# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1857_S348
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— Page 348 —

Pastor Schieferdecker: it had often seemed, in the course of the
proceedings, as though one were not even permitted to hold these
hopes; that was what had moved him to state it at this question, so
that he would not be reserving something in his heart, and so that
everyone, on hearing his "Yes," would understand it to mean he was
abandoning all hope of a blessed kingdom of Christ here on earth. He
wished to be honest. He could not and would not deny what he held in
his own conviction and in his heart, and he did not believe this hope
conflicted with the analogy of faith. Everyone must grant the right
that, when someone is asked to give the ground and account of his
faith, he give such an answer as best corresponds to his own
understanding. The Synod could now decide whether the addition was
against the analogy of faith or not.

An objection was raised against this procedure: if the Synod departed
again from the path it had taken and invited and allowed Pastor
Schieferdecker to give further explanations, one would be thrown back
again on Pastor Schieferdecker's spoken, fleeting remarks. Enough had
already been negotiated with Pastor Schieferdecker by word of mouth;
it must now be judged, on the basis of his written answer, whether
this was against the analogy of faith or not.

Against Pastor Schieferdecker's statement it was remarked: he says he
made the additions because, as a Christian, he has the right to give
account of the hope that is in him; but that is not what he has done —
rather, he has evaded an honest Christian confession. He says "Yes,"
but avoids the honest confession. It is a terrible thing when a
Christian does not give a plain confession to such a question, one
that must fall as "Yes" or "No." He says "Yes," but reserves for
himself a whole set of chiliastic views that he wishes to keep while
still appearing to be an orthodox Christian. No one wishes to judge
his intentions, only to judge his words. If that is not what he means,
let him retract the addition. That is what the old theologians also
demanded in the case of Seidenbecher.

It must be insisted that he give an unqualified "Yes" to the question;
if he cannot do that, let him say "No."

Despite all his qualifications, this much is certain on examining his
clauses: that they expressly confess the chiliasm that Pfeiffer, in
his treatise, calls the "crude" kind. The whole principle of chiliasm
is fully present in them. Were we to accept this answer, we would
thereby be confessing chiliasm ourselves.

As long as Pastor Schieferdecker does not speak a plain "Yes" to our
faith, he cannot be regarded as a brother. Great harm would result if
the Synod allowed Pastor Schieferdecker to go on qualifying his
answers indefinitely.

It was again pressed that Pastor Schieferdecker answer "Yes" or "No"
to each question; if he did not answer "Yes," he could not be regarded
as a brother in the faith.

He must declare that everything he had added was not meant as a
limitation of the "Yes," but that he simply confesses the Christian
faith. Everyone could plainly see, however, that unless a change
occurred in him, he could not do this. For on the second question he
says "Yes," but stumbles over the words "without exception." It might
now seem that he has in mind some miracle that would occur, one by
which, before the general resurrection of the righteous and the
unright[eous]—