# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1874_S21
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— 21 —

the greatest danger of losing his own soul. For a Christian shall and will always place himself on God's side and declare himself against all sin. He shall and will have no fellowship with sin. Therefore what he recognizes as sin he may not let rest unchallenged. He must publicly declare it shameful. But is it then in truth so that, where no territorial delimitation exists, the preacher cannot possibly know which souls are committed to him, indeed that he can watch over them still less, in short, that he there lives on and on in gross sins? That the present living intermingled is a great evil and ought to be otherwise, who would not gladly concede that? But must one then say to all such preachers: You are stuck in these abominable sins? Is it then correct in principle to say: the apostolic division into parishes is of such a kind that, where it is not, where we poor bunglers do not help to bring it about by this order, God's will cannot be carried out? Is that not exceedingly burdensome to conscience?

And how could one, according to the third reason, achieve through geographical delimitation that Christians do not attach themselves to different preachers because of their gifts and separate on that account? This could surely be attained in no other way than that our congregations learn to recognize what God's Word is, namely the power of God to save, and that it has this power also in the mouth of an ungifted preacher, just as well as when it is proclaimed in the neighboring congregation with Apollos-like eloquence.

In the same way, according to the fourth reason, only the exercise of proper church discipline can be attained.

The reasons therefore say too much. The Thesis itself is correct, but the question is whether it should be so grounded, and whether one does not thereby burden consciences. One should not press human orders so. Such expressions should be used that it does not appear as though we held it to be a divine order.

Moreover it is remarkable that, while in the first three reasons all possibility is cut off, in the fourth reason it is said: "Through lack of a boundary line enclosing the congregation, wholesome church discipline is, if not made impossible, yet often hindered and made difficult." Since now the matters named in the first three points are of quite the same kind as in the fourth point, this shows that the author of the Theses wants to say, in the first three reasons also, really nothing other than this: these things are, if not made impossible, yet often hindered and made difficult. It was therefore proposed to alter the first three points accordingly.

That was the opinion on one side. Against it the following was now urged: