# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1971_S234 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 234 PRESIDENT’S REPORT Mary was Deotdzos, that “in, with, and under” the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper Christ’s body and blood are actu- ally present, are given, and are orally received by worthy and unworthy communicants, — these are, it is true, dogmatic expressions which were not found in the orthodox Church till the days of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Zwingli; but they are not new dogmas. Furthermore, we do not deny that through continued searching of the Scriptures by the Church some things are by and by cleared up which before, through imperfect acquaintance with the languages and his- tory, had been unknown; we admit that in this manner the which it had not noticed before. It must not be forgotten that it is by agreement with the Church of all ages in matters of doctrine, that is, by the so-called successio doctrinalis, that the Church of any given period must prove itself not to be a new, a false Church, but a part of the Church universal, That our Church never entertained the idea of a gradual formation of dogmas but that this notion arose in the period expressly appeals not only to its agreement with Holy Scrip- ture, but with “the Church catholic” (ecclesia catholica), yes, even with the old “Roman” Church “as known from its writers.” Hence the authors declare [in the German version] that the Church of the Reformation has remained loyal to the old Church and its teachings, that contrariwise the papistic Church has defected from the old Church and its God as the Church possessed it; for this reason we with it Church, true likeness and complete unity with the latter.” (XVII, 1659.) In another passage Luther writes: “The Chris- tian Church is dispersed throughout the whole world; it believes as I believe, and I believe as it believes; we have no collision or discrepancy in our faith.” (Comments on John 7:40; VII, 2347.) For this reason Luther Says expressly: “We Eckhart, for instance, in the title of his patristic compendium, characterizes this work as one “in which the agreement of pious antiquity with the confession of our churches is dem- onstrated in every article of theological instruction, and the clamor of the opponents alleging newness of doctrine on our part is proved false.” (Compendium Theol. Patrum, ete. Jenae, 1606.) To give another example, J. W. Baier, in the foreword of his excellent History of Dogma, defines this branch of theological study thus: “It is historical theology which reports the doctrine of religion and the treatment preservation of the true doctrine and of the succession of the true Church.” (Compend. Theol. Historicae. Vinariae, 1699.) The attitude of our Church toward the modern theory of dogmatic evolution may furthermore be gathered from the attributes with which our Church invests articles of faith. H. Kromayer, for instance, writes: “We promise, 1. that the articles which one must know to be saved are articles be- not by which one believes, faith in the objective sense, that is, the doctrine which is to be accepted by faith, is meant, and not subjective faith, which apprehends the merits of Christ and is differentiated from the objects to which it is directed”). (Theol. Positivo-Polem. Lips., 1677, p.1.) Calo- vius ascribes seven attributes to the articles of faith: 1. truth and certainty; 2. sublimity, the quality of transcending the powers of apprehension of human reason; 3. incapability of being proved scientifically [Inevidenz}; 4. necessity; 5. con- nection with the way of salvation; 6. mutual relationship; 7. harmony. With respect to number 4 he states: “The articles of faith have to be believed, and hence they are unchangeable and always have the same quality, as far as that which is to be believed is concerned. ... This necessity, however, is of various kinds.” (System. I, 771 sq.) Again, our orthodox theologians definitely reject the view that there is a gradual formation of articles of faith. With of faith increase, Musaeus, for instance, states: “It does not matter that the view is expressed that the fundamental articles of faith in the Church cannot increase. This we by no means deny; on the contrary, we all confess with one mouth that everything that one must believe to be saved was already taught orally by the apostles and that it was received into the Holy Scriptures and thus handed down in written grow. .. . The truth contained in each article of faith is one and simple. The error, however, through which it may, directly or indirectly, be shaken or subverted is of various kinds and complex. The primitive Church merely taught and expounded the truth in words that were sufficiently clear, without regard to foreign and subtle, at that time neither existent nor known, interpretations, which in the course of time the impiety of men has invented for the perversion of guard the true sense of the Scriptures against the fictitious interpretations of the human mind.” (Tractatus de Ecclesia. Jenae, 1671. II, 317 sq.) J. Adam Scherzer, a Leipzig theolo- gian, writes thus: “The schoolmen say that the articles of faith grew with respect to conscious apprehension (quoad cognitionem explicitam); this is the secret and arcanum for the progress of scholastic theology.” (System. Theol. Lips., 1704, p.8.) This applies likewise to modern theology in the Lutheran Church. The assumption that dogmas are formed only gradually is its moving principle. As long as this as~ of innovations and the process of dissolution, and the return to the one old, immutable, everlasting truth of the Church universal is effectually blocked. and, furthermore, its power to generate faith in those articles, Scripture possesses 1) perfection or sufficiency, i.e., the at- tribute of containing and presenting in clear and convincing words all the dogmas which one must know and believe in order to be saved; and 2) canonical, normative authority, is truly Christian or not. Scripture, in short, is the only cri- terion for determining the Christian religion and theology,