# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1971_S229
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

PRESIDENT’S REPORT 229

hast been assured of,’ 2Tim.3:14; “That good thing which
was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost,” 2 Tim.
1:14. Hence Musaeus writes: “God has committed to His
Church, as to the spiritual mother of all believing children
of God, not only the chief articles of Christian truth which
every simple Christian must believe and without the knowl-
edge and acceptance of which true faith cannot be engen-
dered or preserved, but the whole Christian doctrine pertain-
ing to faith and life, likewise the holy Sacraments, and He
expects the Church to keep these treasures pure and un-
adulterated, to preserve them, defend them against all se-
ducing spirits, to use them, thereby to beget spiritual chil-
dren for God and bring them up that they may grow in sav-
ing knowledge from day to day. It is thereby to strengthen
the weak, to cheer those that are troubled, to comfort the
timid, to arouse the wicked and the secure sinners, to bring
back those that are erring, to seek the lost, and thus to per-
form most carefully everything that pertains to the duties
of a spiritual mother toward God’s true children here upon
earth, and it has no authority to eliminate any part of Chris-
tian doctrine which for this purpose has been committed to
it and without whose use it cannot fully perform its function
for the edification of its members and the true children of
God. What Paul says to Timothy (1 Tim. 4:15; 6:3 ff.; 2 Tim.
3:14; 1:13, 14) he says to the whole Christian Church, and
what he demands of bishops in general, namely, to hold fast
the faithful Word as they have been taught, that they may
be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince
the gainsayers (Titus 1:9), that he demands from all godly,
faithful teachers. This is the public function of the Church
and of its faithful teachers, that they immovably, rigidly,
and firmly adhere not only to the articles and sections of
Christian doctrine which every simple Christian must know
but to those also which faithful teachers and pastors need to
make others wise unto salvation and which are profitable
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness, as Paul says 2Tim.3:15f. Of these matters
it must not permit any part to be adulterated or removed.”
(Bedenken vom Consensu Repetito; cf. Hist. Syncret., p. 1073.)
Hence it is certain that, since all Scripture is given by in-
spiration of God and is profitable, the Church may not adul-
terate or eliminate anything contained in Holy Scripture but
must earnestly hold every Biblical truth, even if it should
appear insignificant, oppose every unscriptural error, should
it seem ever so unimportant.

How is that? we are asked. Do you really wish to excom-
municate everybody at once as a heretic who errs in nothing
but a non-fundamental article, and do you intend at once
to sever fellowship with an organization which is guilty of
such a non-fundamental error? That we are far removed
from entertaining such a thought we have stated above.
What we maintain is this: On the one hand, a non-funda-
mental error, even if it is contrary to the clear Word of God,
must not be treated as a heresy, but in patient instruction it
must be shown to be untenable, be refuted, opposed, and
criticized. On the other hand, however, if a church has ex-
hausted all means of bringing such an erring brother to the
acknowledgment of the truth and his adherence to the re-
spective error evidently is not due to insufficient intellectual
understanding of Scripture-teaching, and hence through this
non-fundamental error it becomes manifest that he con-
sciously, stubbornly, and obstinately contradicts the divine
Word and that accordingly through his error he subverts the
organic foundation of faith [the Scriptures], then such an
erring person, like ail others that persevere in mortal sins,
must no longer be borne with, but fraternal relations with
him must be terminated. The same thing applies to a whole
church-body which errs in a non-fundamental doctrine. It
is very true that in this life absolute unity in faith and doc-
trine is not possible, and no higher unity than a fundamental
one can be attained. This, however, by no means implies
that in a church-body errors of a non-fundamental nature
which become manifest and which contradict the clear Word
of God must not be attacked and that a Church can be re-
garded as a true church and be treated as such if it either
makes such non-fundamental errors a part of its confession
and, with injury to the organic foundation, in spite of all
admonition, stubbornly clings to these errors or in a union-
istic fashion and in a spirit of indifference insists that a de-
viation from God’s clear Word in such points need be of no
concern to us.

Johann Gerhard, whose authority is adduced against us,
is of the same well-founded opinion [that, while in this life
not a higher unity than a fundamental one is possible, errors
that arise in a church-body should not be treated with in-
difference, even if they are of a non-fundamental character}.
He writes against the papists, who place unity among the
marks of the Church: “It must be added that unity of faith
and doctrine in the Church is not a perfect and absolute one
in this life; for at times controversies occur between mem-
bers of the true Church through which this holy unity is
torn. We therefore have to distinguish between that absolute,
perfect unity, free from every form of disharmony, which is
found nowhere except in the Church Triumphant, and that
fundamental unity, which consists in agreement concerning
the principal articles of doctrine, while with respect to a
few less important points of faith (fidei capitibus) or to
ceremonies which are a matter of indifference or to the in-
terpretation of some Scripture-passages controversies will
arise. And this is the unity obtaining in the Church Militant;
for in this Church there is never found such a definite har-
mony that no disagreements arise in it. ‘For we know in
part, and we prophesy in part,’ 1 Cor. 13:9.”

Having next quoted a beautiful passage from the works of
Augustine, Gerhard continues thus: “Here Augustine dis-
closes the cause of disagreements in the Church. The truly
pious are not yet perfectly renewed but retain remnants of
the flesh. Hence they do not arrive at an accurate and per-
fect knowledge of the mysteries of faith but err and waver
with respect to some of them. The flesh in the regenerate
still strives against the spirit, for which reason it can easily
happen, especially if the temptation of the devil also enters,
that, giving way to wrong, carnal ideas, they create dissen-
sions in the Church; however, if they do not become guilty
of stubbornness and if the foundation is not shaken, they
are not at once cut off from the body of the Church on this
account. This is proved by the examples given in Acts 11:2;
Gal. 2:11; Acts 15:39. In the Corinthian church divisions had
arisen, profanations of the Eucharist had crept in, there were
acrimonious debates about adiaphora, some persons doubted
the article of the resurrection, etc.; in spite of all this, how-
ever, Paul does not refuse to call the assembly a church, but
in addressing it, he terms it still a church of God, 1 Cor. 1:2.
In the church of the Galatians the article of justification had
been corrupted through the adulterations of false apostles;
but since the members were still open to instruction and
some of them still retained the true faith, Paul still calls the
Galatian congregations, churches, Gal.1:2. This is acknowl-
edged even by Béllarmine.” Having finally adduced several
instances of dissension in the ancient Church, Gerhard con-
cludes: “Hence it is certain that a total and real absolute
unity cannot be hoped for in this life. And therefore not
every disagreement at once dissolves union and unity in the
Church.” (Loc. de Eccles., § 231.) It is clear that Gerhard in
this passage does not intend to call those non-fundamental
teachings which are clearly revealed in the Word of God
open questions; he merely wishes to show that on account
of doctrinal differences which arise in such points the essen-
tial unity of the Church is not at once destroyed, and the
body is thereby not at once deprived of its status as a
Church, and those individual members who in such points
through their false teaching “dissolve unity” must not “at
once be cut off,” “unless stubbornness enters in and the foun-
dation is shaken.” How little Gerhard is of the opinion that
those errors on account of which real unity in a Church is
not at once nullified must be regarded as open questions we
see from the fact that in his enumeration he includes even
fundamental errors. His position is that all erring members
must be tolerated as long as they are not stubborn and,
though clinging to an error, are willing to remain on the
proper foundation. That-also is the only thing which we
maintain, namely, that the time for separating from brethren
on account of an error which doctrinaily is non-fundamental
has only then arrived when those who are erring stubbornly
reject all instruction from the divine Word and thus become
manifest as people who, though they apparently do not wish
to violate the dogmatic foundation, the analogy of faith,
nevertheless shake and subvert the organic foundation, Holy
Scripture itself, as far as they are concerned. It is something
altogether unheard of to say that everything which does not
belong to the fundamental articles must be put into the cate-
gory of open questions. It may well happen that a simple-