# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1875_S24
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— 24 —

contradicts, would not the dissolution of church fellowship also have to follow? the answer was: The chiliasm that Pfeiffer calls subtle does not contradict the confession. As long as someone lets the articles of faith stand, for example that the Savior can come to judgment on any day, one can regard his hope as vain, indeed, but not as heretical. Before the time of Spener and the Pietists one distinguished (as the citation above from J. Gerhard also shows) only between the gross or Epicurean and the subtle chiliasm, both of which were rejected as heretical. Spener's hope of better times has no similarity with it. The orthodox, for example a Neumann, condemned also this under the name *Chiliasmus subtilissimus*, but went too far in that, since they could at most have rejected it as unfounded, as Pfeiffer designates the subtle chiliasm as false and erroneous, indeed, but not as heretical.

Some pointed out here how dangerous, according to the experience of the various synods, even such dreams of the most subtle chiliasm are. Even the hope of better times for the church near at hand would have its influence on a pastor's work, would be the beginning of chiliasm, and therefore one must resist it. The danger connected with such a hope was not denied, but it was pointed out that this thesis does not speak of that, but of chiliasm, and that the word "chiliasm" has a historical sense. Although many (like Neumann) have already called such a hope "chiliasm," it is nevertheless not properly chiliasm; for by chiliasm one understands a heretical doctrine of hope which overturns articles of faith. As splendid as it is when we stand as one man against false doctrine, we must nevertheless not forget that we cannot treat an error that does not touch an article of faith as heresy. For to oppose it earnestly, as the thesis says, means precisely to declare: You are a false teacher, and if you stubbornly persist in your false teaching you must leave your office. As an example of a non-heretical hope it was cited: if someone among us cherished the hope that the Synodical Conference [*Synodalconferenz*] would one day yet swallow up all the Lutheran synods of this country, it would certainly not occur to us to terminate church fellowship with such a person, if he otherwise confesses all the articles of faith with us.

The question was now put: May one practice pulpit fellowship [Kanzelgemeinschaft] with a preacher who is indeed a member of a body in which chiliasm is tolerated, but who himself rejects this false doctrine and also declares it against others? The answer was: That would be unionism-mongering [Unionisterei]. It could happen only if such a member is in a status of confession, that is, if he declared openly to his synod: I reject this doctrine, but since I cannot reasonably expect that