# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1888_S16
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

16 Proceedings of the twelfth convention

differ from us in a single passage; if his interpretation is otherwise similar to the faith, he can be one with us. —

The matter stands quite differently when someone does not merely fail to know parts of Holy Scripture but, although he knows them, flatly denies and rejects them. If someone, e.g., denies that Balaam's ass spoke, he thereby reveals that he rejects the authority of Scripture and accepts no article of Christian doctrine because it is revealed in Scripture. Of a unity in faith with Christendom there can be no question here.

Is the confidence [*Zuversicht*] without which faith is no true faith also expressed by the word "agreement" in the thesis? Would there already be agreement in mere assent (assensus)? Answer: When we speak here of the unity in faith that is explained more closely by the "agreement in all articles of Christian doctrine," we understand by "faith" the faith worked by the Holy Spirit. This always includes confidence. There is never a part of the subjective faith worked by the Holy Spirit all by itself. Whoever has knowledge also has assent and confidence. The division of faith into notitia [knowledge], assensus [assent] and fiducia [trust] is only a conceptual one. In fact no part ever exists by itself. So in Thesis I also the fiducia is included. Where there is only an external, historical knowledge of the articles of Christian doctrine, there can be no question of Christian faith or of agreement in it with others.

Thesis II.

This unity in faith is possible, because all articles of Christian doctrine are clearly revealed in Holy Scripture.

In the midst of Christendom we have the remarkable phenomenon that the possibility of agreement in all articles of doctrine is disputed. In the union efforts, as they are now asserting themselves again, it is said openly that agreement and union on the basis of doctrine is impossible. It is said that, as far as doctrine is concerned, one may demand agreement only in some chief articles; for the rest one must content oneself with a so-called organic unity, a unity in church government, in the order of worship, and so forth. It is said that in demanding unity in doctrine we are chasing a phantom. To be sure, not all speak so openly. But at the root of all union efforts in which one disregards unity in faith and instead wants to become uniform in external matters lies also the thought that union in doctrine is impossible.