# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1971_S230
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

230 PRESIDENT’S REPORT

minded Christian will oppose some important secondary fun-
damental article and nevertheless possess true saving faith
in his heart, while he who knowingly, contrary to Holy
Scripture and the Confessions, would deny merely that the
suffering of Christ took place under Pontius Pilate (a histor-
ical detail which certainly does not belong to the funda-
mental articles) would surely not be a true believer. Through
nothing does an erring person manifest more clearly that his
error is of a fundamental nature than by showing that in
his error he rejects the Word of God, a thing which may take
place in opposing non-fundamental as well as fundamental
Bible-teachings; in fact, the fashion in which he handles
mere problems may bring this to light. Accordingly, to name
but one author, the Wittenberg theologian Carl Gottlob Hof-
mann (died 1774) writes: “Non-fundamental articles” (in
which class he with Baier enumerates also the so-called
theological problems) “often can assume the nature of fun-
damental articles if the reason on account of which they are
unknown or denied is something that opposes the foundation
of faith. For instance, the article of the propagation of the
soul is not a fundamental article whether you maintain that
it occurs per traducem or through a new creation; but if you
hold that this propagation takes place per traducem in order
to demonstrate that spirits are material beings, then you
may become guilty of a fundamental error; for according to
such a view the angels and God Himself are classed among
beings that are corporeal. The article pertaining to the Co-
pernican system likewise is not a fundamental one, but it
can easily happen that a person denying the movement of
the sun around the earth adds as his conclusion that the
writers of the Old Testament were altogether uncultured and
ignorant people (admodum rudes). In this way the infalli-
bility of the holy writers and thereby the teaching of the
divine inspiration of Holy Scripture are attacked.” (Theol.
Thet. Praecogn., c. 11., § 26, p. 112.)

We are far removed from the position which severs fra-
ternal relations with an individual and stops having church-
fellowship with a church-body if in their understanding of
Bible-teaching they are not dogmatically correct. We by no
means consider such correctness a condition of fellowship. If
that were our position, we should have to contend against
ourselves; for while we notice incorrect views, that is, errors,
in others, other people may notice such imperfections in one
or the other of us. No; as soon as an individual or a whole
church-body manifests the attitude of willingness to submit
unconditionally to the whole Word of God and not to teach
anything that opposes the foundation of Christian faith, be
it the real or the dogmatic or the organic foundation, we
extend in every case with joy the hand of fellowship to such
an individual, and we are altogether willing and ready to
cultivate church-fellowship with such an organization. This,
however, is our position and practise, not because we con-
sider any teaching clearly revealed in the Word of God an
open question which one may either affirm or deny and
concerning which there is liberty of opinion, but because we
know that there are errors which proceed from weakness,
just as there are sins that are caused by weakness, and that
a Christian may intellectually err even with respect to a
fundamental matter without subverting the foundation in
his heart, not to mention how wrong it would be to assume
that a person necessarily destroys the foundation of faith
if he errs in a non-fundamental point. Nevertheless we con-
sider it our duty to criticize, refute, oppose, contend against,
and reprove whatever error becomes manifest in the teach-
ing of those who wish to be our brethren, whether this error
pertains to a fundamental or a non-fundamental teaching of
the Word of God. By taking this course, we merely follow
all faithful servants of God, from the prophets and apostles
down to the most recent recognized faithful ministers of our
Church. The result, of course, is that the Church never for
a long time enjoys peace and that precisely the orthodox
Church usually presents the appearance of a body torn by
internal dissensions. But this, far from being an indictment
of a servant of God and of the Church, is rather an indica-
tion and seal that the servant of Ged is faithful, and it gives
the Church the assurance that it belongs to the ecclesia mili-
tans. For this reason Gerhard writes: “From the zealous
warfare which pious and faithful teachers conduct against
false doctrine one may not unjustly conclude that they are
instruments of the Holy Spirit and that their teaching un-
doubtedly is true. It is an attribute of faithful teachers that

they endeavor to purge the Church completely of all crea-
tions of Satan regardless of who the persons may be that
have introduced or are introducing them. Therefore, even
when very insignificant adulterations occur and they observe
them, they will not for one hour close their eyes indulgently
(connivent). When there is bright light, you see even little
specks of dust; if there is darkness, the largest stumps ob-
Sune your path are not noticed.” (Loe. Th., De Eccles.,
247.

Now, what is to be done if a person teaches an error
which indeed is non-fundamental but opposes a clear Word
of God and if he has been convicted by the clear Word so
that he is not able to reply? What is to be done if such an
erring person stubbornly insists on maintaining his error,
refuses to be instructed, and it becomes evident that he clings
to his error not through weakness of intellect, but because
he is unwilling to yield to the Word of God? What is to be
done if he by clinging to his error does indeed not subvert
the real or dogmatic but the organic foundation of faith, the
authority of Holy Scripture? Are we, after he has been
made conscious of his error and all admonitions have been
in vain, to drop the controversy and tolerate the error? Are
we to bring about peace in this manner, that we declare the
point in debate an open question because it does not pertain
to a fundamental article of faith? What human being, what
angel, has the right to excuse us from obedience to the Word
of God? Who can destroy and dissolve the Word of God
even in one small tittle? Is not the only one who does that
the Antichrist, the man of sin and son of perdition, who op-
poseth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or
that is worshiped, so that he as God sitteth in the temple of
God, showing himself that he is God? And, we repeat, can
there be a clearer proof that a body is not a true Church of
God than if it will not unconditionally submit to the divine
Word? Can it in this case, in true faith, hold the other teach-
ings which it claims to accept and believe? Never! Whoever
demands that a matter taught clearly in the Holy Scriptures
be made an open question for him believes nothing on ac-
count of its being in the Word of God; otherwise he would
believe and accept everything. Luther therefore is right
when he says: “The Church, as St. Paul says, is subject and
obedient to Christ, in fear and esteem. How could a person
distinguish between the true Church of Christ and the
church of the devil except through obedience and disobedi-
ence toward Christ, especially if disobedience, although peo-
ple have become conscious of it and know it, excuses itself
flagrantly and impudently and insists on being right? The
holy Church, it is true, sins and stumbles or errs, as the
Lord’s Prayer teaches, but it does not defend or excuse its
error; on the contrary, it humbly asks for forgiveness and
makes amends wherever it can. Its sin then is forgiven and
no longer placed to its account. If I cannot distinguish the
true from the false Church through obedience, on the one
hand, and stubborn disobedience, on the other, I no longer
can have any opinion about the character of a Church.”
(Luther pertaining to his Buch von der Winkelmesse, 1534;
XIX, 1579.)

Luther writes furthermore: “Here you see what St. Paul
thinks of a little error in doctrine which apparently is in-
significant, or even seems to represent the truth. He con-
siders it so grave and dangerous that he is justified in de-
nouncing its sponsors as false prophets, even though they
appear to be eminent people. Therefore it is not right for
us to consider the leaven of false teaching a little matter.
Let it be as little as it pleases: if it is not watched, it will
result in the collapse of truth and salvation and in the denial
of God. For if the Word is adulterated and God denied and
blasphemed (a result which will necessarily follow), all hope
of salvation is gone. But whether or not we are blasphemed,
denounced, and killed is not of any moment; for He is still
living who can again raise and rescue us from the curse,
death, and hell. For this reason we should learn to accord
great and high esteem to the majesty and glory of the Word;
for it is not such a small and light matter as the false en-
thusiasts of our day imagine, but one single tittle of it is
greater and of more weight than heaven and earth. Hence
we in this instance do not concern ourselves with Christian
unity or love, but we straightway express our judgment,
that is, we condemn and denounce all those who even in the
smallest particle adulterate and change the majesty of the
Word; for ‘a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” (Com-