# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1941_S281
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Intersynodical and Doctrinal Matters 281

olutions of 1938 it was necessary to include in our resolutions
atement like this: ‘We are firmly convinced that it is neither
ssary nor possible to agree in all non-fundamental doctrines.’
We declare that by including this or a similar statement, we did not
ant to cast any doubt on the binding force of any Biblical state-
mt. We concur with our commissioners and say, ‘To be sure,
everything that Scriptures teach is God’s Word and therefore
inding.’ However, for clarity’s sake we add: Not every traditional
explanation of a Scriptural statement is binding. The traditional
xp anation may not be the sense intended by the Holy Ghost and
therefore may make further study under His guidance necessary;
d since human short-sightedness and sin may preclude the finding
or universal acceptance of the divinely intended sense, we thank
God that it is not necessary for the establishment of church-
‘ellowship to agree in every explanation of a Scriptural statement.”
Concerning this paragraph of the Detroit Convention Report
“we wish to say that, while everything that is stated here is true,
“we regret that the convention felt it necessary to make an addition
to its clear statement, “To be sure, everything that Scriptures
teach is God’s Word and therefore binding.” The words added
might create the impression as though a clear-cut statement
acknowledging the binding force of all Scripture-passages were
a dangerous statement to make and required some limiting, or
restrictive, addition. We are all the more compelled to say this
because the position that the traditional explanation of a Scripture-
passage is not necessarily the right one has never been questioned
in the Lutheran Church.

c) As to the relation between the Brief Statement, the
Declaration, and the Minneapolis Theses, the Detroit Convention
Report says:

“At Sandusky we declared: ‘We believe that the Brief State-
‘ment, viewed in the light of our Declaration, is not in contradiction
to the Minneapolis Theses.’ Our commissioners said the following
in explanation of the phrase ‘viewed in the light of our Declaration’:
“This phrase says three things: 1) In regard to the question con-
cerning the essence of the Church, the Antichrist, the conversion
of the Jews, the physical resurrection of the martyrs, and the reign
of a thousand years mentioned in Revelation 20, we accept the
Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod
only with the limitations set forth in our Declaration. 2) In regard
to the other points mentioned in our Declaration we accept the
corresponding points of doctrine in the Brief Statement as they
are either “supplemented” in our Declaration or “emphasized as to
those points which seemed essential to us.” Thus the doctrine of-