# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1882_S39
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— 39 —

matter, time is spent here on formalities, and a procedure is adopted that amounts to settling the matter by a simple vote.

To this it was replied: Pastor Muus refutes himself in speaking of a brotherly discussion. Of such a thing there can be no question any longer with Prof. Schmidt; he has himself made it impossible, in that he has declared us publicly to be no longer brothers but enemies, destroyers of the Kingdom of God and rejecters of the Gospel, yes, regards us as people full of malice, lies, cunning and hypocrisy. If, however, he takes this back, we shall dispute with him as with a brother who errs. For this he need not take back a jot of his own doctrine beforehand. About that we will then negotiate with him.

Thereupon Pastor Rasmussen declared: I was greatly surprised that it has come to this, that the real reason why Prof. Schmidt should not be admitted as a delegate is to be not his blasphemous doctrine, which one wants to disregard entirely; the real reason is to be that Prof. Schmidt has reviled the doctrine of election, which God's Word and the Confession teach, as Calvinistic. Now it stands in the Missouri protest: either Schmidt must be a synergist from the start, and then he cannot do otherwise than revile the right doctrine of election, or he must have fallen into synergism. Then he again naturally cannot do otherwise. Since, then, Prof. Schmidt from his standpoint, from his doctrine, simply cannot do otherwise than revile the doctrine of the Missourians, it is not to be understood why Schmidt's doctrine is not the ground of the protest, since the reviling is a consequence of his doctrine. It is surely more old-Missourian to say: Prof. Schmidt's false doctrine is the reason why we do not wish to sit together with him. — Further, so much weight is laid on Schmidt's hostile polemic. Now, I will not defend all his expressions, indeed I am of the opinion that such a manner of fighting hinders the purpose of winning others for the truth. But I must wonder here too that so much weight is laid on it. For Schmidt shows himself in this manner of fighting a true faithful child of Missouri; in such a manner of fighting he was brought up, and I think it is not so easy to get out of it so soon. I can prove that Missouri has polemicized in the same way against its opponents. I recall only the last number of "Lehre und Wehre" [Doctrine and Defence], in which all those who come to Missouri on account of this doctrine are called godly, God-fearing people, but the opponents are nothing but godless. That is not much better than what Schmidt has done. Therefore it would be better to confess on both sides: Our hostile polemic is wrong; and then speak about the doctrine.