# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1928_S15
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

of the Ev. Luth. Synodical Conference of North America. 1928. 15

sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, had opposed the biblical doctrine with
sharp weapons of the intellect, we find in the eighteenth century the Dutch
Arminian Hugo Grotius taking a stand against it, although it mattered less to
him to combat the doctrine held by the Lutheran Church than to counteract the
Socinians. Soon came the age of faith in reason, which naturally did not want to
accept the doctrine of reconciliation of Holy Scripture. Likewise many of the
famous theologians of the following time rejected the doctrine of Scripture,
especially the much-named men Schleiermacher, Baur and Ritschl.

With what arguments, then, does one want to refute the doctrine of Scripture?
People say, God is love, after all. To represent him as an angry judge, they say,
is quite wrong, is downright heathen. Christ does not need, as High Priest, to
reconcile God with us, since he has always been our loving, merciful Father. —
What do we answer? Certainly God is love. Scripture testifies to that, and we
gladly confess it with Scripture. It is one of the most glorious truths that God
himself reveals to us. But God is also righteousness. The same Holy Scripture
that conveys to us the words "God is love" also tells us: "The wrath of God is
revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who
hold the truth in unrighteousness." God describes himself as a jealous God who
will visit the sins of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth
generation. In the 5th Psalm David says, addressing God: "Thou art not a God
that hath pleasure in wickedness; the evil shall not dwell with thee." When,
therefore, many preachers describe God as a loving Father who would never think
of imposing punishment, they draw a picture of God that does not agree at all
with that of Scripture.

And not only Scripture, their own conscience too convicts them of error and
falsehood. It holds before them that sin is something terrible and demands
God's punishment if it is not atoned for. That God is just and punishes sin we
also notice from the dominion of death in the world, which was imposed by God
because of the transgression of his Law. So this argument of the enemies of the
doctrine of reconciliation does not hold water at all. It is, to put it briefly,
against Scripture, against conscience and against experience.

The opponents often come forward with this twofold argument: God can, after
all, forgive sin even without the work of a High Priest. If one denies that, one
simply denies God's omnipotence. And one must further assume that God would
gladly forgive sin without the sacrifice of his Son. If one does not admit that,
one disputes his goodness. — Such are the paths one gets onto when one does not
simply let oneself be guided by the word of Scripture. One finds brilliant-seeming
arguments and lets oneself be dazzled by them. How little tenable is what is
put forward here! God is indeed almighty, but he never does anything that would
contradict his own nature. He can do everything, but he commits no sin. He does
not cease to be what he is. Because as the righteous Ruler of the universe he
cannot approve or sanction sin but must punish it, it is foolish for anyone to
console himself with the thought: God is almighty, so he can take away my sins
even without any sacrifice. And as to the assertion that God is kind and
therefore will gladly forgive sin even without a special sacrifice, this
conclusion is likewise wrong. Certainly God is kind and wills to forgive sin,