# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_September 1859_S272
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

272 Judgment of a Norwegian Lutheran on the General Synod.

it is purely accidental when individual teachers or district synods within it actually hold the pure doctrine. Therefore the General Synod, by contenting itself with such a solemn farce instead of a definite, unreserved acceptance of the confession of the pure doctrine and the obligation thereto, is un-Lutheran, and cannot, as a body, demand with any semblance of right to be called Lutheran by anyone who knows what Lutheran means.

2) But one might say: "Perhaps the fault lies only in an ill-considered expression in that formula; perhaps it is meant differently; perhaps the practice is much better." Now, if that were so, we certainly should not cling to the letter; we should gladly acknowledge it, even if we had to maintain that, when a fellowship is truly and livingly permeated by the truth, it will without delay correct such a misleading expression; for it follows necessarily from a right knowledge of the truth that one confesses it clearly and plainly. This is a need and a duty for one who loves the truth. He cannot keep silent about it, or obscure it with ambiguous, hedging expressions that conceal a definite opinion instead of confessing it clearly. For when the orthodox Christian says, "I believe, therefore I speak," he does not mean, as that French philosopher says, and as the General Synod seems to think, "that speech is given to man in order that he may conceal his opinion" — no! the believer means that his speech is meant to serve the confessing of his opinion.

But we now wish to show that the General Synod is so far from carrying out the matter better than that formula would suggest, that it rather proves all too clearly in practice that this ambiguous reservation serves only to cover over the grossest deviations from the pure doctrine, so that its so-called confessional formula exists in order to conceal errors and not to confess the truth.

For in the General Synod it is in fact tolerated that one says outright: "The Augsburg Confession contains several errors," and that one sets up in its place a wholly Reformed doctrine. We will for now confine ourselves to this alone. The so-called Definite Platform was just such a new confession of faith, which several of the highest-standing leaders of the General Synod sought to put in the place of the Augsburg Confession, as better suited to express the views of the "American-Lutheran" church. It is asserted there outright that the Augsburg Confession teaches falsely on several points, e.g. concerning Baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc., where it calls it an error that the Augsburg Confession teaches that regeneration takes place in Baptism and that Christ's body and blood are truly present in the Supper. The General Synod itself has, it seems, not yet considered it expedient to adopt this Platform. It did, however, fail to bring those leading men under church discipline, and tolerated their betrayal of the dearest and