1
Your Turn / Re: Seminex Profs
« on: January 01, 2022, 03:10:51 PM »Let’s not overwork this. Not all highly academic studies lead to a deconstruction of the Christian faith.No, I never said that they all do, but some do.
An example might be the academic approach that gained the most attention during the Walkout controversy: historical criticism. Some used it without overtly undermining articles of the Faith (though adoption of the method seems automatically to undermine the doctrine of Scripture). Others have used it to undermine doctrines such as the resurrection of Jesus, without which one cannot be a Christian.
No one at Concordia Seminary used historical criticism to undermine doctrines such as the resurrection of Jesus. Period.
Peace, JOHN
Happy New Year to all and blessings for 2022! John, you're absolutely on target with this rejoinder to Ed. Who are the "others" who taught at the St. Louis Sem in the late 60s and early 70s who used historical criticism to undermine the resurrection of Jesus at the St. Louis seminary? Nobody. The dots don't connect.
Dave Benke
I don't think Rev. Engelbrecht said that anyone at St. Louis did. He said that SOME who used that method did.
Pastor Bohler is correct. In Reply 57 I asked Charles for an example of an academic approach that fit his description. He didn't provide one, so I thought historical criticism might serve as an example of method that turns out very different results depending on the practitioner. I made no accusations about the CSL faculty majority.
However, the Blue Book that Fienen mentions likely includes specific examples of what some faculty majority members said about their use of historical criticism, if anyone wants to explore that.
At the 1973 New Orleans convention of which I was a delegate, time was set aside for four St. Louis seminary professors to answer questions from the convention. I recall one in particular. Ed Krentz was asked if he believed Adam was a real person. He responded, "yes." Around me, I heard in not so hushed voices, "don't believe him." Afterwards, President Preus addressed the convention and said much the same in perhaps not so harsh tones: "we have heard...." You can read whatever you wish, but I think the writing is skewed to whatever position the writer had to begin with. I can tell you that as a student at St. Louis from 1968-1972, I never heard any professor attempt to prove to me that any part of Scripture is untrue.