# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1857_S345
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— Page 345 —

...third article of the Christian faith. I confess further that the
Church here on earth will have its God-ordained cross and tribulation
from the devil, the world, and the flesh until the Last Day.

I confess further that the Church must stand in constant expectation
of Christ's coming, and that the Last Day could come at any moment.

My stated view on the thousand years in the Revelation of St. John —
that, according to the indication given within the context of the
prophetic word itself, they lie between the final downfall of the
Antichrist and the world judgment, and can therefore hardly have
already been fulfilled — I wish to have regarded only as my private
opinion, which I do not intend to make into an article of doctrine and
faith, or to impose on anyone." —

After what had taken place, the Synod did not believe it could rest
content with this answer from Pastor Schieferdecker. The view was
that, if it were really true that Pastor Schieferdecker believed with
his whole heart the articles of faith cited in his answer, he would
also have to reject chiliasm along with the rest of us. Either Pastor
Schieferdecker was living in self-contradiction without knowing it, or
it was not as he had written. The latter was not to be believed, since
he had always shown himself sincere and honest; so the former must be
the case. Pastor Schieferdecker wished to hold on to the subtler
chiliasm; but there was reason to fear that he still held to the
crude kind as well. In this connection the following passage from
"Pfeiffer's Antichiliasmus" (2nd ed., 1729, p. 112) was read aloud:

"We call 'subtle chiliasm' the opinion of those who indeed hold that
the thousand years of Revelation 20 are not yet fulfilled, and that
the glory promised there is still to be expected, yet in such a way
that they posit no visible return of Christ to an earthly kingdom, no
personal reign, no double resurrection, etc., but only halcyonia
(that is, a still, quiet time) and a peaceful condition of the Church,
leaving the actual manner — and also the time, how long it will
properly last — up to God, as Launoy, Rall, Cocceius, Brenz, and
others do. Such chiliasm we do indeed hold to be false and mistaken,
but because the fundamental articles of the Christian faith are not
thereby touched, we do not regard it as heresy, especially when it is
treated problematice (that is, as an open question) and no one is
burdened with the opinion. Rather, the question now becomes that of
the 'intermediate chiliasm,' which we call the crude kind, etc."

Against this it was objected from another side that one must deal as
gently as possible with an erring brother, and leave the rest to God.
He does, after all, confess the doctrine of the Church in plain words.
If he still privately holds to the subtle chiliasm as his own opinion,
one cannot forbid him that; he must, after all, testify to these
articles in his congregation as he has written here, etc. Against
this, the example of Arius was raised: he would have sworn a thousand
oaths that he confessed the doctrine of Christ's divinity along with
the orthodox Church — and had he simply been believed without further
question, where, humanly speaking, would pure doctrine be today?
Definite questions must be put to him, to which he must answer Yes or
No; that much is owed to him for his own sake. He could accuse us on
the Last Day if, out of a mistaken love for him, we let him remain
stuck in his error. The Synod had already earlier agreed to concern
itself with nothing else but