# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1882_S42
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— 42 —

After these remarks Pastor Rasmussen again came forward and declared that he still could not see it, indeed he must advise the Conference against it, that on account of the first ground cited in the protest Prof. Schmidt should not be permitted seat and vote in the Synodical Conference. Rather it is the Conference's duty to negotiate with Schmidt here about the doctrine. For it is after all the first time that the Synodical Conference has assembled since the outbreak of the controversy. Therefore this is the right place to examine the matter, especially since Schmidt is a lawfully elected delegate of the Norwegian Synod. It is wrong that the Conference does not wish to enter into doctrinal discussion with Schmidt. If there is a ground for accusation against Schmidt, it can be brought forward here, and then let it be seen whether he has really reviled the right doctrine or something else. Therefore may the Conference well consider whether it acts rightly in adopting the committee report or resolution before it. And when it was said a while ago by Dr. Walther: Against the lie sharp polemic is allowed, but not against the truth, I should like to remark: Prof. Schmidt is just of the opinion that he is fighting against the lie. Therefore put yourselves in his place. And when finally weight is laid on who made the beginning of this controversy, I must testify that for me and many like me the matter stands differently, and we must say: The guilt of this unhappy controversy rests on the Missouri Synod and in particular on Dr. Walther.

To this it was replied: It is absolutely incomprehensible how Pastor Rasmussen can take such a stand. To go into the last point first: We did not at all go into the question in our protest who made the beginning; but into the fact that Professor Schmidt has brought the controversy into such a stage that it is impossible to negotiate with him as a brother. Therefore we lay the whole guilt on Prof. Schmidt that he cannot be recognized here as a delegate. The other point is connected with this.

Yes, certainly! the doctrine of election is disputed, and the Synodical Conference is there to look into this dispute and settle it. It is extraordinarily regretted that no Synodical Conference had come about earlier. But who has now made it impossible that, after it has come about, we cannot negotiate with Schmidt? No one but Prof. Schmidt. The Wisconsin men never wrote against him beforehand, because they thought: Perhaps Schmidt will sooner negotiate with us, against whom he has no such distrust, than with other synods. But hardly do we simply make our declaration on election when he casts us off as Calvinists. And so that everyone may see that this has not merely slipped out of him once, he gives his words practical effect, breaks into the congregations without having admonished us;