# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_November 1863_S338
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

338 Report of the sixth ordinary synodical convention of the Norwegian Evang. Luth. Church.

—to other days as well; but as regards the keeping of them holy we do not find the same unanimity as with the Lord's Day. And even though it is not so plainly stated in Holy Scripture, we nevertheless find in Ignatius, a disciple of the apostle John, that the name "the Lord's Day" was already common at that time, and that this day was especially used for the keeping of holy observance. Likewise the whole Christian Church later kept Sunday too as a weekly Sabbath, and indeed not merely for the use of the Word of God and for outward rest, but also, as we clearly see from Mark 2:27 and several other passages, because they were obligated by God's Word to keep Sunday holy. Rest on this day was not so important, but one nevertheless sinned if one used it for work out of unbelief or defiance; we are to devote the whole day to the furtherance of our sanctification, and so we must rest as well.

On the occasion of an excuse offered by Clausen, that he was delaying the matter so long, the chairman remarked that no one should regard as wasted the time we spend in going through this teaching with him, since it is so exceedingly important that he, as a teacher of the Church, be freed from an error so deep and so significant, inasmuch as it does away with Christian liberty. Against Clausen's presentation it was first observed that he stood in contradiction with himself and with his own assent to the 1st thesis of the report. For in maintaining that God instituted the Sabbath at creation, he makes it into something necessary for us to keep; but if we must keep it of necessity, then it is a moral commandment binding upon us, and accordingly one cannot say, in agreement with the 1st thesis, that no particular day is binding upon us. Attention was also drawn to the similarity between Clausen's teaching on Sunday and the Grundtvigians' view of Scripture. These likewise speak of Scripture as a gift, yet find that it is too diffuse and difficult for the simple people, and therefore set up the three articles of faith as the supreme rule by which Scripture is to be judged; and just as Clausen still finds some weak footholds and hints in Scripture for the divine institution of Sunday, so this party too has found some such things for its own position; for example, where Scripture speaks of the rule of faith, they understand this of the articles of faith. But where one thus seeks, outside of Scripture, something that is supposed to contain God's revealed will for mankind, there one has the seed of the whole papacy.

To this Pastor Clausen replied that the comparison with Grundtvigianism did not fit, for he had no wish to go beyond Scripture nor to rely on anything else. Nor did he recognize himself as being in contradiction with the 1st thesis, for there only the 3rd Commandment was spoken of, whereas he did not trace the binding force of Sunday back to the 8th Commandment. Nor, he said, did the chairman have any right to accuse him of an attack on Christian free—