# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_November 1858_S323
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Ströbel and “Lehre und Wehre.” 323

-bution formula for administering the Holy Supper” — all in the
first volume; further: “Some Glosses on Bunsen's Aphorisms and his Position
and Task regarding the German Nation and Theology”; “Consubstantiation
and Impanation” (very good); “The Obligation to the Confessional
Documents of the Church and Free Theological Scholarship,” by Hoyer,
and: “Dr. Seyffarth's Corrections to Ancient, especially Hebrew, History
and Chronology, with Introductory Remarks on the Relation of Scholarship
to Holy Scripture,” by Pastor A. Hoppe — both to be admitted only cum
grano salis; “A plea for the Augsburg Confession” (“Defense of the
Augsburg Confession”), a good defense by Hoyer against the platform
party; “The Broken Platform” (“The Bankrupt Platform”); “In, With, and
Under” (against the Calvinists); “Is That Really the Theology of the
American-Lutheran Church?” (by Heyer); “Is He to Be Declared a Heretic
or Dangerous False Teacher Who Does Not Hold and Declare All the Books
Contained in the Collection of the New Testament to Be Canonical?” (by
Walther); “On the Doctrine of the Election of Grace and Some Matters
Connected with It,” by Pastor O. Fürbringer; “On the Efficacy of the
Sacraments,” by Prof. Crämer; “On the Difference Between the Essential
and the Nonessential in Doctrine” — the last-named essays are to be
found in the volumes for 1856 and 1857.

So much for Ströbel. — In what follows he now raises two objections.
The first concerns the general Lutheran conference proposed in “Lehre
und Wehre.” Ströbel sees in the choice of this means, as he calls it, a
wanting to “help God along,” a “Davidic census of Israel, in order,
through the united power of the believers, to confront the unbelieving
throng,” a “wanting to see the seven thousand of the American church,”
and he says that in our remarks about it he was “strongly reminded of
the modes of expression of the Union and church federation.” From this
it is clear that Ströbel, misled by comparing German church conventions
with our conference, has formed a false picture of it and has therefore
judged it incorrectly. However surely Ströbel's objections may hit the
manner and fashion of the conferences held in Germany, they do not hit
our conference. Not one of the censured tendencies belongs to the
latter. Its purpose is the same one that the assemblies of our
church's theologians had in that time after Luther's death, when, as
the Formula of Concord writes, “some theologians departed from certain
high and prominent articles of the Augsburg Confession and either did
not attain the correct understanding of the same, or at least did not
abide by it, some also having ventured to suggest a foreign sense of
it, and yet, notwithstanding all that, wished to be of the Augsburg
Confession and to have themselves helped along and boasted of belonging
to it”; from which then grievous and harmful div-