# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1950_S338
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

460  INTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL MATTER¢

Speaking of the requirements of confessional fellowship °
Church asserts in the Formula of Concord that it entertains heart.
felt pleasure and love for, and is on its part sincerely inclineg. "
anxious to advance, unity, but it must be a unity “by which His
glory remains to God uninjured, nothing of the divine truth of
the Holy Gospel is surrendered, no room is given to the least error”
(Triglotta, p. 1095.) ,

Our Synod therefore confesses in its Brief Statement: “We
repudiate unionism, that is, church fellowship with the adherent,
of false doctrine.” (Par.28; Our emphasis to show that the Brief
Statement does not in any way qualify “adherents of false doc-
trine.”) ;

But in the essay under consideration, Dr. Arndt, after referring
to the distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental doc-
trines, contends: “Church fellowship is not made impossible by
the existence of error in the view of an individual or of a church
body, provided these errors are of a non-fundamental nature and
the right attitude toward Christ and the Word of God is main-
tained.”

That is the position of the former Iowa Synod. Distinguishing
between “doctrines of faith” and “doctrines not necessary for sal-
vation,” it said: “There are doctrines, even doctrines of the Bible,
concerning which members of our Church may hold different views
and convictions without thereby being compelled to refuse each
other church fellowship; and that these are the very doctrines for
the sake of which the Missourians adjudge us to be heretical. In
such matters unity should indeed be sought; but it is not absolutely
required, as in the doctrines of faith.” (Quoted in Ebenezer, p. 169.
Emphasis by Dr. J. H. C. Fritz.)

That is the position of the American Lutheran Church, which
declared: “It is neither necessary nor possible to agree in all non-
fundamental doctrines.” (C.T.M., 1939, p.59.) “Whoever thinks
that he must, on account of non-agreement in non-fundamentals,
sever or reject church fellowship with brethren who bow as sin-

‘cerely as he does to the Word of God and who desire above all

else to accord supreme authority to the Scriptures, should be made
to understand that he separates himself from his brethren on ac-
count of something which has nothing to do with our salvation and
stands far out in the periphery of Christian doctrine.” (In the
Interest of Lutheran Unity, p. 38.) ‘

That is also the position of A Statement, of which Dr. Arndt

is a signer. “Church fellowship is possible without complete agree-_

ment in details of doctrine and practice which have never been
considered divisive in the Lutheran Church.” (Par. 11.)
In short, what Missouri, in harmony with the Formula of

INTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL MATTERS 461

rd, has always rejected as a determining factor in the ques-
ton of church. fellowship is regarded by Dr. Arndt and the A. L.C.
as ad jding factor in that question.
We therefore request Synod to correct Dr. Arndt’s essay so
: to ‘rule out the distinction between fundamental and non-fun-
el ental doctrines as a factor in the question of church fellow-
<hip and to bring it into harmony with the position of Synod, that
“the term ‘non-fundamental. doctrines’ . . . should not be made to
convey the idea that anything clearly revealed in Scripture, al-
though not absolutely necessary for salvation, may be denied.”
(Proceedings, 1941, p.302; cf. also Memorial 604, p. 292.)

Those Weak in Faith

In the essay under consideration, Dr. Arndt also improperly
and inadequately defines “those weak in faith” and the attitude
to be taken toward them in the words: “Dr. Walther was right
when he repeatedly stated that absolute unity cannot be achieved
here on earth, human weakness being what it is. The question at
once presents itself whether we do not have to insist on loyalty
to everything that God has taught. We do indeed; but it does not
follow that we cannot have church fellowship with people who in
this or that point of doctrine are in error. Church fellowship is
not made impossible by the existence of error in the views of an
individual or of a church body, provided these errors are of a non-
fundamental nature and the right attitude toward Christ and the
Word of God is maintained. ... We must deal gently with those
weak in the faith and not reject them on account of the miscon-
ception under which they labor.”

We therefore request Synod to correct and amplify the para-
graph which seeks to define “those weak in faith” so that the fol-
lowing Scriptural truths are included:

a. That an individual or church body.can only then be. con-
sidered “weak” if the error which has arisen is “due to a deficiency
of knowledge or of precipitancy” (Lehre und Wehre, 14, p.105),
and if the individual or church body proves that the proper attitude
towards God’s Word is being held by acknowledging and removing
the error called to their attention by such as possess a correct
knowledge of Scriptural truth. A church cannot be dealt with as
“weak” when it has made these errors a part of its confession,
clinging to them in spite of admonition through several genera-
tions, or if it insists that any points of doctrine deviating from
God’s Word be treated as a matter of indifference. (Cf. 1 Thess.
5:14; 1 Cor. 9:22; James 5:19-20; also Lehre und Wehre, 14, p. 107;
Brief Statement, Par. 29.) ; os

b. That our treatment of the “weak” is never to be limited to

2 pes et eee NORRIE NR NEE A IL