Saturday morning – 9:30 AM central…watch the debate

bibleconferenceTune in:


Watch the debate.  Enjoy theological discussion.

About Pastor Joshua Scheer

Pastor Joshua Scheer is the Senior Pastor of Our Savior Lutheran Church in Cheyenne, Wyoming. He is also the Editor-in-chief of Brothers of John the Steadfast. He oversees all of the work done by Steadfast Lutherans. He is a regular host of Concord Matters on KFUO. Pastor Scheer and his lovely wife Holly (who writes and manages the Katie Luther Sisters) have four children and enjoy living in Wyoming.


Saturday morning – 9:30 AM central…watch the debate — 7 Comments

  1. Note that those who missed the livestream can follow the same link and click on “watch it again” to view it.

    The presentation starts about 33 minutes into the recording; you can skip forward to that to start at the introductions. The actual presentations (after opening remarks by the various sponsoring agencies) is found at the 52 minute mark.

  2. Will this be made available for download or put up on Youtube? The current video on is simply unwatchable for me. It keeps skipping and buffering. I have tried multiple devices, internet sources, and web browsers. Is anyone else having this problem?

  3. Dear BJS Bloggers,

    Thanks very much to the Brothers of John the Steadfast for working together with Concordia University-Chicago to live-stream this event!

    What will you see if you “watch it again”? Please note Norm Fisher’s comment #1. The camera was turned on about 9:00 AM, so the first thirty minutes are just of the front of the chapel with various persons milling about as the presenters and moderators get ready.

    Go to the 33 minute mark to see the beginning of the program, with Rev. Roger Gallup, Vice-Chairman of Concordia University-Chicago Regents, giving a fine devotional. Following that are the greetings by the Lutheran Concerns Assocations, CU-Chicago, Northern Illinois District, and the various organizations co-sponsoring this debate. Dr. Kloha’s lecture begins at the 52 minute mark, as Norm noted above, followed by Dr. Montgomery’s lecture. After that there was a recess, then rebuttals from both presenters, followed by a Q & A session.

    I think that the “watch it again” hyperlink on this page will remain active as long as it is still active on the Concordia University-Chicago website. Once the CUC website drops the link, then it will no longer be active here on this page.

    As previously noted by Pastor Scheer and Norm (see previous comment #5), BJS plans to publish the recorded video on its website, for long-term reference and use. Keep watching BJS to see the announcement of when and where that will be available. You can always click on the “badge” (images of the presenters and the Greek text) in the right sidebar to view all of the related posts on this debate.

    Other questions about the presentations, the papers, the video recording, etc. may be directed to the Chairman of the Board and President of Lutheran Concerns Association, Mr. Walter Dissen. You can find his contact information at:

    In my opinion, both presenters did a wonderful job. Each had a different task, but were up to that task and exceeded my expectations. Among other things, Dr. Montgomery helped us see the status controversiae in the debate, i.e., whether the external or internal evidences should be given priority in judgments about the variants. And his underlying concern about “method”, and how it can mislead, should never be forgotten by any confessional Lutheran who remembers how the Seminex liberals claimed that their hermeneutical method was neutral.

    Dr. Kloha helped see us how confessional Lutherans need to ground their view of Scripture in history and the criterion of apostolicity, especially in his section titled “The Canonical Text: Martin Chemnitz on Inspiration and the Historical Witness of the Church.” In that section of his paper in particular, Dr. Kloha set to rest my concerns about his position in the matter of the epistemology of faith.

    Dr. Kloha also said during the debate that he does not ignore the external evidences for the variants, and that he only uses the method of thoroughgoing eclecticism when the external evidences are inconclusive. That puts to the rest the concern that he completely ignores those external evidences. And, in fact, if you look at Dr. Kloha’s writings, in his actual practice he has been making judgments on the basis of the external evidences but also using the internal evidences.

    This does not mean that the two presenters agree on everything. Perhaps the unresolved methodological issue between the two is whether internal evidences can be used at all and, if so, how they should be used. But in my opinion, both presenters are within the pale of orthodox Lutheranism and both affirm the necessary commitments to the inerrancy of Scripture and its adjuncts. That might not have been clear without this debate.

    There is much more that could be said, but these are my initial reactions . . .

    Thanks again to Brothers of John the Steadfast and to all the cooperating confessional Lutheran groups (Lutheran Concerns Assoc., Balance-Concord, Inc., ACELC, TX Confessionals, MN Confessionals) for their work on this project.

    Yours in Christ, Martin R. Noland

  4. @Martin R. Noland #6

    Editor’s Note – Dr. Montgomery has written this reply to Dr. Noland concerning his comment and wanted it posted on the blog.

    “Dear Martin,

    I am very disappointed with your evaluation of the 15 October debate. I don’t see how you could have carefully read my material–including the detailed documentation in the footnotes–or Kloha’s thesis and essays published outside the Synod, for that matter.

    Kloha wanted to limit the “debate” (for him, “discussion”) to the narrow range of lower criticism techniques, ignoring the serious implications of his position for the inerrancy issue. Your review will assist that kind of treatment of the debate.

    He avoided the critical questions by quoting Chemnitz et al. The issue is not Chemnitz; it is what Kloha himself has written (including, but not limited to, what I quoted with great care in my paper). Had the context been a tribunal, I could have forced Kloha on cross-examination to stop quoting others and answer straightforward questions concerning his personal beliefs and his published writings. As is, he got away with obfuscation throughout the debate, fooling the unwashed with no difficulty. Now he can continue to say one thing in European and SBL circles, and the opposite in the Missouri Synod–with impunity.

    My reason for entering the debate was to try to get the Seminary to insist that Kloha repudiate his position that textual variants warrant an ecclesiological and pneumatological justification of biblical authority–thereby undercutting any meaningful doctrine of inerrancy. I also wanted Kloha’s deviousness and refusal to admit what he had written show patently that we are dealing with the same mentality that prevailed at the St Louis Sem during the Seminex mess: duplicitous efforts to satisfy mainline theological academia and, at the same time, keep the LCMS happy.

    Your blog will play right into the hands of the Seminary and church administrations, who want this whole thing to go away and not be elevated to a serious, doctrinal level The Seminary has already notified everyone that Kloha’s presentation is available from them (to show how clean he is)–without, of course, publishing what I have presented or demonstrated.


    Dr John Warwick Montgomery

    P.S. The issue (resolved or unresolved) was never “whether internal evidences can be used at all” (your boldface below). I make plain in my paper (see. for example, note 8), and especially in my rebuttal, that internal evidences are not to be rejected per se, since (1) internal evidences are of diverse sorts, with the problem only represented by stylistic and theological/ideological choices on the part of the text critic–as Kloha handled the Magniifcat; and (2) internal evidences should always to be employed as a last resort (treated as in the law we treat judicial discretion), not as the primary criterion in the choice of readings as demanded by Kloha’s philosophy of thoroughgoing eclecticism Your remark on this sadly shows that you did NOT read my material carefully or listen carefully to what I said orally.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.