# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1950_S1144
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

592 INTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL MATTERS

Conversion of the Jews

In 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
declare with Dr. Walther that to assume suc
not be regarded as a cause for division’ (Mi
p.156).” (Proceedings, 1938, p. 225.)

Dr. Walther did not say that. He did, however, say: “TE 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.L.C. 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.
-.. Scripture 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 hirh and the A.L.C. desig-
nated as a “question of interpretation.”

-26, we
h a conversion ‘must
Iwaukee-Colloquium,

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

CC LG ee ETANR ta create ONS

INTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL MATTERS 593

fchiliasm from this passage collapses.” (Synodalbericht, Western
o

““pistrict, 1888, p.19.) “Whoever insists that the believers will tise
-‘g thousand years before Judgment Day calls Christ a_ liar.

i Ibericht, Central District, 1895, p. 90.)
(Synod Sened therefore confesses in its Brief Statement: “We
ject every type of millennialism, or chiliasm, the opinions that
rel 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 teac
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.)