# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1916_S73
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

of the Ev. Luth. Synodical Conference of North America. 1916. 73

changes in the "Proposal" [Vorſchlag], and declares that the adoption of the new constitution be postponed until this request has been complied with.'

"It was stressed that the said changes in the 'Opgjör' were the very least with which the minority could be satisfied. For in these points the 'Opgjör' departs from the Scripture and the doctrine of the Lutheran Confession. Unless these corrections are made, the minority cannot with a good conscience enter the new body.

"There were also good grounds for hope that the majority would agree to these corrections. For Dr. Stub declared in 1912 that paragraph 1 must be struck out, because by its wording it 'does violence to consciences.'

"And in the year 1913 the Opgjör committee of the Synod concurred in the statement of Dr. Ylvisaker, in which he said with regard to the offensive expression in paragraph 4: 'The sentence is quite certainly very misleading (not to say, factually incorrect). There seems to be room in it for a good deal of synergism.'

"And as for that parenthesis in paragraph 3, it is a well-known fact that precisely the understanding of Article 11 of the Formula of Concord caused the Opgjör committee great difficulty. The members of the United Church maintained that the article contains the wider concept of election of grace [*Gnadenwahl*], which agrees essentially with God's universal counsel of salvation. (In this way, indeed, many have tried to introduce the doctrine of *intuitu fidei* [in view of faith] into the Formula of Concord!) The committee of the Synod, on the other hand, declared that the article contains the narrower and proper concept of election of grace. The Synod's conception is expressed in this very paragraph 3, whereas the conception of the United Church is indicated in the parenthesis by the reference to paragraphs 10-20 of Article 11. Only if the reference is extended so that it reads: Paragraph 1-20, do the sentence and the parenthesis harmonize with each other.

"But the hope that the majority would for the reasons mentioned agree to this correction failed. The minority's proposal was laid on the table.

"Yes, when at a later session some pastors of the majority kindly asked the Synod to approach the other bodies as to whether they could not meet the minority halfway, by making those changes, this too was rejected.

"On the other hand, the constitution for the new body was adopted. Little opportunity was given to raise objections against it. Nevertheless it was stated that in the new fundamental law the important provision in the old constitution