# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_November 1858_S328
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

328 Against Chiliasm etc.

bind such men as do not at all make the symbols into a norm for
interpreting Scripture in themselves, and do not wish in any way to
restrict inquiry into Scripture. Our meaning is thus by no means that
a Lutheran must interpret Scripture according to the symbols, because
these, as the confession of the true church, are to be recognized by
everyone as the norm of scriptural interpretation; but rather: that a
teacher can be regarded as a servant of our church only so long as he
sees himself bound not to depart, in his interpretation of Scripture,
from the doctrine of our church — precisely because he is convinced of
its truth, its scriptural character, its divinity.” (See “Lehre und
Wehre,” volume for 1855, pp. 231, 232.) Holding fast to the “formal
principle of the evangelical Reformation,” namely that Scripture is
the sole rule and standard and judge in all questions of what is true
and right, what is error and sin, and following it in all its
consequences, we mean, with the propositions: “Lutherans as such do
not interpret their symbols according to Scripture, but rather
Scripture according to their symbols,” to oppose only those who wish
to lay claim to being Lutheran preachers, although they, under the
title of “interpretation,” correct the symbols out of Scripture and
believe they have found in Scripture, by way of their interpretation,
a different doctrine than that of the symbols, and therefore believe
they must teach it. We mean thereby to signify to them that they can
call and be Lutheran preachers only so long as they find in the
churchly confession that analogy of the faith to which every prophecy
must conform. Rom. 12:7. We take the liberty here of referring to the
more extensive answer that we gave, in response to an attack in the
Erlangen journal, in “Lehre und Wehre” (the July and August numbers of
the first volume). Moreover, although older, unimpeachable theologians
have, as we have shown, expressed the very same thing, we are
nevertheless, for the sake of the evidently possible misunderstandings
that our manner of speaking can occasion, quite willing from the heart
to abstain from this manner of speaking henceforth; just as we hereby
sincerely assure Mr. Lic. Ströbel that we will always rejoice most
heartily when he, in the future too, subjects our doctrine and
practice, so far as it becomes known to him, to the strictest
criticism; we by no means consider ourselves people who could not err,
and we wish gladly to be, and to remain, our fellow believers'
disciples. 1 Cor. 14:29–31.

“Against Chiliasm.
No. II.
Against the Rev. Pastor Löhe's Sermon on Phil. 3:7–11.
By J. Diedrich.”

Under this title there has appeared, from Dörffling and Franke in
Leipzig, a small pamphlet of 20 pages in octavo, in which the author of
the tract: “Against Chilia-