# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1950_S337
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

458 INTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL MATTERS

of chiliasm from this passage collapses.” (Synodalbericht, Western
District, 1888, p.19.) “Whoever insists that the believers wil] ,;
a thousand years before Judgment Day calls Christ a liar»
(Synodalbericht, Central District, 1895, p. 90.) .
_ Our Synod therefore confesses in its Brief Statement; “We
reject every type of millennialism, or chiliasm, the opinions that
. .. before the general resurrection on Judgment Day a number
of departed Christians or martyrs are to be raised again to reign
in glory in this world. ... Scripture clearly teaches, and we teach
accordingly ... that there will be but one resurrection of the dead
John 5:28; 6:39-40.” (Par. 42. Our emphasis.) ,

But in the essay under consideration, Dr. Arndt, contrary to
the express words of Scripture that “the souls of them that were
beheaded . . . lived and reigned with Christ,” Rev. 20:4, contends:
“There are some who say that these words must be taken in their
native sense, as signifying an actual resurrection of the body. Now
if this is explained as signifying that their bodies will be taken
into heaven and that they will be enjoying the happiness of the
mansions above even before the Judgment, we need not protest.”

In short, what Missouri rejects as a mark of gross and damn-
able chiliasm, as being a perversion of the text, and as contradict-
ing other clear passages of Scripture — against that Dr. Arndt and
the A.L. C. would not protest.

Beginning of the Thousand Years

In its Declaration the American Lutheran Church has said:
“With reference to the thousand years of Revelation 20 we declare
with Dr. Walther (Milwaukee-Colloquium, p.157) that ‘it is not
possible to say with absolute certainty either that the thousand
years ‘have already been fulfilled or that they still lie in the
future.” (Proceedings, 1938, p. 225.)

It is true, no one can definitely say when the thousand years

of Revelation 20 began and when they will end, “however, as soon
as someone today places these thousand years still in the future
and in consequence teaches: ‘Judgment Day does not come for
a long time; first must occur a resurrection of the dead,’ etc., etc.
—as soon as this is taught, then the foundation of faith is sub-
verted.” - (Synodalbericht, Syn. Conf., 1877, p.31.) Such a one
contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture that the time of Christ’s
coming to Judgment is, and will remain, unknown.
-- Our Synod therefore confesses in its Brief Statement: “Scrip-
ture clearly teaches, and we teach accordingly ... that the time
of the Last Day is, and will remain, unknown, Matt. 24:42; 25:13;
Mark 13:32, 37; Acts 1:7, which would not be the case if the Last
Day: were‘ to come a thousand years after the beginning of a
millennium.”: (Par. 42:)

,

INTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL MATTERS 459

But in the essay under consideration, Dr. Arndt contends:
“There are some who think the thousand years are still to be ex-
In our Church a different view has generally been held,
but no one has presumed to speak with finality. It is evident here
that we are dealing with a problem, a real open question where
opinions. may differ without prejudice to anybody’s orthodoxy.”
In short, what Missouri regards as unscriptural and contrary
to the analogy of faith is not regarded as such by Dr. Arndt, but
is designated by him and the A.L.C. as “a problem, a real open
question where opinions may differ without prejudice to any-
pody’s orthodoxy.”

We therefore request Synod to correct Dr. Arndt’s essay on
“Present Hindrances to Lutheran Union” with respect to its pres-
entation on the five non-fundamentals (pp. 19—20) so as to bring
it into conformity with the Scriptural teaching and confession of
our Synod.

A False Definition of Non-Fundamental Doctrines

In the essay under consideration, Dr. Arndt improperly de-
fines non-fundamental doctrines as having “no connection with
the foundation of our faith.” This is truly an amazing aberration.
Every teaching of Scripture is somehow connected with the organic
foundation (Scripture itself), the dogmatic foundation (the various
articles of saving Christian doctrine), and the real foundation
(Christ). Cf. Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet.1:10-12; also 1 Tim. 5:8.

We therefore request Synod to strike the assertion: “They
are called non-fundamental because they have no connection with
the foundation of our faith.” In their stead we ask that the fol-
lowing be inserted: “They are called non-fundamental because
they do not constitute the foundation or object of faith, in so far
as faith apprehends the forgiveness of sins and makes us children
of God.” (Cf. Pieper, Dogmatik, I, p. 102.)

Non-Fundamental Doctrines and Church Fellowship

The distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental
doctrines comes into consideration when asking the question: How
much of the divine truth must a person know in order to be saved?.
Or, who is a member of the one holy Christian Church and there-
fore a Christian? However, this distinction dare never be considered
when determining the answer to the question: With whom may
we establish or continue to practice church fellowship? Here we
must demand submission to the entire Word of God. Only then
first can we acknowledge such a one as a brother in. the faith.

(Cf. Synodalbericht, Syn. Conf., 1888, pp. 10—11; Central District,
1867, p.10.) :

Le ERTS Ta RE TIRE te RR Un gS .