# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1950_S1145
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

a enn ee
7

ee ine

594 INTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL MATTERS

But in the essay under consideration, Dr. Arndt contends:
“There are some who think the thousand years are stil] to be ;
pected. In our Church a different view has generally been held
but no one has presumed to speak with finality. It is evident he
that we are dealing with a problem, a real open question when.
opinions may differ without prejudice to anybody’s orthodoxy.”

In short, what Missouri regards as unscriptural and contr
to the analogy of faith is not regarded as such by Dr. Arndt b
is designated by him and the A.L.C. as “a problem, a rea] ° ut
question where opinions may differ without prejudice to a
body’s orthodoxy.” oy
. 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.” (CE. 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.)

- C—O ET

: Church asserts in the Formula of Concord that it entertains heart-

INTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL MATTERS 595

Speaking of the requirements of confessional fellowship, our

felt pleasure and love for, and is on its part sincerely inclined and
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 adherents
of false doctrine.” (Par. 28; Our emphasis to show that the Brief
Statement does nat 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