# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S171
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 171

Concordat of 1536 to interpret this document “to their own ad-
vantage.” (572:17-18)

The second generation of Lutherans had to explain the true
and genuine meaning of the Augsburg Confession to meet a
need that arose after Luther’s death. Some theologians departed
from the Augsburg Confession “in several important and signif-
icant articles, either because they failed to grasp their true mean-
ing or because they did not abide by them. Some, while boasting
of and benefiting from their adherence to the Augsburg Confes-
sion, even dared to give a false interpretation of these articles.
This caused serious and dangerous schisms in the true evangel-
ical churches” (502:6—7). Because of this situation the authors of
the Formula 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 confession” 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
comparison 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 “fabricated slan-
ders” 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, approving, and subscribing the Formula of Concord
“as the correct Christian interpretation of the Augsburg Confes-
sion” (p. 8). Anticipating the possibility that future circum-
stances might necessitate even other “doctrinal statements,” the
authors of the Formula of Concord insisted “we do not intend,
either in this or in subsequent doctrinal statements, to depart
from the aforementioned [Augsburg] Confession or set up a dif-
ferent and new confession” (502:5). The authors of the Formula
of Concord acknowledged the Scriptures and earlier symbolical
writings to be an adequate confessional base since “the Christian
reader who really delights 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 Lutheranism, but intended only “to in-
sure 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 Augsburg Confession
“sought forcibly to adduce and pervert the Augsburg Confes-
sion so as to make it appear to be in full agreement” with their
false teaching (568:1) and that they even endeavored “to em-
ploy 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 confession
by their document, the authors of the Formula of Concord
wanted only to establish the old confession of Lutherans by ex-
plaining it correctly and applying it properly to current antithe-
ses so that “anybody with Christian intelligence can see which
opinion in the controverted issues agrees with the Word of God
and the Christian Augsburg Confession.” (503:10)

Nineteenth century Missouri Synod Lutherans followed the
precedent established by their 16th-century forebears.

Toward the middle of the 19th century Walther prepared 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 conven-
tion 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, Er-
langen) 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 introduced 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 mani-
festo of the Missouri Synod .. . . In Walther’s Kirche and Amt
spoke—and still speaks!—the entire God-blest Missouri Synod”
(W. H. T. Dau, Walther 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 ex-
press its acceptance of and adherence to the Scriptural and con-
fessional doctrine.

Thirty years later when a controversy arose concerning the
doctrine of election (predestination), a controversy that involved
antagonists not only from without the Synod, but also from
within, the Synod once again found a voice through which to
declare its Scriptural and confessional position. Between Janu-
ary 15 and May 1, 1880, Walther published a series of articles in
Der Lutheraner on the doctrine in dispute. At the synodical con-
vention in Fort Wayne, May 11-21, 1881, these articles by
Walther, called “Thirteen Theses,” were read, discussed, and
adopted by the Synod (1881 Proceedings, pp. 35-41) as the doc-
trine of the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. To
the question as to what steps would need to be taken against
those who regarded the position of the Synod as false doctrine,
the convention replied that in case they failed to heed admoni-
tion they would eventually be expelled from the synodical fel-
lowship (1881 Proceedings, pp. 42-43). The Synod had a voice
that spoke with Scriptural and confessional authority, and the
Synod required as a condition of membership that this voice be
recognized as Scriptural and confessional.

In adopting such doctrinal statements which expressed the
Scriptural and confessional position of the Synod, the Synod
acted in a way that is not only permitted but even encouraged
by the confessional writings of the Lutheran church. When the
authors of the Formula of Concord listed the earlier Symbols to
which they committed themselves, they immediately added:
“This, or course, does not mean that other good, useful, and pure
books, such as interpretations of the Holy Scriptures, refutations
of errors, and expositions of doctrinal articles, should be re-
jected. If they are in accord with the aforementioned pattern of
doctrine they are to be accepted and used as helpful expositions
and explanations.” (506:10)

Since it is not unconfessional to accept and use writings
which conform to the confessional pattern of the doctrine, it is
therefore not unconstitutional. Article II of the Synod’s Consti-
tution commits the Synod and every member of the Synod to
the pattern of doctrine in our Symbols. If in accordance with a
right that the Symbols themselves grant, the Synod accepts and
uses writings which agree with and uphold the confessional pat-
tern of doctrine in order to show that the Synod in fact and not
merely formally adheres to the confessional pattern of doctrine,
then this, far from being unconstitutional, is the very thing that
our commitment to the Symbols in Article II of the Constitution
calls upon us to do!

“If they are in accord with the aforementioned patterns of
doctrine”—this is the single condition for acceptance and use
by the Synod of doctrinal statements. Nowhere do our Symbols
even hint that a doctrinal statement depends for its validity upon
unanimous acceptance, i.e., acceptance by everyone. If this were
the condition for accepting and, using doctrinal statements there
would be no creed, no confession in all of Christendom! Not
even Luther’s articles were accepted by everyone at Smalcald—
they were accepted “unanimously” only by those present who
agreed with them! The very purpose of a vote in connection
with doctrinal statements is precisely to determine how many
“unanimously” (with one mind) agree with them and how many
do not—it is never the purpose of a vote to validate a doctrinal
statement. Nor do doctrinal statements come into being and fi-
nally get adopted by negotiating a position acceptable to every-
one. When it comes to accepting doctrinal statements the only
factor that Lutherans, who take seriously their commitment to
the Scriptures and the Symbols, dare take into consideration is
whether or not such statements “are in accord with the afore-
mentioned pattern of doctrine.”

If they “are in accord with the aforementioned pattern of
doctrine” the church must accept and use doctrinal statements
especially in times of controversy for the purpose of restraining
contentious men who spread dissentions, in order to afford guid-
ance to troubled and confused Christians, and for the sake of
posterity.

The authors of the Formula of Concord prepared their doc-
trinal statement because they thought that “the most acute and