# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1971_S235
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

PRESIDENT’S REPORT 235

the only source of Christian truth from which we can actu-
ally draw reliable facts, the only rule and norm of all faith
and life, and the supreme judge, rendering the final decision
in all controversies on any points of faith.

No special proof is necessary for these statements among
those who want to be true Protestants. But the Scriptural
principle mentioned above is unequivocably rejected by all
those modern theologians who claim that dogmas are gradu-
ally formulated and finally established by the unanimous
consent and decisions of the Church. Their opinion is that,
as long as the Church has not yet definitely spoken, certain
dogmas cannot be considered as conclusively settled, because
they are “still pending and unfinished,” “still in a nascent
stage,” “not yet fundamental doctrines,” “for the time being
only private and individual points of view which in them-
selves may be well-founded Christian convictions and the
current results of conscientious and faithful Bible-study,”
and consequently “differing opinions and convictions are not
only unavoidable but also justified and permissible, since the
question regarding their Scripturalness is still undecided.”
Therefore, they say, since these dogmas are still “open ques-
tions,” every one must have the privilege of exercising his
“pyermissible ecclesiastical freedom” therein, or “perhaps it
would be better to exclude altogether from the Christian
pulpit those points which are most in dispute.”

From their point of view, then, any one has the liberty to
accept or reject what God has revealed and decided in His
Word as long as the Church has not yet spoken and rendered
her decision; but as soon as the Church has spoken, all lib-
erty has come to an end!

This hypothesis fills every Christian with consternation,
because he not only believes that the Bible contains the
Word of God, but that the Bible is the Word of God and
because he clearly discerns the destructive consequences
which accompany the theory under consideration. This hy-
pothesis is also diametrically opposed to the perspicuity,
power, perfection, canonicity, and authority of Holy Writ.
Scripture calls itself a light, a lamp, the sure testimony of the
Lord, making wise the simple, 2 Pet. 1:19; Ps. 119:105; 19:8.
It declares itself to be quick and powerful and sharper than
any two-edged sword, Heb.4:12. The apostle testifies that
the Holy Scriptures make one wise unto salvation and thor-
oughly furnish the man of God unto all good works, 2 Tim.
3:15-17. Scripture lays a curse upon those who add or de-
tract anything from it, Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18, 19. God through
the prophet calls to those who consult the dead: “To the Law
and the Testimony! If they speak not according to this Word,
it is because there is no light in them,” Is. 8:20. Christ causes
Abraham to answer the petition of the rich man in hell with
the words “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear
them. If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will
they be persuaded though one rose from the dead,” Luke 16:
29, 31. The apostle writes at the close of his doctrinal dis-
cussion: “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace
be on them and mercy, and upon the Israel of God,” Gal.
6:16. Scripture speaks of itself as the river of the city of
God which is full of water. Ps. 46:4; 65:9. — Against all these
powerful divine testimonies the theory according to which
dogmas are built up gradually through decisions of the
Church rises in opposition. It substitutes the Church for
Scripture, man and his decision for God and the divine
decision. And this substitution surrenders the foremost prin-
ciple of true Protestantism and adopts the principle of the
antichristian Papacy, with all its errors and abominations, as
the foundation of our Church.

But thanks be to God! Our Church has definitely rejected
that theory thetically and antithetically both in its public
Confessions and in the private writings of its faithful
servants.

Our Church, accordingly, begins her confession in the
Formula of Concord with the following words: “We believe,
teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according
to which all dogmas together with (all) teachers should be
estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scrip-
tures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is
written, Ps.119:105: ‘Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and
a light unto my path.’ And St. Paul: ‘Though an angel from
heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be ac-
cursed,’ Gal.1:8. Other writings, however, of ancient or
modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be
regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures but all of them

together be subjected to them, and should not be received
otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show]
in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what
places, this (pure) doctrine of the prophets and apostles was
preserved.” (Trigl., p. 777.) — The Thorough Declaration calls
Scripture “the pure, clear fountain of Israel” (Trigl., p. 851).
—In the Smalcald Articles the confession of our Church
reads as follows: “For it will not do to frame articles of faith
from the works or words of the holy Fathers. ... The
rule is: The Word of God shall establish articles of faith, and
no one else, not even an angel.” (Trigl., p.467). These pro-
nouncements of our Church openly and solemnly reject the
theory that in addition to Scripture the Church also is a
source of Christian dogmas, i.e., that certain doctrines are
open questions as long as the Church has not uttered her
decisive voice, but become dogmas binding upon heart and
conscience when the Church has rendered her decision. If
this supposition and procedure were correct, then articles of
faith would be established not only by the Word of God but
also by the Church.

In the following words Luther gives expression to the
voice of our Church on the right of establishing articles of
faith through councils or otherwise: “The Christian Church
has no power to set up any article of faith; she has never
done so and will never attempt it. All articles of faith are
revealed in Holy Scripture, making it unnecessary for man
to add some supplements. The Christian Church has no
power to decree articles of faith like a judge or a supreme
authority; she has never yet done so and will never attempt
it.” (Article on the Power of the Christian Church, A.D.
1530, beginning with the following introductory sentence:
“Dr. M. Luther, pastor of the holy church in Wittenberg, is
ready to defend the following points against the whole satanic
brood and all the gates of hell,” XIX:958.) On the power of
the Church assembled in councils Luther furthermore wrote:
“In the first place, a church council has no power to set up
new articles of faith, in spite of the fact that the Holy Spirit
is present in the sessions. Even the Apostolic Council in
Jerusalem (Acts 15:11) established no new article of faith;
St. Peter merely pointed out the fact that all their forefathers
had also believed this same article — salvation alone through
the grace of Christ without the works of the Law. In the
second place, a Church council has the power and the duty
to suppress and condemn new articles of faith according to
the will of God in Holy Writ and the example of the faithful
fathers.”” (Essay on Councils and Churches, A. D. 1539, XVI:
2250.) All true servants of our Church follow Luther in this
judgment. Thus Baier, one of the later servants of our
Church, says: “It is manifest that the work of councils does
not consist in establishing new dogmas, but in expounding,
confirming, and defending the revealed dogmas in clear,
idiomatie speech.” (Com. Th. Posit., UI, 13, 31.)

Ancient councils, indeed, at times adopted the phraseology
of the Apostolic Council: “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost
and to us” (Acts 15:28), but J. Dan. Arcularius has written
correctly: “Although the words ‘The Holy Spirit has passed
judgment in this question,’ etc., have been used repeatedly
in many councils and confessions of faith, yet our Church
has never used these words, neither in the Augsburg Con-
fession nor in the Thorough Declaration; she has always cited
the words of Scripture, because they are the foundation upon
which her doctrine rests.” (The Unbiased Confession of
Faith, etc., 1692, p.131f.) Therefore Dannhauer, who refers
to Arcularius on this question, expressed himself in the fol-
lowing manner: “Athanasius says: ‘In the question concerning
the celebration of Easter the Nicene Fathers did not hesitate
to add: “We have decided [visum est], that all ought to
submit themselves”; but in regard to faith they did not
write: “We have decided”; but: “The Catholic Church be-
lieves.”’ And therefore the deciding authority of councils
is not that of a judge but that of a servant in points of faith
which can be contradicted by a single Paphnutius if he
teaches something on the basis of Scripture which is more
correct.” (Christeis. Proth., p. 94.)

In like manner our Church has always consistently re-
fused to consider the demand that it should wait for the
“decision” of a council or of the Church before it accepts or
rejects any point in an article of faith. Therefore Luther
wrote: “This is a strong argument which disconcerts many.
They know our doctrine is right and are unable to advance
anything against it. Yet they stand before us like an old