# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1874_S10
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— 10 —

sequences. Yes, we must go still further. For if a doctrine is not contained in the Augsburg Confession at all, but can be clearly proved from Holy Scripture, we must believe it just as much as another that is expressly named in the Augsburg Confession. For we would then be an outright sect, indeed the most disgraceful church fellowship, if we did not wish to believe more than what is expressly confessed and named in the Augsburg Confession. What stands in the Symbols we accept only because it stands in Scripture; but what stands in Scripture we accept eo ipso (in and of itself). And if it has already happened in those days that Adiaphorists, Syncretists, Synergists, etc., professed the Augsburg Confession, which does not at all claim to be a list of all the doctrines necessary to salvation, accepted it and swore to it, and yet held fast to their errors, we need not wonder if this also happens now, and indeed more than then. But if our fathers did not tolerate this then, we also should not tolerate it now, and may therefore hold no church fellowship with those who deny the consequences of the Augsburg Confession. Drawing inferences is not a new practice, but a practice in which not only the fathers but the LORD Himself has gone before us, in that, against the Pharisees and Sadducees, He proves the resurrection by an inference from Matt. 22:29–32 and from Exodus 3:6, and His divinity from Psalm 110.

As regards the word "logically" [folgerichtig] in the 5th Thesis, it called forth a more detailed discussion, because it was feared that this word might not cover everything that was meant to be expressed in this Thesis. But it soon became clear to all that other expressions would either say only the same or less, or would merely obscure the matter. It is certain that we may arrive at no result in our conclusions that contradicts clear passages of Holy Scripture. But whoever thinks that he may indeed have concluded logically and yet it is possible that his result contradicts Scripture is greatly mistaken. A conclusion that leads to such a result is certainly not a compelling one, not a logical one. And this not merely because its result is excluded in advance by clear passages of Scripture, but because such a result is proof that one has not concluded correctly. For example, the inference: All men are sinners — Christ is a true man — therefore He also is a sinner — is false, because the second proposition in its relation to the first is already false. For it does not lie at all in the concept "true man" that he be a sinner. Yes, if it said and could say: Christ is a man like us, then the inference would be correct. One must apply the word "logically" not merely to the process of thought, but must also apply it to the propositions of the premises. For