LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1971, Page 232

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

232 PRESIDENT’S REPORT
trinae and that furthermore the claim be not made that they We heartily subscribe to the words of Dannhauer: “Fun.
possess the dignity of publicly accepted dogmas, whose re~ damental articles can, it is true, without injury to one’s
jection would be divisive of church-fellowship. On the con- salvation be both unknown and denied either before they
trary, they must be regarded merely as what they are, have been revealed (for without injury to her salvation Eve
Christian convictions and exegetical conclusions, which, did not know that the Messiah would be the Son of a virgin,
though made conscientiously and agreeing with the analogy for as yet the revelation pertaining to the Virgin Birth,
of faith, nevertheless have a private and individual character. found in Is.7, had not been given; Nathanael is called a true
Yes, even relative errors which at this stage of affairs are Israelite even though he denied that Jesus of Nazareth was
unavoidable can be borne by the Church without endanger- the Messiah) or before a clear and sufficient explanation of
ing its doctrinal unity. It will have to take this course, if the revelation. For this reason the fundamental errors of the
for no other reason than that it is not yet in a position to Church Fathers who were Swept into not yet sufficiently
point to the error as one condemned by the Church unfolded (evolutas) controversies, before the ice was broken
It is only after this exposition of the difference between are called spots or imperfections (naevi), not heresies But
a confession and confessional writings and, furthermore, the after these matters have been revealed, they can neither
exposition of the historical nature of our Confessions, which remain unknown nor be denied without injury to one’s
constantly grow and develop (a characteristic on which rests salvation.* They cannot remain unknown because we owe
the contrast, on the one hand, between fixed and developing, God progress in that which is good, Matt 25:14 ff; Heb. 5 12;
that is, not yet finished, dogmas in the Confessions them- 2 Pet. 3:18; 1 Cor. 14:20; Eph. 4:14. Everybody is obligated to
selves and, on the other hand, the distinction between strive for perfection though not to reach perfection. Hence
ecclesiastical dogmas and Christian theological convictions), the unbelief of a person becomes more or less excusable
that we are able definitely to dispose of our question. .. . according to the degree of the light offered him, Unbelief
For the Church and its existence (and that is the vital issue which directly Opposes the foundation of faith condemns
in the consideration of this question) at present merely that a person; the degree of the punishment varies with the
is fundamental, as we have shown, which the Church has degree of unbelief and the latter again with the degree of
obtained from the Scriptures as saving knowledge and has the light that had been furnished. Thus the ignorance of
laid down in its Symbolical Books as its confession. . . . An barbarians is more excusable than that of Christians, that
articulate and explicit unity in those teachings that have not of the latter more than that of Lutherans; among the latter,
yet become ecclesiastical dogmas but which at the same time again, the ignorance of the rank and file is more excusable
do not contradict the consensus fidei of the dogmas that have than that of the men who possess golden opportunities for
been accepted, can by no means be demanded, and the reason progress; the ignorance of laymen is more excusable than
is simply this, that there exists as yet no acknowledged norm that of teachers, and among the latter the ignorance of those
for their ecclesiastical status, and the question as to their who have devoted themselves entirely to the study of theol-
agreement with Scripture is still a matter of undecided con- ogy is less excusable than that of the others. Nor dare these
troversy. Accordingly these truths, viewed from the position articles be denied, because whoever denies one article denies
of consensus in doctrine, are for the Church still open ques- all, just as he who breaks one link in a chain breaks all.”
tions, left to the Christian and denominational conscience of (Christeis. Witenbergae, 1696, p. 45 s.)
the individual and to his investigation of Scripture-teaching. Dannhauer writes at another place: “An error which evi-
It may be that different convictions will arise, but these may dently opposes a fundamental article can more readily be
exist alongside each other without endangering the doctrinal pardoned when it has not yet been sufficiently revealed or
unity in the Church. For it is dissension only in the funda- explained than after such revelation and explanation have
mental truths taught by the Church that is incompatible with been given. Nathanael could err with respect to the person
the ‘consentire de doctrina’ which the Augsburg Confession of Jesus of Nazareth without injury to his salvation; he
terms ‘indispensable for the unitas ecclesiae,’ could not do it, however after the resurrection of Christ and
“If we now survey our whole exposition, our answer to the proclamation of the apostles through which it was made
your first question must be to the effect: 1. that it not only manifest to the whole world that Jesus of Nazareth is the
is not contrary to the spirit and character of the Church and Messiah, According to this principle the initial error of
its strict confessional unity required for church-fellowship Flacius could be regarded pardonable because in the heat
but altogether in keeping with it if we distinguish between of the controversy he at first did not see that by implication
fundamental doctrines, that is, in this case, doctrines that his view made God the cause of sin. What could be par-
have been defined in the confessional writings, and doctrines doned in Flacius could not be pardoned in his followers,
that are not yet fundamental, that is, such as have up to this This is true likewise with respect to the inference drawn
time become subject to a decision of the Church either only from an article and opposing faith or an article of faith if
in part or not at all.” Finally, in keeping with the foregoing, the inference has been thoroughly explained and it is of
the faculty speaks of “justified freedom in the Church with a nature which everybody can easily understand, People,
reference to doctrinal questions that are still open,” (Opinion as a rule, are not so dense as to let themselves be deceived
of the Theological Faculty of Dorpat, ete., pp. 12—16, 31.) where simple mathematical processes are involved. Now,
In these declarations a distinction is made between those whoever can handle figures can understand, and more easily
teachings which have been laid down in the Symbolical at that, inferences drawn from doctrines of faith” (Sigalion,
Books and those which have not been thus defined: between Argentor., 1668, p. 201 s.).
the teachings which have passed through controversies, have All this, as stated above, we heartily accept; but to con-
been publicly and frequently proved to be Scriptural, been struct on the basis of this difference the theory sponsored in
shown to be of high importance for faith and life and to the quotations submitted we have to oppose as both illogical
have an indissoluble connection with the totality of doctrine, and dangerous.
and have been thoroughly expounded and presented in their [In support of our rejection of the theory sponsored in the
richness and fulness, and those doctrines concerning which quotations submitted, we point to the following: ]
such statements cannot be made. We, too, admit that there In the first place, it is not true that our dogmas come into
is a great difference between these two classes. Without existence gradually and that hence there are articles of faith
doubt errors, for instance, in the doctrine pertaining to the “which are still in the process of formation, and others which
person of Christ after the Arian, Nestorian, and Eutychian as yet have either not at all or merely by way of beginning
controversies have an altogether different significance from been drawn into the stream of events in which dogmas take
what they had before. The same must be said of errors in shape.” It is not true that some articles of faith have come
the doctrine of original sin, of free will, of nature and grace, down to us “as undecided, unfinished questions, incomplete
after the Pelagian controversies, of errors in the teaching of structures, as open questions,” because concerning these
justification after the Reformation, of errors in the doctrine things one does not_yet find unanimous agreement in the
of the Lord’s Supper after the so-called Sacramentarian con- Lutheran Church. This theory, held and advocated with
troversy, and errors of a Lutheran minister pertaining to any more or less emphasis by almost all modern theologians,
doctrine found in the Symbolical Books after the latter had though entirely unknown to the old orthodox theologians of
been written and accepted by our Church. To deny this dif- our Church, we consider the TQOTOV webdSos of modern theol-
ference would be equivalent to denying the blessing which * We hold that Dannh . . oo.
errorists to attack its treasure, Is. 28:19; 1 Cor. 11:19. to come into some contact with the New Testament message. — A.