| Summary: | 320 29 NORTH DAKOTA REPORTS officially in its confession. The terms, 'plenary,' 'verbal,' and 'dynamic,' are used, if I may explain, also in different senses by dif ferent teachers; and I think it is the definition of the inspiration doctrine, more than the name it is called by, that we in the synod lay stress on. . A man rejecting any part of the Scripture would not be considered a Lutheran." Under direct examination he testifies: "I don't know of any Lutheran church which adheres to the doctrine of mechanical inspiration as I define it on the stand. It has never been held by the Icelandic Synod of America, or by any con gregation within that synod, to my knowledge. I can state positively that no Icelandic Lutheran congregation in America has adhered to such a doctrine, and I know of no Lutheran church which has for its confessional the Ecumenical Creed, the Augsburg Confession, and Luther's Catechism, that has ever adhered to the doctrine of partial inspiration of the Bible. Such a doctrine has never been recognized by the Icelandic Synod. The canonical books came down to the Luth eran Church as an inheritance. . . . The Missouri Lutheran Synod did at one time adhere to the doctrine of mechanical inspiration, but seemed to be changing." The views of the Missouri Synod are import ant for their historical bearing, this being the first Lutheran synod in Western America, although German, having a theological school. Counsel for appellants lay great importance on their claim that because the Icelandic Lutheran Synod of America had no theological seminary, many of its new pastors, young men succeeding the old ones, came from the Missouri Synod and general council imbued with less liberal views on the doctrine of inspiration of Scripture than ever prevailed in the parent church of Iceland. And that, through this cause, the synod had gradually departed from the faith of its fathers and founders, instead of any departure by the Thingvalla Congregation from such original faith. Defendants then offered testimony on the charge of heresy, to the effect that, quoting from the testimony of witness Rev. Robertson, "the exercise of the right of private judgment is compatible with the doctrine of plenary inspiration of the Bible," assuming that form of inspiration to mean "the full and adequate inspiration of Scripture." Dr. Halfyard testifies: "As a theologian I see no conflict between the declaration that a man accepts the word of God as revealed in Holy
|
|---|