# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1904_S18
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

18 Proceedings of the twentieth convention

Spener is undoubtedly right when he writes: "Where there are sins that the preacher holds in his conscience to be sin, but cannot demonstrate the matter from God's Word so that the other's conscience is convinced or all excuse taken from him . . ., where the question concerns matters that are in themselves indifferent things [*Mitteldinge*, adiaphora], but may be used to another's offense, and it then comes to a dispute whether it is really an offense or not, there, I think, one must proceed with great caution, so that one does neither too much nor too little in the matter. In my opinion the father confessor may and should set before the person that which he holds to be sinful in him, and give his reasons, whether the person might also be convinced in his conscience of the sins and brought to knowledge of them. If he is touched by it and recognizes the sin, then it is a matter as with others too, where the sins are acknowledged, that is, confessed. But if he is not convinced . . ., then I think it enough that the father confessor declare his regret that he cannot grasp it, and after sufficient reminder of his conscience and warning about the danger, since his heart is so disposed . . ., let him admit him to the enjoyment of the goods that he can deny to no one whose sin could not be proved to the conscience from God's Word." (Ibid. IV, 63.)

Spener speaks here of indifferent things whose use lies within Christian liberty; that their use becomes sin when the neighbor is thereby offended, where then the sin lies not in the thing but in the use, he does not wish to contest. The knowledge that the abuse of Christian liberty, thus e.g. where the neighbor is thereby offended, is sin, Scripture gives; but whether in the individual case an abuse is present, whether someone is really offended, is always a question, and the answer to the question depends on the necessary insight into the circumstances and on the spiritual discernment of him to whom the use of Christian liberty is open, or who, for love's sake, has to refrain from it. Spener judges accordingly in the words cited above. Where matters are concerned that according to Scripture are simply sin, what Spener says here is of course not to apply. If a false teacher, or perjurer, or thief were to declare that he could not see that what he had done and still does is sin, he is to be regarded either as a thoroughly hardened villain or as a fool. His declaration of not understanding could never open to him access to Holy Communion.

If we set this aside, we see nevertheless that this passage of Scripture, 1 Cor. 10:14–11:1, sharpens consideration for the congregation in partaking of the Sacrament. It is, as Luther writes, a meal of fellowship. "Fellowship here means the common good, in which many are partakers and which they enjoy, as that which is given among them all in common. . . . Hence it has also been called Communion from of old." Someone who