# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1950_S1162
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

 etcid: dt Minatien “ateidhamene ee

aeons

eae rem aee

neg eet etter = oe

indeiatiiiehadidtdesriesteaamene ee ee

Seaein being de a ee

Soe eee eaten en tamerar pense one wee
ee Oy Fakes

622 INTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL MATTERS

The same memorial was submitted by
(Signed) (Dr.) P. E. Krerzmann, Cuba, Mo.
(Rev.) E. T. Lams, Oak Park, IL
(Rev.) H. D. Mensine, Tinley Park, Mi.
(Rev.) W. F. Ror, St. James, Minn,

Signatures attested by (Rev.) H. D. Mensmnc
Tinley Park, IL, April 5, 1950

Repudiate the St. Louis Faculty Opinion
(Rom. 16:17)
(Memorial 625)

Wuereas, The first object of Synod is “the conservation and

promotion of the unity of the true faith (Eph. 4:3-6; 1 Cor. 1: 10)

and a United defense against schism and ‘sectarianism (Rom.
16:17)”;

Waters, the Brief Statement, reaffirmed at the Chicago Con-
vention as a correct expression of Synod’s doctrinal position, ex-
pressly declares: “All Christians are required by God to discrimi-
nate between orthodox and heterodox church-bodies, Matt. 7: 15,
to have church-fellowship only with orthodox church-bodies, and,
in case they have strayed into heterodox church-bodies, to leave
them, Rom. 16:17. We repudiate unionism, that is, church-fellow-
ship with the adherents of false doctrine, as disobedience to God's
command, as causing divisions in the Church, Rom. 16:17” (Par.
28); and .

Whereas, The faculty of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo.,
in an Opinion dated May—June, 1946, and reiterated in May, 1948,
has stated: “We shall never be. able to say with absolute certainty
whether Paul is here issuing a general warning or is speaking of
a special group, and if the latter is the case, what particular group
he has in mind” (“Church Fellowship,” Opinions by the Faculty
of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo., Manuscript for Course in
Dogmatics, Concordia Publishing House, 1946, p.19); and

Wuereas, The St.Louis faculty in the above-quoted words
confesses that it does not know for certain what God actually says
in this passage, thus denying that Rom. 16:17 is.a clear Word of
God; and

Wuereas, The St. Louis faculty, clearly showing its own dis-
agreement in this matter, says in this same Opinion, “Some would
hold that v.18 shows definitely that Paul is pointing to people who
are not Christians; others deny this... . Many hold that St. Paul
here inculcates that all false teachers must be avoided” (p. 20); and

INTERSYNODICAL AND DOCTRINAL MATTERS 623

.¢ Wuereas, The St. Louis faculty does not regard disagreement
tween those two conflicting positions (the one position holding

fe Rom.16:17 applies also to heterodox Christians; the other

holding that Rom.16:17 is not to be applied to Christians, but
only to non-Christians) as a difference between truth and error,
‘put 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
Wuereas, 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
Wnereas, 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

Wuereas, The above-quoted Opinion of the St. Louis faculty
grants tolerance to a teaching which has been steadfastly rejected