# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1857_S389
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

[p. 389]

...we reject most decisively. Just as little do we wish to let an
interpretation of the Revelation of John, in all its parts, or of other
obscure passages of Scripture not yet made clear by fulfillment —
especially when such an interpretation conflicts with chief articles of
the Christian faith — be forced upon our conscience; rather we earnestly
reject any such interpretation, and therefore agree completely with the
resolutions of the Western District Synod concerning Chiliasm.

You further claim that we, as a Synod, came close to declaring the
Revelation of John — this precious gift of Christ, this concluding book
and crown of Holy Scripture — to be the work of a cursed angel. Here too
we would like to express our deep astonishment that you, reverend
brother, could accuse us of such a sin, since we as a Synod have given
not the slightest occasion for it. Although we by no means wish to make a
biblical book, which some in the earliest Church contradicted, into an
"uncontradicted" one, or to lay it upon anyone's conscience that he must
regard such a book as canonical of the first rank — which would indeed be
a foolish, indeed a purely impossible undertaking — yet the authority of
the Revelation of John, as a writing inspired by God Himself, was not
touched by so much as a single word at the synod in Altenburg; on the
contrary, that synod refused at no point to accept and allow clear proofs
from this book of Scripture, as you yourself indeed know. We therefore
also reject this accusation as wholly groundless and false.

As for the word "Chiliasm," finally, we note that it has simply become
churchly usage to designate, by this in itself good and innocent
expression, the false doctrine and interpretation of the thousand-year
kingdom that contradicts the analogy of faith — just as, for example, the
name "Catholic" is used to designate the papists, and the term
"evangelical" the Unionists [*Unirte* — members of the Prussian Union of
Lutheran and Reformed churches]. By "Chiliasts," then, one understands
only such people as take and interpret the thousand years in such a way
that they thereby contradict other clear passages and plain statements of
Holy Scripture, overturn the analogy of faith, and violate important
articles of faith, and so plainly set up false doctrine. The first
Christians, who held to the clear passages of Scripture and by no means
let themselves be led astray in conscience and faith by obscure ones, did
not do this; therefore they were not Chiliasts. Christ's word concerning
the thousand years indeed stands firmer than heaven and earth; but when
we reject and condemn the false chiliastic interpretation of this word,
by what right can you reproach us with thereby blasphemously making
Christ Himself into a heretic?! Must we not, rather, say exactly the same
of so-called Chiliasm?

Your appeal to an essay by the esteemed Dr. Rudelbach cannot in the least
sway us here, however highly we otherwise value this man; for our faith
rests not on human authority, but on the clear, certain Word of God,
which abides forever. We cannot, however, suppress the remark that the
claim — that the now-general (chiliastic) view of the Revelation of John
has become "ecclesiastically established" in our evangelical Church — has
not the slightest justification whatsoever. For as long as doctrinal
discipline was exercised in our Church, nothing was known of Chiliasm
within its bounds, or it was rejected and condemned with the utmost
earnestness. Has this now changed since the rise of Pietism, and has
Chiliasm in our time become so widespread in...