# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_December 1864_S381
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

381

Church and Contemporary History.

—

I. America.

The general synod of Ohio was in session on October 13 of this year
and the following days. In the "Lutheran Standard" of November 1 we
read the following, among other things, about its proceedings: "The
question of church and ministry, on the discussion of which much time
has already been spent without a satisfactory result being reached,
was again postponed until our next meeting, with the understanding
that the first three days of that meeting will then be devoted to it.
— The 'Concordia Synod' (whose president, as is known, was Pastor
Krause), consisting of four members living in various states, applied
for admission as a separate district. The petition was referred to a
committee, which reported against it. The report was adopted. An
increase in the number of small districts was not thought desirable.
On this ground the southern district, too, was advised to unite with
the western district synod."

Professor Sternberg of the Hartwick Synod, who, as already reported,
because of his Zwinglian-rationalist principles has decidedly spoken
out against the proposed improvement of the General Synod's confession
to the Augsburg Confession, and has carried through its rejection in
his own synod, deserves, at least on this one point, the credit of
honesty. He writes, among other things, in the "Observer" of October
28: "The declaration does not say that the A. C. contains a correct
statement of the fundamental doctrines of God's Word, but that it IS a
correct statement, etc., and that not merely its doctrinal articles,
but the A. C., that is, the whole of it. This clearly implies that
every part of the A. C. teaches doctrine, that every doctrine so taught
is fundamental, and that everything said in regard to every
fundamental doctrine is correct. Not one of these propositions can be
maintained. The first two are plainly untrue. If the declaration
admitted that something in the A. C. is not fundamental — which it
does not do — I was nevertheless not prepared to concede this with
regard to every doctrine set forth in the A. C. that is admittedly
fundamental. I cited as an example the last clause of Article 2, which
in my judgment clearly teaches regeneration through baptism. The
General Synod may make known its own opinions, but it can no more give
an authoritative interpretation of the A. C. than the Roman Church can
of the Bible. The document must speak for itself. It is furthermore
evident that the two parties which unfortunately exist within the
church do not agree any more in their views, after the adoption of the
amendment, than they did before. Each will put his own construction on
the language used, and accuse the other of a false interpretation of
it. The Ultra-Symbolists will insist that we have subscribed to the
whole of the A. C. without restriction, and will consider us bound to
an 'exanimo' holding of the entire confession. We may say that we are
bound only to what is fundamental. They will say that everything is
fundamental, and will accuse us of double-dealing with regard to the
declaration we have subscribed, and we shall fall silent, for the
wording of the amendment clearly supports the interpretation which
they will naturally give it. Out of our own mouth they will condemn
us. What then shall we do? Indeed! that will be a blessed state of
peace and harmony! Obsta principio (resist the beginning)." — There
are certainly still very many within the General Synod who, if they
were honest, would have to speak in just this way. Professor Sternberg
puts them to shame. But honorable as the candor he has shown here is
for him, he ought nevertheless to go one step further and also give up
his claim to membership in a church whose confession of faith he does
not share.