# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1882_S63
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— 63 —

Synodical Conference was not presented as a subject to which the Synodical Conference is yet to be converted. The intention was rather that, on the basis of the theses, one might in a later doctrinal discussion go more deeply into the doctrine in question. Here, however, this confession of the Missouri Synod, like the declarations of the synods of Wisconsin and Minnesota, is laid before the Conference with the request that it express itself on whether these synods have made a correct and biblical confession on the doctrine. If it then turns out that a member of the Conference cannot agree, that is for the Conference a necessity to deliberate on the doctrine. The declarations of the synods named are, after all, not so unknown, and moreover what they believe is set out in them simply, clearly and plainly. The Conference ought to give a judgment on the declarations in question. In addition, this morning only one person declared that he could not agree, namely Pastor Muus, and he has been given time to examine the declarations before us of the synods of Wisconsin and Minnesota carefully.

Pastor Muus was therefore now asked how he stood on the matter.

He answered: "When I am asked whether I can accept the declaration of the Wisconsin and Minnesota synods, I first take up what is said (see above, p. 58 f.) from the words: 'Concerning eternal election Holy Scripture teaches the following,' to the words: 'That is the doctrine of Scripture concerning election.' I do not know whether I should agree to this or reject it. But if the statement (above, page 59) about 'in view of faith' is added as well, then I reject this presentation."

When Pastor Muus was then asked how this was to be explained: he rejected the presentation if the concluding sentence were added; but the longer declaration states expressly: This election is a cause of salvation, etc.; does that not exclude the "intuitu fidei"? — — Pastor Muus replied to this: "I do not wish to go into this matter in so short a time. I do not understand how I can be expected to discuss this doctrine, about which so much has been written, in a short time, and to settle it with a short statement."

Since Pastor Muus did not take up the refutation of the sentence objected to, the Conference recognized that nothing now stood in the way of proceeding to the vote. It was considered advisable, however, not to vote on the whole of the Wisconsin and Minnesota synodical reports at once. Therefore first