Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1954, Page 34

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

34 Proceedings of the Forty-Third Convention,

biguous and inadequate as a settlement of past controversy. Other
objections have been raised by our Synod’s Union Committee as
well as by brethren of the Norwegian Synod and of the Missouri
Synod itself. It will be impossible in the time allotted us to present
each of these with the same detail as in the case of the articles
previously discussed. We do, however, wish to call attention briefly
to one remaining objection.

Under Article XII, “The Last Things,” we find it regrettable
that the Common Confession does not use the same language of our
Lutheran Confessions (Trigl., p. 475, 10) and re-emphasized in the
Brief Statement (par. 43) that the Pope is “the very Antichrist”
and that the “prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the
Antichrist, 2 Thess 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the
Pope of Rome and his dominion.” The statement of the Common
Confession is without question a qualified one when it declares:
“Among the signs of His [Christ’s] approaching return for judg-
ment the distinguishing features of the Antichrist, as portrayed in
the Holy Scriptures, are still clearly discernible in the Roman
papacy, the climax of all human usurpations to Christ’s authority
in the church.” It has heen maintained that this IS an unqualified
statement, that the wording of the Common Confession completely
rules out the false view that the time may come when the features
of the Antichrist will be no longer discernible in the papacy, but,
perhaps, in some other anti-Christian power. Defenders of the
Common Confession state that one must have a correct understand-
ing of the word “still” and of the word “climax,” which stands as
an apposition to the word “papacy” and defines this institution once
and for all as the apex of human usurpation, placing all other de-
velopments of a similar nature, whether before or after, on a lower
level. But if this is what is meant, why doesn’t the Common Con-
fession say so in words that cover the matter simply and clearly
as in the Brief Statement? If simplicity and brevity were the goals,
why not use a simple statement, if it suits the purpose, rather than
a rather belabored one which can certainly be interpreted in
a different light? When we are aware of the fact that the Iowa
members of the American Lutheran Church have always placed
this so-called “nonfundamental” doctrine into the sphere of “open
questions,” i.e., questions which cannot be clearly and definitely
decided upon the basis of Scripture; when we realize that an entire
district of the American Lutheran Church has gone on record with
the words: “We reject the statement ... that the Pope is the
Antichrist,” we are more convinced than ever that our misgivings
are not without foundation and that a true settlement must admit
of but one interpretation.

We wish that time would permit a presentation of all our
objections to the Common Confession, Part I, and also some words
concerning the fact that certain doctrines which have been in
controversy in the past between the contracting church bodies
have been completely omitted from consideration. We feel, how-
ever, that what we have already presented should offer sufficient
explanation for the resolution adopted by our Synod at New
Ulm in which we have declared the Common Confession inad-
equate as a settlement of past differences.