# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1882_S77
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— 77 —

sense.' Now, if the dogmaticians themselves always say that they were speaking of an election in a different sense from the Formula of Concord, what use is it to defend them as if they held the same doctrine? They do not wish to be taken as if they wished to present the same doctrine. — And finally, it was dreadful to me to hear that works too are supposed to be a cause of eternal life. That is something so unheard of in the Lutheran Church that I have no words for it. I can only wish that dear God may enlighten dear Pastor Muus. It is too dreadful! The works 'a cause of eternal life,' he himself has said!!"

One of the brethren pointed out that Pastor Muus had indeed throughout understood and used the word "election" in a different sense from the other members of the Synodical Conference, and wished to hear from Pastor Muus what kind of doctrine of election he actually held.

A delegate who had the floor offered to waive it, in case Pastor Muus would express himself on this. Since Pastor Muus was unwilling to do so, the delegate in question remarked how thoroughly inadequate it had been how Pastor Muus had sought to cover his equating of the Fathers and the Confession with it; the agreement of the teachers of the church with the Confession was surely so important a matter. That had been no justification of his statement, which ought rather to be rejected generally by the whole Conference as a belittling of the Symbols.

Another member of the Conference reminded Pastor Muus that he should not act and speak as if one might no longer appeal to Holy Scripture here. He could well enough know that we intend to remain with Holy Scripture.

Another remarked: It seems to me that a principal fault in Pastor Muus is that he does not see the difference between the doctrine of the old dogmaticians and of the more recent opponents of our doctrine of election of grace. —

Thereupon a Norwegian member of the Conference gave this to consider: all the representatives of the synods now present, with the exception of one single person, were indeed ready and prepared, each for himself, to vote now and to give their assent to the protests of the Missouri, Wisconsin and Minnesota synods, and also willing to bear the disgrace that might come upon the confessors of these protests on account of them. But would it not nevertheless be better to issue no official declaration on the doctrine of election of grace? One could perhaps first discuss the doctrine after all, and so forestall opponents who would put the worst construction on it: that a vote had been taken without discussing the doctrine.

To this it was objected that a vote here was not a declaration, for example, of the Hon. Norwegian Synod; it has