtruthispropositional(meaningthatitcanbeexpressedinverbalstatementsM.G.)the presentationofcoldfactsandstatementswhicharewithoutexceptionliterally‘true:nomatterwith whattheyareconcernedwhetherwithsalvationorwithhistoryoraWeldbild,orachronologyora geneology…”(92). Then,hesays,“…harmonisationofdifferenceshadtobeundertakenforthesake of‘inerrancy’…sotheworkoftheHolySpiritismadepresentabletofitinwiththerequirementsof ‘inerrancy’. Sothehumansideiswipedout.“(93).Itisevidentfromthisthattoshowharmony betweenseemingcontradictionsanderrorsintheScripturesappearstoDr.Hebarttowipeoutthe humansideofScripture.Apparently,therefore,realerrorsandcontradictionsare,forDr.Hebart,a necessaryaspectoftheHumanSideofScripture.

2. LECTUREII.THECANONOFTHENEWTESTATMENT

ThislecturefocusedupontheformationoftheNTcanon,thatis,upontheprincipleswhichdeterminedwhichbooksshouldbeacceptedasScripture. IfabookwastobeacceptedascanonicalScripturethenitmustshowapostolicwitnesstoJesus. ItissadtoseeDrHebartinhisunderstandingof“apostolicity”concentratemerelyupon“historicalcloseness”toJesus(94)andomittheall-importantapostolicauthoritygiventotheapostlesbyourLordHimself. (Eph.2,20.Jhn14,26.15,20.20,21.etc.)DrHebartthenteaches:“’Apostolic’referstothecontentofthatwitness,thatisJesusChrist.”(95). ForHebarttheemphasisisalwaysupontheChristcontentofScriptureratherthanuponanydivine authoritygivenbyChrist. Hesays:“ThenameoftheauthorofawritingintheChurchisnotdecisive; itisthecontentwhichdeterminescanonicity.”(96)

DrHebartapplieshis“gospeltest”totheAnti-legomena,thatistothosewritingswhichwerenotuniversallyacceptedasScriptureforacoupleofhundredyears(Hebrews,2Peter,James,2&3John,JudeandRevelation).Hesays:“TheGospelisnotequallyoriginalandclearinthosewritings. Wewouldsaythemoretheaspectoforiginalityispresenthistorically,andthemoreChristisproclaimed,thegreateristheauthorityofawriting.”(97).

Dr.HebartholdsthatsomeoftheAnti-legomenacontainteachingsthatwouldconflictwiththerestofScripture. Hesays:“Hebrewsdeniesthepossibilityofasecondrepentance;Judehasadifferentconceptoffaith;Revelationexpectsamessianic

(90) Ibid.p.5,par.3.

(91) Ibid.p.5pars.4,5and6.

(92) Ibid.p.6,par.4.

(93) Ibid.p.6,par.5.

(94) TheTheologyoftheWord,LectureII,p.2.par.1.

(95) Ibid.p.4,par.5.

(96) Ibidp.5,par.1.

(97) Ibid.p.5,par.4.

29

millennium;2Peterhasahellenisticteachingonsalvation…However,thisdoesnotinvalidatetheircanonicalstatus.”(98)HebartseeseveninbookswhosecanonicitywasneverinquestionelementsthatdonotpresentthecentralmessageofChrist.(99)Hebart’s“Gospeltest”forcanonicity,therefore,seemstoyieldthewrongconclusions. ItsuggeststhattheAnti-legomenashouldnothavebeenacceptedascanonicalScriptureandthatsomeoftheunquestionedbookstooshouldnothavebeenacceptedasScripture.So,insteadofrejectinghis“gospeltest”asuselesshesaysthatitmustbeused“inadialecticalway”(100). Thisisjustnonsenseanddoubletalkandshouldbecalledbyitspropername.

AllthisleavesagreatdealofuncertaintyinourmindswhichDrHebartacknowledgeshisconclusionthat“theborder-lineofthecanonrunsrightthroughitsverymiddle.”(101) Thistragic,twice-repeatedstatement,ifitmeansanythingatall,impliesthatwehavenosureauthoritativecanonofScriptureatall.ButsuchuncertaintyisarealadvantagefromDrHebart’spointofview,“becausethenwearenotindangerofthinkingthateverywordoftheNTisnormativeandauthoritativesimplybecauseitwasincludedbythechurchinthecollectionofapostolicwritings.”(102)

ToillustratethekindofthinkingthatwehaveherewerefertoDrHebart’sstatementthat2Peter,Hebrews,James,andJudewereallpostapostolicwritings(103). 2Peter,heholds,waswritteninthesecondcenturyA.D.longaftertheapostlePeterwasdead. Buttheauthorof2PeterclaimstobeSimonPetertheapostlehimself(2Pet.1,1.). Hesaysthatthisishissecondepistle(3,1.),andheclaimstohavebeenwiththeLordonthemountoftransfigurationandtohaveheardthevoicefromheaven(2Pet.1,17-18.) Ifwedeny,withHebart,thatthewriterofthisletterwasPetertheApostle,then,clearly,wearesayingthatitisnottruewhathesayshere. Ifwebelievethat2PeterbelongstocanonicalScripture,asHebartdoes,andyetholdsuchviewsabouttheauthorandcontentofthisbook,thenweareinserioustrouble,forourChurchhasspecificallystatedthatitiscontrarytothesounddoctrineoftheScriptures“toholdthatwhataccordingtoclearBiblicalstatements‘actuallyisoractuallyhappened’mayberegardedaswhatactuallyisnotoractuallydidnothappen.”(104)

Ifindithardtoescapetheconclusionthatthepositiontakenupintheselectures,farfrombeingthepositionoftheThesesofAgreement(asDrHebartasserted)isactuallyindirectconflictwiththeofficiallyadoptedpositionofourChurch.

(98) Ibid.p.8,par.1.

(99) Ibid.p.8.par.1.

(100) Ibid.p.8.par.2.

(101) Ibid.p.8,par.1andpar.5.

(102) Ibid.p.9,par.1.

(103) Ibid.p.5par.4.

(104) TheThesesofAgreementandInerrancy–DoctrinalStatementsofLCA.p.B1.

303. LECTUREIII. THEWORDANDTHECHURCH

ThecentralthrustofDrHebart’slectureIIIisthattheauthorityoftheNewTestamentisNOTtheauthorityofabook(Scripture),BUTtheauthoritybasedupontheGospelcontent.(105)Hesays:“We shouldlikewiserefrainfrombasingtheauthorityoftheNTonthefactthattheapostleswereinspired.“(106) Ultimately,DrHebartsays,itisthe“contentthatwasdecisive,notnecessarilyauthorship.”(107) WeseeinthiswholemajorthrustofDrHebart’slecture(notinspirationbutgospelcontentgivesScriptureauthority)theseedsofthedangerouserrorofGospel-Reductionism,theideathatalltheologyisjudgedonlybytheGospelsothat“considerablefreedomshouldbeallowedwithinthechurchinmatterswhicharenotanexplicitpartoftheGospel.”(108)

WedonotfindintheScripturesanygospelassuch,assertsDr.Hebart,but“whereveritisandwasproclaimeditisexpressedinatheology…ThetheologyofMarkisdifferentfromthatofLukefromthatofJohnfromthatofHebrews…”(109) WhiletheGospelitselfhasbindingauthorityuponusweareneverthelessfreefromthetheologiesintheNTinwhichtheGospeliscouched. (110).ToinsistupontheoriginaltheologyoftheNTistomakeitintoabookof“doctrinallaw”(111). Itistheon-goingtaskoftheologians,then,tocontextualisetheGospel(112)thatmeanstoshapeittofitoursituationstoday. Inthistaskthetheologianswilldisagreeandhaveindeedoftenmadefrightfulmistakes. EvenintheNTitself,apparently,DrHebartfindstheological“elementswhicharenotinaccordwiththegospel,e.g.Paul’snegativeassessmentofmarriagein1Cor.7.”(113)Inthisway,itwouldappeartome,DrHebartusestheGospelagainsttheScriptures. BecauseofthisuncertaintywhichhehascreatedDrHebartsaysthatwecannot,therefore,simplyappealtotheScripturessaying“itiswritten”. (114)

ToassesstheauthorityoftheOTScripturesourDoctorallegesthatwehavetoexaminethewritingsusingtheGospelasourcriterion(115). HeteachesthattheOTiscaughtupinseveralkindsofbondage: thebondagetonationalisticaspirations,thebondagetoempiricism(theexpectationthatGodshouldgiveearthlyrewardstoHispeople),andthebondageoflegalism. OTpassageswhichshowsuchbondageunderthelightoftheGospelhavenoauthorityforus(116). HencetheauthorityoftheOTforusislimited.

Dr.HebartrepeatedlyandsarcasticallycriticisestheLutheranOrthodoxtheologianswhoseetheScripturesasa“supernaturalbookofdoctrinewhichistheinerrantwordofGod,notonlyinitscentralspiritualconcerns,butalsointhefinedetailsofhistoricalandthis-worldlymatters”(117).

(105) TheologyoftheWordLect.IIIp.1,pars.3&4p.6,par.8.

(106) Ibid.p.2,par.2.

(107) Ibid.p.2,par.2.

(108) c.f. “TheGospelandScripture–TheInter-relationshipoftheMaterialandFormalPrinciplesinLutheranTheology-Prefacep.4,par.4.

(109) TheTheologyoftheWordLect111,pp.2-3.

(110) c.f.Ibid.p.3,par1.

(111) c.f.Ibid.p.3par.2.

(112) Ibid.c.f.p.2,par.5.

(113) &(114) Ibid.p.3,par.4.

(115) Ibidp.4par.1

(116) Ibid.p.5par.2&p.6,par2(117) Ibid.p.7,par.1.

31

ButitshouldbenotedthatpreciselywhatDr.HebartfindssointolerableintheOrthodoxLutherantheologiansisthedeclaredpositionofourchurch(118).

“Wehavenotedinapreviouslecture”,hesays,“thatatthebackofallthisisanunbiblical,Jewish,medievalconceptofinspiration” (119). BythistimeapparentlyDrHebarthasforgottenthatearlierheadmittedthattheLordJesusChristHimselfandHisapostlesagreedwiththeJewsonthismatter(120) HowembarrassingnowtoimplythatJesushadanunbiblicalconceptofinspiration.

“Certainlywemustspeakofinspiration”heconcedes,“Butinthesensethatthroughthewritersthere iswitnesstoChrist.”(121).NowheredotheThesesofAgreementusetheterm‘inspiration’inHebartssense. Onthecontrary,theydefineinspirationas:“theuniqueactionbywhichGod….gaveHisWordofrevelationtomen…sothat…itmustbesaidwithoutlimitationthatitisGod’sownWord.” (122). Dr.Hebartthenrejectstheclaimthat“thebookhasabsoluteauthorityinthetotalityofitsstatements”(123),saying“inthiswaytherealmeaningoftheworkoftheHolySpirittocreatefaithintheofferoftheGospelisdarkened”.

JustasDr.HebartsuppliesanoveldefinitionofinspirationthatdoesnotagreewithourThesesofAgreement,soalsohegivesusanewdefinitionof‘inerrancy’thatdoesnotfitwithourChurch’sadopteddefinition. (124). Hesays,:“itisthisonenessofthrustwhichconstituteswhatwemaycalltheinfallibility,theinerrancyoftheNTwritings.” (125)IsthistheclearconfessionoftheinerrancyofScripture“withoutreservation”thatisrequiredofusinthedoctrinalbasisofourChurch?

Againwefinditintolerablethatjustthosewho,aboveallothers,havebeenentrustedtopassontheChurch’sconfessionalpositionaresoweakin,ifnotrebelliousagainst,genuineBiblicalinerrancyenshrinedintheunalterableclauseofourConstitution.

CONCLUSION

WefounditverydisconcertingthatwhileDrHebartfrequentlyassertsthatheisfollowingLutherinhisideas,yetnowhereintheselecturesdoeshesubstantiatehisclaimswithquotationsfromLuther.Otherscholars,however,havestatedquitecategoricallythattheseclaimsofDr.Hebartaresimplyfalse,asarealsohisnegativecaricaturesoftheLutheranOrthodoxTheologians.

Wemustacknowledge,finally,thatwefoundDr.Hebart’sthreelecturessomewhatconfusedandinconsistentwithinthemselves,sothatithasbeenverydifficulttopresentthissummary.Neverthelesswebelievethatwehavebeensuccessfulinoureffortnottomisrepresentourvenerabletheologianonanyissue.

(118) 1972StatementonInerrancypar.1&2.

(119) TheologyoftheWord III.P.7par.2

(120) Ibid.LectureI,p.2.par7.(121)Ibid.LectureIIIp.7par3.

(121) Ibid.LectureIIIp.7,par.3.

(122) ThesesofAgreementVIII,6.

(123) TheologyoftheWordLectureIIIp.7,par.5.

(124) 1972StatementontheThesesandInerrancypar.1“freedomfromallerrorandcontradiction‘factual’aswellas‘theological’”.

(125) TheologyoftheWordLectureIIIp.1,par.4.

32

V. THEENDOFTHISROAD.

Ourseminarylecturerstaught–andwestillbelieveit–thatonceweabandonthewordsofScripture asbeingtheverySpirit-givenwordsofGodHimself,andthereforeinerrant,authoritativeand normativeforHisChurchforalltimeinallmattersofdoctrinefaithandlife,thenweareonthe“inclinedplane”(asDr.HamannSeniorusedtosay)orslipperydip,andthereisinprinciple,nothinginourtheologythatcankeepusfromslidingallthewaydownintothebottomlesspitofdoubt,uncertainty,confusionandunbelief. Indeed,bythegraciousinterventionofGod,somemaynotgotothebottom,butothers,simplybythegravitationalpulloftheirposition,sinkveryquicklyintodoubt,confusionandunbelief. Iftheologiansofthechurchinstructtheirstudentswithteachingsthatinprinciplewouldleadtodoubtanduncertainty,eveniftheythemselvesdonotsuccumbtothis,theywillneverthelesshavetoaccepttheblame,beforethejudgeofalltheearth,iftheirstudentsandhearersaremoreconsistentanddrawthelogicalconclusionsfromtheirteachings.

WeweresurprisedandalarmedtoseethatDrHebart’sTheologyoftheWordleadstouncertaintyandinsecuritynotmerelyinadvertentlyandunconsciously,butthatitdoesthisdeliberatelyandknowingly. Neo-Orthodoxtheology,towhichDrHebart’stheologyoftheWordhasmanycloseparallels,rejectsinprinciplealldoctrinalcertainty. ItholdsthattheBiblewasnotmeant,andthereforeshouldnotbetaken,asarealGod-givenrevelationofdoctrineaboutGod.Sothatabsolute,objective,finaltruth–asdistinguishedfromhumanopinions–isthereforenotavailablehereonearth.Alldoctrinalcertaintytherefore,isillusionand presumption. Therealtruthcontinuestohoverinaccessiblybeyondandbehindallverbal formulationsfortheChristianfaithisonlyatrustINGodandnotalsoabeliefABOUTHim.(126). In hisTheologyoftheWordbothinLectureIandinLectureIIIDr.Hebartshowsthathedespisesthe certaintyandsecuritythatflowsfromfaithintheScripturesastheauthoritativeandinerrantWord ofGod. Hecriticisesthosewhobelieve“thattheBible’sauthorityis…linkedwithwhatthatbookis assumedtobe”,(127)andtauntsthemforhaving“certaintyandsecurity”.

Webelieve,however,thatourLordhasgivenustheHolyScripturesasHisownWordpreciselysothatwemighthavebothcertaintyandsecurity. Jesussaid:“Ifyecontinueinmyword,thenareyemydisciplesindeed;andyeshallknowthetruth,(certainty)andthetruthshallmakeyoufree(security)”.John8,31-32.

Topreachdoubtanduncertainty,therefore,istorejectnotonlytheauthorityofScripturebutalsotheauthorityofChristJesusHimself,whoseteaching,life,death,andresurrectionguaranteetheScripture. Doctrinaluncertaintyandconfusionaremarks,notofhumility–asmanyseemtosuppose–butoftheunbeliefofPilate(“Whatistruth?”John18,38.)andofSatan(“YeahathGodsaid?”Gen.3,1.). OurLutheranConfessions

(126) c.f.DeclarationandPleaSynodicalreportoftheQld.DistrictSpecialConventionToowoombaMay1966p.36error2.

(127) TheologyoftheWordLectureI,p.5par.4;c.f.alsoLectureIIIp.7,par.1;”adivinelyguaranteedsacredcodexisnecessary. Notsimplycertaintybutsecurityisdesired.”

33

teachthatChristiansneedcertainty;“GoodconsciencescryoutforthetruthandcorrectinstructionfromGod’sWord,andforthemdeathisnotasbitterasisdoubtonanypointofdoctrine.”(128).

IncharityonenaturallyhearstheadversecomplaintsofseminarystudentsabouttheirChurch’sinstitutionwithsomereservation,butwiththekindoftheologyofdoubtandconfusionthatweourselveshavewitnessedemanatingfromseminaryprofessorsonemaybeexcusedforaccordingsomecredittothereportthatitwasnotanuncommonsightatourseminarytoseeastudentsittingonhisbedweepingbecausehewassoconfusedandfeltthathislecturershadrobbedhimofallcertaintyandassurance.(129).

Dowewantcertainty?HasourLordreallyconsignedhischurchtoinsecurity? Webelievethatit willbeinevitablethatourChurchshallflounderinuncertaintyandinsecurity,indoubtandconfusionunless,withthehelpofGod,itdrivesoutthetheologyofdoubtthathasalreadydeeplyinfiltrateditsranksandreturnstocontinueseriouslyandsincerelyintheveryinerrantWordsofGodinScripture(Jhn.8,31-32).

OncethetheologyofdoubthastakenoverinaChurchnoonecanreallyknowrightfromwrongandnoonecanconfidentlyassertwithJesus,the“Biblicist”:“Itiswritten!”(130).Everything,then,mustbeleftinthehandsofthespecialisttheologianstodecidethecourseofwisdominanyparticularplaceatanyparticulartimeundersuchandsuchspecificcircumstances. IsthatindeedwhatourleanedDoctoralludestowhenhesays:“thisdrawingofthelineis,aboveall,thetaskofthetheologians”?(131).Hethenproceedstotellushowthelearnedtheologiansdisagreeamongthemselvesandmakefrightfulmistakes,butneverthelessthatisacknowledgedtobetheinescapableconsequencesofthattheology.

TheChristianfaithasIunderstanditisessentiallysimple.ItreasurepreciselythatcertaintyandsecuritywhichtheLordJesuspromisestothosewhocontinueinHisWordwithchild-likehumilityandacceptance,andIamnotterrifiedwhenlearnedDoctorsoftheologyregardsuchcertaintyandsecurityasnaïveanduntutored. IamratherencouragedbythewordsofourLordJesusChrist:“Ithankthee,OFather,Lordofheavenandearth,becausethouhasthidthesethingsfromthewiseandtheprudentandhastrevealedthemuntobabes.”(Matt.11,25).

ThetheologyofdoubtanduncertaintymustlogicallyandinevitablytakeourChurchintothebroadecumenicalstreamwhereuncertaintyanddoubtisthewayoflife. Onceitisassumedthatwedonot,andperhapsevencannot,knowthetruth,andonce itisheldthattruthisnotpropositional,orexpressedverbally,butitisratheraperson,orpersonal, (132)

(128) ApologyXII129.quotedalsoinDeclarationandPleaSynodicalReportMay1966Toowoombap.36c.f.alsoLuther’sBondageoftheWillquotedinCrossroadsp.15.

(129) Personalfiles.

(130) TheologyoftheWordLectureIIIp.3,par.4.

(131) Ibid.p.3.par.2.

(132) IbidLectureIp.6,par.4.alsoLectureIII,p.2.par.1.

34

thenthereisnolongeranyreasonwhyweshouldremainseparatefromthebroadecumenicalstream.Ifweareallsimplystilllookingforthetruththenwhynotlookforittogether? Whynotjointhesocietyofeverchurningdiscussionanddialogue,inwhichallviewsareequallytenableasnewinsightsordifferentaspectsofthesame“truth”,wheretheonlyheresyistoclaimtohaveabsolutetruthandtheunpardonablesinistoenjoycertaintyandsecurity. Thereonemanmilksthebillygoatwhiletheotherholdsthesieve. OnceourchurchhasaligneditselfwiththebroadecumenicalmovementasweseeitintheWorldCouncilofChurchesandtheLutheranWorldFederation(mostLWFchurchesarealsomembersoftheWCC. Theyareconcentriccircles)thenwehavesoldourbirthrightasaconfessionalLutheranchurchforamiserablemessofpottage,tohobnobwiththebigbrassontheinternationalscene. May-beourmuchlamented“isolation”willthenbeathingofthepast,butsowillourintegrityasaconfessionalchurch. AndwiththatwillgoourGod-givenmissiontotheworld. Tomaintainandproclaimaclearandprecisemessageisthereasonforourexistenceasachurch,forJesusdidnotfoundsomedebatingsociety,butHegaveHisChurchtheinstructiontoproclaim,toteachandtobaptise(Matt.28,19).

35

VI. WHEREDOWEGOFROMHERE?

IthasalwaysbeentheconfidentbeliefandtrustofthepresentwriterthatthePastorsConferenceistheproperplacetodiscussdoctrinalproblemsinthechurchopenlyandfrankly,andfinallyto resolvethembyhumbleobediencetothewordofGod.ItisnowoursadexperiencethatthisisimpossibleandthattheQld.DistrictPastorsConferencehastragicallyeliminateditselfasavalidforum ofdiscussionforthesedoctrinalconcernsontheall-importantTheologyoftheWord.Thefinal suicidalthrustcameatCoolumwhenonJune23rd1982thePastorsConferencebyitsvoterefusedto hearanddiscusstheothersideofthemanyissueswhichhadbeenraisedinDr.Hebart’slectures presentedtothatconference,namely,TheTheologyoftheWord. AttheCoolumconferencewe tooktheopportunitytodiscussissueswithDr.HebartHimself,betweensessions,andwemadeuse ofeveryopportunitytospeakintheverylimitedtimeallottedfordiscussionafterhispresentation. Butnowthatfurtherpresentation,discussionanddebatehasbeendeniedusinthePastors Conference,asthebodyconstitutionallyresponsibletoadvisethechurchinsuchmatters,wheredo wegofromhere?

ClearlyitisnowtimetoinformthemembershipoftheChurchofwhatisgoingonandhowweseethepresentproblemsandthedirectionsthatourchurchistaking.

WherethemembershipoftheChurchshallgofromherewilldependuponitsconvictionsonthecrucialissuesbeforeit.

1. Ifitlovespeacemorethantruthitwillbeguidedbyadon’trock-the-boatattitudeandwillgladlyembracetherepeatedassurancethatalliswell. Itwillacknowledgethattheremaybeafewminorproblems–astherealwaysisinachurchthesizeofours–butthesearesafelyinhandandthereisnothreattounityofthechurchotherfromtheunfoundedstirringsofafew‘ultra-conservativeradicals’!

2. IfthemembershipofthechurchgoesalongwiththepositionthattheremayberealerrorsandcontradictionsintheScriptures,butthatthesecouldinnowayaffecttheauthorityoftheWordofGod,orindeed,ifitbelievesthatitisnotreallythewordsofScriptureitself,butmerelytheGospelcontentofScripturethatisauthoritativeforthechurch,thentoo,itwillknowthatthereisnothingfurtherthatneedstobedoneinthepresentsituation,sincethemerepassingoftimeitselfwillensurethevictoryforthispositionwhenthereproductivedepartmentsoftheChurcharesafelyinhand.AgaintheonlyrealthreattotheunityoftheChurchisthefewradicalsandoldfogieswhocouldcauseundueexcitementandsodisrupttheprogressbeforetheChurchisfullyunitedinthenewtheologyoftheWord.

3. If,ontheotherhand,themembershipoftheChurchsincerelybelieves,withourfathers,thatGod’sWordfirmlyupholdsthedoctrineofrealmeaningfulinerrancyofHolyScriptureinallmattersonwhichitspeaks,andthateverywordoftheHolyScripture,andnotmerelyitsGospelcontent,isauthoritativeforusinallmattersofdoctrine,faithandlife,thenindeeditwillhavereasontobegravelyconcernedinthelightofwhatishappeninginourchurchtoday. Where,then,shallwegofromhere? Towhomshallweturn? ThesewillbemomentousquestionsthatwillbeintheferventandearnestprayersofeveryconcernedlaymanofourChurch.

36

Unfortunatelyitisthesad,butrealistic,conclusionthatemergesfromourpresentassessmentthatwemustlooklargely,(notonly,butlargely)totheinitiativeofthelaymenofourchurchtobringitbackonthestraightandnarrowwayprescribedbyourLordJesusChrist(Matt.7,13-14.)andwhichwehadsincerelybelievedwaschartedforusintheThesesofAgreement. ItwouldseemthatthelaymenoftheChurchhavenotyet,toanygreatextent,atleast,imbibedthenew“theologyofdoubt”. Theymaystill,therefore,actasaneffectiveforcetopreventthecompletetake-overofourChurchbythistheology. IndeeditwouldappeartousthattherecentdesperateattemptstokeeptheTheologyofWordlecturersbyHebartawayfromtheeyesoflaymenoftheChurch–evenwhenitwasclaimedthatthisisthepositionoftheThesesofAgreement–makesenseonlyifitisunderstoodthatthistheologyoftheWordwillnotbegenerallyacceptabletothelaymenoftheChurchandmaycallforthembarrassingreactions.

ItappearstothepresentwriterthatinviewofthepresentsituationwewillhavetolooktothelaymenofourChurchtotaketheinitiative,underGod,topreservethetruebiblicalandconfessionalcharacterofourChurch.

Itiswiththisunderstandingandconviction,sharedbyotherconservativepastorsintheChurch,thatIhavefinallyheededtherepeatedrequestsofmanyconcernedlaymentoundertaketheburdensome,riskyandunpleasanttaskofputtinginwritingtheinformationcontainedinthisdocument. IknowthatIamherebyopeningmyselftoattackandabuse,andIamfullyawareofthesmeartacticsthathavebeenemployedinsimilarsituationselsewhereagainstthosewhohaverevealedthetruthevenwithcarefuldocumentationtothebestoftheirability. Effortsareoftenmadetoblackenthenameoftheauthorinordertodeflectattentionawayfromtheissuethemselves.Butwhatalternativedoesonehave,other[than]toacceptthatrisk,whenoneisgenuinely convincedthattheveryBiblicalfoundationofourchurchisbeingundermined.

Asaneffectivecountertothemanyfactspresentedinthisassessmentitwillnotsufficemerelytosaythat“thereisanotherside”–that“therearemanygoodthingsbeingsaidandwritteninourchurch”.Thiswehappilyacknowledge.Indeedwerejoiceinthemanyexcellentthingsthathavebeensaidandwrittenbytheveryoneswhomwehavehadtocriticisemostseverely. Theonlyeffectivecounterwillbetodemonstratethatthedoctrinalpositionofthewriterisfalse. (Whenitisallegedthatthefoodcontainspoisonitwillbeirrelevantforthecookinself-defensetopointto“theotherside”,thatitalsocontainsmuchnourishment).

WehavewrittentheseunpleasantfactsandopinionsinanattitudeoflovetowardsouropponentsandofdeepregardforourbelovedChurch. Weareveryconsciousofourownweaknessesandfailingsaswellasourinadequacyinresearchandpresentation.Butbecausenoothermorecapablemenhavefilledthisneedwehaveattemptedthetask,invitinganyonemoreskilledtoimproveuponourwork. MaytheLordblessthisourhumbleeffortsothatwemaybeabletodevoteourselveswhollyandfaithfullytotheworkofHiskingdomsothatHisChurchmaybebuiltupinfaithandlove.

Withthisprayerweofferthematerialhereincontainedtothemanymenofsoundfaithandjudgementwho,withlovefortheirLordandtheirChurch,shalluseitastheLordleadsthem.

PastorM.J.Grieger.Wondai,Qld.1/2/83.