# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1851_S184
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— 184 —

theses, his view of election by grace and his departure from the Formula of Concord, but instead only complained in general terms about the charge of Calvinist heresy and asserted his agreement with Luther, the Synod was once again obliged to lay before him, as the condition without which it could enter into no disputation with him, the drafting of definite theses. After this had been done, his answer came back through Pastor Klügel that he had wanted no disputation, but only demanded proof that, in the writings exchanged with Pastor Grabau, the Missourians had accused him of the Calvinist heresy. The Synod voted to let this proof be given to him by those members of the Synod who were willing to stay on beyond the close of the sessions, since no more time was left for it before the sessions closed. Since this closes what was negotiated on this matter within the session period, the rest does not belong in the Synodal-Bericht either. The proof demanded by Pastor Klügel was given to him so conclusively that he himself had to acknowledge that his teaching was nothing other than Calvinism; since, however, he kept on and on appealing to the fact that Luther had taught the same thing in his book against Erasmus, *De servo arbitrio* [On the Bondage of the Will], and called for a new edition of it, it was promised that this would gladly be helped and contributed to — only that in the new edition the deviations of the German translation from the original Latin text would be noted.

Indianapolis Synod.

Our relationship to this synodical body came up for discussion as a result of a petition sent in by Pastor Fr. Eppling requesting admission into our synodical fellowship. Since he stands in the closest working relationship with Pastor Wichmann, a member of the Indianapolis Synod, and works alongside him in one and the same field, it appears uncanonical that they should not also belong to one and the same synodical fellowship. Our Synod regards this anomaly as urgent grounds for reaching clarity in its relationship to the Indianapolis Synod. For if it is established that it is one with us in doctrine and practice, then no separation other than a territorial one could any longer be permitted between it and us; or in other words: only one's actual place of residence should determine which synodical body one joins. For among those who are alike and united in doctrine, no separation is permitted other than one brought about by territorial circumstances — cities, villages, parishes, districts, and so on. A separation resting instead on favoritism toward persons would fall into the category of the Cephas-ism, Paul-ism, and Apollos-ism [1 Cor. 1:12] that the apostle rebukes.

Since, for these stated reasons, our Synod considered it good and necessary to extend a hand to the Indianapolis Synod toward establishing a proper church relationship, a delegation to the next meeting of the Indianapolis Synod this coming fall was resolved for this purpose, and brothers Crämer and Fürbringer were appointed as delegates. It is to be left to the presidium to appoint a substitute for either of these two delegates should the need arise.