# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1950_S353
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

488 INTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL MATTERS

Wuereas, The St. Louis faculty does not regard di
between those two conflicting positions (the one ‘Position ho
that Rom. 16:17 applies also to heterodox Christians; the other
holding that Rom.16:17 is not to be applied to Christ;
‘only to non-Christians) as a difference between truth and but
but regards such disagreement as a difference of opinion in ex.
egetical matters and would grant tolerance to both Positions with.
in the Church by stating, “We are all agreed that where differences
of opinion pertain to purely exegetical matters, brethren must be
willing to bear with one another” (p. 20); and

Wuereas, This Opinion of the St. Louis faculty therein follows
the pattern of all unionistic compromising of the truth of God:
First contending that it is not clear what God says in His Word:
then insisting that the existing differences represent mere dif.
ferences of opinion in exegetical matters; and finally pleading that
brethren should be charitable and bear with one another; and

Wuereas, The St. Louis faculty in this Opinion nowhere con-
fesses that either one of the above-mentioned positions is Scrip-
tural and nowhere rejects either one of them as unscriptural,
thus leaving the Scripturalness, or respectively, the unscrip-
turalness of either position undecided and in doubt; and

WHEREAS, By its failure to confess that the position which

applies Rom. 16:17 also to heterodox Christians is Scriptural, and .

by its failure to reject as unscriptural the contrary position,
which holds that Rom. 16:17 dare not be applied to Christians and
must be applied only to non-Christians, the St. Louis faculty has
challenged the Brief Statement’s use of Rom. 16:17 as a prooftext
for the teaching that Christians should leave heterodox church
bodies and that church fellowship with the adherents of false doc-
trine is disobedience to God and causes divisions in the Church; and

Wuereas, The St. Louis faculty has thereby also challenged
the use of Rom. 16:17 as a prooftext for the Catechism truth that
“we use the doctrine of the Church properly . . . when we avoid
all false churches” (New Catechism, Qu. 186), and the truth that
“the Lord’s Supper must be denied . . . to those of different faith,
since the Lord’s Supper is a testimony of the unity of faith” (Ibid,
Qu. 326); and °

Wuereas, By challenging the pertinency of Rom:16:17 as
prooftext in the Brief Statement and in the synodical Catechism
the St. Louis faculty has undermined the official doctrinal position
and confession of the Missouri Synod on church fellowship, and
‘the teaching of its Catechism; and
' Wuerras, The above-quoted Opinion of the St. Louis faculty
grants tolerance to a teaching which has been steadfastly rejected

INTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL MATTERS 489

iptural within the Missouri Synod from the very be-
a i this day (Cf. Constitution, the Brief Statement, and

gnning quoted above), and makes room in our midst for
the onistic practices forbidden by this text; now therefore be it
unit

dersigned, petition The Lutheran
Resolved, That wedi convention x ccombled, in conformity
‘4g reaffirmation of the Brief Statement in 1947, to repudiate
its F uoted Opinion of the St. Louis faculty as a rejection
t. God clearly and unmistakably commands in Rom. 16:17,
d ed -out of harmony with Synod’s official position, as being
*s oe etic perversion of the text, and as opening the door to
*jonistic practices.
(Signed) (Rev.) F. E. Barrire, Northlake, Ill.
(Rev.) J. Bertram, Fort Dodge, Ia.
Rev.) J. F. Borrcer, Sr., Racine, Wis.
‘(Rev.) E. A. Braver, Joliet, IL
(REv.) Paut H. Boreporr, Clinton, Ia.
(Rev.) Rosert F. Corpzs, St. Paul, Minn. -
(Rev.) A. C. Daums, Chicago, Hl.
(Rev.) H. W. Deener, Lewisville, Minn.
od (Rev.) THeo. Drerxs, Morrison, Ill.
(Rev.) Martin Frick, Chicago, Ill.
(Rev.) R. A. Frick, Grant Park, Il.
(Rev.) A. C. Hartmann, Maywood, II.
(Rev.) E. T. HEyne, Truman, Minn.
(Rev.) Pau. G. Kocu, La Crosse, Ind.
(Rev.) A. T. Kretzmann, Crete, IIl.
(Rev.) Paut L. Kretzmann, Michigan City, Ind.
(Dr.) P. E. Kretzmann, Cuba, Mo.
(Rev.) C. G. Kruss, Chicago, Ill.
(Rev.) A. V. Kuster, Wanatah, Ind.
(Rev.) O. H. Liynemeter, Rochelle, Ill.
(Rev.) K. F. Lonrmann, Berwyn, III.
(Dr.) H. O. Lussxy, Evanston, Ill.
'(Rev.) H. D. Menstne, Tinley Park, TL
(Pror.) Abert H. Mixer, Oak Park, Tl.
(Rev.) Eow. H. Miter, Px. D., Warwick, N. Y.
(Rev.) Exmer I. Miter, Kokomo, Ind.
(Rev.) Expor MUuELuer, Sterling, Iut.
(Rev.) M. H. Muerier, Dwight, Tl.”

with
the above-q'