# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1973_S112 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 112 RESOLUTIONS tions of her official Confessions.” added.) At Augsburg in the year 1530 A. D. the first genera- tion of Lutherans promised, “If anyone should consider that [our Confession] is lacking in some respect, we are ready to present further information on the basis of the divine Holy Scripture.” (Tappert, Book of Concord, p. 96:7) The first generation of Lutherans kept this promise and fulfilled the obligation to explain the AC when there was need to do so. “An extensive Apology was pre- pared and published in 1531 to set forth clearly the true and genuine meaning of the Augsburg Confession with a view ... to forestalling the possibility that under the name of the Augsburg Confession someone might sur- reptitiously undertake to insinuate into the church err- ors that had already been rejected” (504:6). For a meeting of theologians in Smalcald in 1537 Luther drafted some articles in which “the doctrine of the cited Augsburg Confession is repeated, [and] several articles are further explained on the basis of God’s Word” (505:7) in order that in this way, for one thing, those who disagreed with the Lutheran doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper might be prevented from employing the loop- holes in the Wittenberg Concordat of 1536 to interpret this document “to their own advantage.” (572:17—18) The second generation of Lutherans had to explain the true and genuine meaning of the Augsburg Con- fession to meet a need that arose after Luther’s death. Some theologians departed from the Augsburg Con- fession “in several important and significant articles, either because they failed to grasp their true meaning or because they did not abide by them. Some, while boasting of and benefiting from their adherence to the Augsburg Confession, even dared to give a false inter- pretation of these articles. This caused serious and dan- gerous schisms in the true evangelical churches” (502:6 —T1). Because of this situation the authors of the For- mula of Concord said, “Since within the past twenty- five years a number of divisions have occurred among some of the theologians of the Augsburg Confession... we wanted to set forth and explain our faith and con- fession” in order to “enable the pious reader, as far as is necessary, to compare our present position with the aforementioned doctrinal writings” for “such a compari- son will show him clearly that there is no contradiction between what we taught and confessed originally and afterward expounded as occasion demanded and what we now report in this document.” (507—508: 19—20) Sixteenth century Lutherans did not permit “fabri- cated slanders” to the effect that they were departing from the Augsburg Confession (pp. 5—6) and the charge that they “veer[ed] from one doctrine to another” (508:20) to deter them from preparing, accepting, ap- proving, and subscribing the Formula of Concord “as the correct Christian interpretation of the Augsburg Confession” (p. 8). Anticipating the possibility that future circumstances might necessitate even other “doc- trina] statements,” the authors of the Formula of Con- (P. 31, emphasis cord insisted “we do not intend, either in this or in sub- sequent doctrinal statements, to depart from the afore- mentioned [Augsburg] Confession or set up a different and new confession” (502:5). The authors of the For- mula of Concord acknowledged the Scriptures and earlier symbolical writings to be an adequate confes- sional base since “the Christian reader who really de- lights in the truth of God’s Word will find in [them] what he should accept as correct and true... and what he should reject, flee, and avoid as false and wrong.” They did not intend by their “doctrinal statement,” therefore, to broaden the confessional base of Lutheran- ism, but intended only “to insure that the truth may be established the most distinctly and clearly . .. and likewise to ensure that familiar terminology may not hide and conceal something” (507:16). They were aware that some theologians who disagreed with the Augs- burg Confession “sought forcibly to adduce and pervert the Augsburg Confession so as to make it appear to be in full agreement” with their false teaching (568:1) and that they even endeavored “to employ terminology which is as close as possible to the formulas and speech- patterns of the Augsburg Confession” to conceal their error (569:2). Far from wanting to set up a new con- fession by their document, the authors of the Formula of Concord wanted only to establish the old confession of Lutherans by explaining it correctly and applying it properly to current antitheses so that “anybody with Christian intelligence can see which opinion in the con- troverted issues agrees with the Word of God and the Christian Augsburg Confession.” (503:10) Nineteenth century Missouri Synod Lutherans fol- lowed the precedent established by their 16th-century forebears. Toward the middle of the 19th century Walther pre- pared 19 theses on “Church and Ministry.” This treatise was prepared “to repel the attacks of Pastor Grabau of Buffalo, New York.” At Milwaukee in 1851 these theses were read to the fifth convention of the Missouri Synod and discussed in eight sessions. The Synod approved Walther’s theses and ordered their publication. When this work came from the printer (Andreas Deichert, Erlangen) it appropriately bore the title, The Voice of Our Church on the Question Concerning the Church and the Ministry, for in its pages historic Lutheranism was permitted to speak through copious quotations from the Symbols and the fathers. Since the book spoke also for the Synod that ordered its publication, it was intro- duced to its readers as “a testimony of the faith of the German Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States.” Walther regarded the work as “an official manifesto of the Missouri Synod .... In Wal- ther’s Kirche und Amt spoke —and still speaks! — the entire God-blest Missouri Synod” (W. H. T. Dau, Wal- ther and the Church, CPH, 1938, pp. 50—51). In this book the Synod found a voice to state its position on a controverted issue on the basis of the Scriptures and the Symbols, and the Synod gladly availed itself of this voice to express its acceptance of and adherence to the Scriptural and confessional doctrine.