# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1941_S291
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Intersynodical and Doctrinal Matters . 289

this Church has not adopted the same doctrinal basis as we
While we have adopted not only the Brief Statement and the

ion, but also the Report of Committee 16 together with
'¢ Resolutions, the A. L. C. has adopted only the Brief State-
t-and the Declaration, and the former as amended by the latter.
is an important difference because the Report of Committee 16
ynod’s Resolutions contribute materially to the doctrinal basis
h we have adopted.
n fact, the alleged doctrinal basis is non-existent.
2. Synod’s Resolutions 3, 4, and 5 indicate a disagreement be-
een it and the A.L.C. in regard to certain matters described in
resolutions. But those resolutions are ambiguous. As a result
ere is confusion as to their meaning. The Lutheran Witness as
iL as the Union Committee takes these resolutions at their face
ue, as meaning that, while full agreement should ‘be sought in
Hie‘matters described therein, yet church-fellowship may be rightly
Stablished in spite of the aforesaid disagreement. (Lutheran Wit-
ess, Aug. 8, 1939, p.271. Report of the Union Committee, Dec. 8,
939, p.5.) Other brethren, however, in harmony with the tradi-
ional position of our Synod, feel that the aforesaid resolutions
require full agreement as a prerequisite to church-fellowship.

At this point we direct attention to a contradiction between one

f our traditional principles and the report of Committee 16, if this
eport be understood in the light of statements which have been
“made in the Lutheran Witness. According to the Lutheran Witness
the “non-fundamental points concerning the doctrine of the Last
Things” are really theological problems, or open questions. (Luth.
_Wit., Aug. 6, 1940, p. 275, first column, Point 4.) If the Lutheran
Witness were right, then Resolution 3 of Synod requiring an en-
“deavor to reach full agreement on those points contradicts our tra-
‘ditional principle that “open questions must remain open ques-
tions,” and urges a separatistic practice. (We of course do not agree
with the Lutheran Witness at this point, but only point out the
‘contradiction which it has creatéd here, in order to show the in-
sufficiency of the doctrinal basis.)
. 3. The doctrinal basis, so far as the A. L. C. is concerned, lacks

the necessary antitheses. The Declaration fails to contain these
antitheses or to accept the corresponding antitheses in our Brief
Statement. The Declaration accepts only certain thetical state-
ments of our Brief Statement, saying: “With the other points of
doctrine presented in the Brief Statement of the Missouri Synod we
are conscious of being in agreement. We also believe that in regard
to the points touched upon in Sections I—IV the doctrines stated
in the Brief Statement are correct.” (Emphasis ours. Proceedings

19