LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1973, Page 113

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

RESOLUTIONS 113

Thirty years later when a controversy arose con~
cerning the doctrine of election (predestination), a con-
troversy that involved antagonists not only from with-
out the Synod, but also from within, the Synod once
again found a voice through which to declare its Scrip-
tural and confessional position. Between January 15
and May 1, 1880, Walther published a series of articles
in Der Lutheraner on the doctrine in dispute. At the
synodical convention in Fort Wayne, May 11—21, 1881,
these articles by Walther, called “Thirteen Theses,”
were read, discussed, and adopted by the Synod (Pro-
ceedings, 1881, pp. 35—41) as the doctrine of the Holy
Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. To the ques-
tion as to what steps would need to be taken against
those who regarded the position of the Synod as false
doctrine, the convention replied that in case they failed
to heed admonition they would eventually be expelled
from the synodical fellowship (Proceedings, 1881, pp.
42—43). The Synod had a voice that spoke with Scrip-
tural and confessional authority, and the Synod re-
quired as a condition of membership that this voice be
recognized as Scriptural and confessional.

In adopting such doctrinal statements which ex-
pressed the Scriptural and confessional position of the
Synod, the Synod acted in a way that is not only per-
mitted but even encouraged by the confessional writings
of the Lutheran church. When the authors of the For-
mula of Concord listed the earlier Symbols to which
they committed themselves, they immediately added:
“This, of course, does not mean that other good, useful,

and pure books, such as interpretations of the Holy
Scriptures, refutations of errors, and expositions of doc-
trinal articles, should be rejected. If they are in ac-
cord with the aforementioned pattern of doctrine they
are to be accepted and used as helpful expositions and
explanations.” (506: 10)

Since it is not unconfessional to accept and use writ-
ings which conform to the confessional pattern of doc-
trine, it is therefore not unconstitutional. Article II of
the Synod’s Constitution commits the Synod and every
member of the Synod to the pattern of doctrine in our
Symbols. If in accordance with a right that the Symbols
themselves grant, the Synod accepts and uses writings
which agree with and uphold the confessional pattern
of doctrine in order to show that the Synod in fact and
not merely formally adheres to the confessional pattern
of doctrine, then this, far from being unconstitutional,
is the very thing that our commitment to the Symbols
in Article II of the Constitution calls upon us to do!

“Tf they are in accord with the aforementioned pat-
terns of doctrine” — this is the single condition for ac-
ceptance and use by the Synod of doctrinal statements.
Nowhere do our Symbols even hint that a doctrinal
statement depends for its validity upon unanimous ac-
ceptance, i.e., acceptance by everyone. If this were the
condition for accepting and using doctrinal statements
there would be no creed, no confession in all of Chris-
tendom! Not even Luther’s articles were accepted by
everyone at Smalcald—they were accepted “unani-
mously” only by those present who agreed with them!

One of the many standing votes