# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1950_S336
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

456 INTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL MATTERS

The answer to the question whether in the future that is stilj befir '
us, prior to the return of Christ, a special unfolding and e
concentration of the antichristian power already present now
thus a still more comprehensive fulfillment of 2 Thessalonians 2
may occur, we leave to the Lord and Ruler of the Church and
world history.” (Proceedings, 1938, p. 225.)

That the Pope is the Antichrist is not accepted by the ALC
as a doctrine of Scripture, but merely as an “historical judgment”
The A.L.C. is willing to accept the opinion of Luther in this
matter, because at present there is none that fits 2 Thessalonians 2
better than the Papacy. However, by adding the second state.
ment quoted above, the A.L.C. makes the identity of the An.
tichrist an open question — Luther may be right,-or he may be
wrong. The A.L.C. thereby also makes room in its midst for the
false teaching that prior to Christ’s return (the Declaration does
not specify which return of Christ —-His return to Judgment or
His supposed return before the millennium) THE ANTICHRIs?T
will appear and will be vanquished at the first return of Christ,
Christ will terminate Antichrist’s rule, cause the “first resurree-
tion,” and then begin His millennial reign with the saints. (Reu,
Dogmatics, 1945 ed., p. 375 ff.)

Lehre und Wehre in 1904 said: “We confidently assert that
it is the teaching of Scripture ... that the Pope is the Antichrist,
Here, too, it is a matter of accepting in faith or rejecting a clearly
expressed doctrine of Scripture. ... We do indeed reproach the
theologians who still expect a future Antichrist that they do not
understand: these words of prophecy and refuse faith and obedi-
ence to the same.” (Vol. 50, p. 492.) .

Our Synod therefore confesses in its Brief Statement that it
is a “doctrine clearly defined in Scripture” that “the prophecies
of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12;
1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his
dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these
prophecies . . . are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy.”
(Par. 44, 43. Our emphasis.) |

But in the essay under consideration, Dr. Arndt, misunder-
standing the A.L.C. position entirely, contends that those who
hold that “the antichristian power now in the world will in the
future reach a height which it has not yet attained” do not deny
“anything that the Scriptures teach.”

In short, what Missouri has always regarded as a rejection
of a clearly expressed doctrine of Scripture is designated by Dr.
Arndt and the A.L.C. as not being a denial of “anything that the
Seriptures teach.”

INTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL MATTERS 457

oa Conversion of the Jews

Jn’ its Declaration the American Lutheran Church has said:
“with reference to the question concerning the conversion of
Israel, which some find indicated, especially in Rom. 11: 25-26, we
declare with Dr. Walther that to assume such a conversion ‘must
not be regarded as a cause for division’ (Milwaukee-Colloquium,
p. 156).” (Proceedings, 1938, p. 225.)

Dr. Walther did not say that. He did, however, say: “If it
had been only in the doctrine of the conversion of the Jews that
he [Schieferdecker ] had been unable to agree with us, we would
not have regarded that as a ground for severing relation with
him.” (Our emphasis.) But when the idea of the conversion of
Israel before the end of the world is coupled with chiliasm (the
A.LC. in its Declaration puts “the question concerning the An-
tichrist, the future conversion of Israel, the resurrection of the
martyrs, and the millennial reign of Christ” in the same category;
cf. Proceedings, 1938, p. 224), then it must be rejected as false
teaching.

Our Synod therefore confesses in its Brief Statement: “We
reject every type of millennialism, or chiliasm, the opinions that
_.. before the end of the world a universal conversion of the
Jewish nation (of Israel according to the flesh) will take place.
... Seripture clearly teaches, and we teach accordingly ... that
there will be no general conversion, a conversion en masse, of
the Jewish nation, Rom.11:7; 2 Cor.3:14; Rom. 11:25ff.; 1 Thess.
2:16.” (Par. 42.) ;

But in the essay under consideration, Dr. Arndt contends that
the teaching of “a general conversion of the Jews” is “a question
of interpretation which is not without its difficulties,’ and “has
no bearing on our faith.” -

In short, what Missouri rejects as false teaching is not re-
garded as such by Dr. Arndt, but is by him and the A.L.C. de-.
signated as a “question of interpretation.”

Resurrection of the Martyrs

In its Declaration the American Lutheran Church has said:
“With reference to the assumption of a physical resurrection of
the martyrs, which some find indicated in Rev. 20:4, we declare
that we are not ready to deny church fellowship to any one who
holds this view, merely on that account.” (Proceedings, 1938, p. 225.)

Over against this, our Synod has taught: “The teaching that
a special physical resurrection precedes the so-called millennial
kingdom has ever been regarded in our Church as a mark of gross
and damnable chiliasm.” (Lehre und Wehre, 18, p. 75.) “Let the
chiliast be serious with the word ‘souls,’ and then the whole proof

4