# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1857_S333
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— Page 333 —

Further on in his letter, Pastor Gruber repeated, with reference to
Romans 11:25–26, the claim that this passage speaks of a still-future
conversion of Israel; and Pastor Schieferdecker complained that the
Synod of the Western District, in the first of its resolutions, had
made this hope a sin for consciences.

Against this it was shown, on the one hand, that the resolution by no
means condemned anyone's holding that hope, but rather taught that,
on the basis of Romans 11 and other passages, a general — or
unprecedented and especially numerous — conversion of the Jews before
the Last Day must be hoped for [as a requirement]; and on the other
hand, it was established through the deputy W. that Pastor
Schieferdecker himself had, within his congregation — though not
openly from the pulpit — insisted not merely that one could hold that
hope, but that one must.

After thorough discussion the Synod then adopted the

unanimous resolution: The Synod affirms the resolution of the Western
District, ad 1.a., according to which:

1. a proper distinction is observed between the doctrine of a still-
hoped-for general conversion of the Jews and chiliasm; and

2. what is rejected is only the claim that the Last Day cannot come
until this general conversion of the Jews has occurred, and that it
must be hoped for on the basis of Romans 11 and similar passages.

Pastor Schieferdecker alone withheld his assent. The explanation with
which he tried to justify this dissent gave rise, in turn, to a lively
debate both on the doctrinal subject itself and, in particular, on
Pastor Schieferdecker's personal position toward it. Even as he
declared his conviction that the general conversion of the Jews is
clearly prophesied in Hosea 3, Romans 11, and other passages, and that
any other interpretation does violence to the words, he admitted that
no one's conscience should be bound by it, since the matter is not an
article of faith, and a prophecy cannot be fully settled before its
fulfillment. Even as he stressed how God's honor is thereby advanced
and the Lord's prayer "Father, forgive them" thereby answered, he
conceded that his interpretation had not found general acceptance in
the Lutheran Church, and, to spare consciences, offered to remain
silent about it. Even as he repeatedly voiced his personal conviction
and refused to join in the condemnation, he admitted he could not
prove his case with fully convincing grounds, and left the final
decision as to which understanding would prove correct to the Lord.
By his own words it increasingly appeared as though he agreed with
the Synod on all essential points; a proposal was accordingly made to
drop the wording of the condemnation — as the sole remaining obstacle
to unity — and to seek some other expression satisfactory to both
sides.

Although it was repeatedly and emphatically pointed out from many
sides that only the must, not the permissibility, of hoping for a
general conversion of the Jews was rejected, Pastor Schieferdecker
still could not be persuaded to abandon his position against the
Synod. The unresolved contradictions made it plain that the
difference lay deeper than mere wording. He was therefore confronted
with the point that it was the spirit of chiliasm that relied on the