# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1941_S293
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Intersynodical and Doctrinal Matters 291

. . Exhibit B: Errors in Doctrine

e second and third sentences of Section II of the Declara-
sély harmonize God’s universal will of grace with His eternal
. For the second of these two sentences speaks of a purpose
with respect to believers alone, saying: . He also pur-
0 justify those who have come to faith, to ‘preserve them in
“and finally to glorify them. .. .” (Emphasis ours.) Now,
ure knows of no saving purpose of God with respect to be-
alone except eternal election. In fact, it sometimes speaks
ternal election simply as God’s “purpose,” Rom. 8:28; Eph. 1:11;
1:9. Therefore the sentence in question does not belong into
i paragraph dealing with the universal plan of salvation, but into
agraph dealing with eternal election, since the sentence
bes a divine purpose which is not universal in scope. More-
the sentence expresses the old error of Ohio, that God elected
ternal glory in view of faith. This fact would be clearer if the
nce were in a paragraph dealing specifically with eternal
on. For the sentence logically places God’s purpose to take
vers into eternal glory after their coming to faith. Thus the
of an election in view of faith is retained, even though the
eclaration advises against the use of the phrase “in view of faith”
this connection. (At this point it is well to note that where the
eclaration does use the expression “elected them unto faith’
23, Point 4), it places this expression into a clause which has
ady been negated: “but in no case implying,” etc.

2. The same third sentence of Section II also puts justification
er man’s coming to faith, not chronologically perhaps, but at least
cally, as though subjective justification were objective, with
aith as its condition. Thus the Declaration, by implication, also
.denies universal objective justification after the manner of old
hio, The explanation which has recently been offered by the
y .. L.C. concerning this point likewise does not separate objective
justification from subjective justification. Cf. also Lenski’s com-
mentaries to Rom. 5:18, 19 and 2 Cor. 5:19. (Eisenach Epistle Selec-
‘tions, Lenski, p. 493, footnote.)

3. Sections III and VI of the Declaration grant toleration to
certain false doctrines. The report of Committee 16 grants this
same toleration in a more reserved way. No man has the right to
,. grant such toleration in the Church. It is contrary to Rom. 16:17;

1 Tim. 6:3-5; Titus 3:10,11. While we should not at once reject
- a brother who errs in any doctrine but first admonish him with
_a view to gaining him, yet every error is naturally church-divisive,
being contrary to 1 Cor.1:10. Moreover, when we are contemplat-
ing pulpit-fellowship with any church-body, we must remember