# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1884_S29
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

of the Ev. Luth. Synodical Conference of North America. 1884. 27

But that changes nothing in what was said above, how the Ohioans cling idolatrously to the teachers of old. For we also know that they do not profess all and every article of the Christian faith as treated by the teachers of old, wholesale, but here only their doctrine of election. According to the Wheeling resolution the Ohioans do indeed build their faith on human authority. On the opposing side they have indeed tried to talk their way out of it by remarking: we bind to the doctrine of the Fathers that is in agreement with the doctrine of the Formula of Concord. But now the later Fathers, according to the doctrine of the opponents, teach an election in the so-called narrower sense, while the Formula of Concord, according to them, teaches an election in the so-called wider sense, or in that as well as in this sense. Thereby it is conceded that the Formula of Concord does not yet state the doctrine of the later Fathers, at least, so that whoever knows the doctrine of the Formula of Concord does not thereby also have the doctrine of the later Fathers. Thus it is clear that by the Wheeling resolution consciences are bound to something they do not know; for the Formula of Concord, as is well known, does not use the Intuitu fidei, but says, on the contrary, that faith follows from election and does not precede it. Against this they appeal only to the Fathers, giving to understand that these would certainly have understood the Formula of Concord correctly. So they carry the Intuitu fidei from the Fathers into the Formula of Concord and through the Formula of Concord into Holy Scripture. We can therefore withdraw our accusation that Ohio practices idolatry with the Fathers only if it retracts its confession and says only that it professes the writings of the Fathers insofar and so far as they agree with Scripture and the Confession, which of course says next to nothing as regards the faith and doctrine of the Fathers. But without such a change of their confession all glosses are of no avail, and our heavy accusation stands before God and men.

One thing is, however, quite comforting about the Wheeling Synod, that its leaders had to strike from the declaration or their confession the words: "We reject all contrary doctrine." Several opposed this, namely. It was too strong for them. And they had to strike it. From this one sees that the gentlemen are not sure of their cause. For he who is must say: If this is alone right, then everything else is false and must be rejected. But the very correctness of their doctrine they could not make clear to the simple. Would to God we could now lance the evil ulcer in the Ohio Synod, so that the upright might come to themselves and become free of this servile yoke. But though Ohio, wherever it can be done, wishes to reap where many have sown, we as faithful Lutherans, who always do only that to which we have a calling, can and will not here repay like with like.