LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1929, Page 111

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

issouri, Ohio, and Other States. 1929. 111

Ev. Luth. Synod of M
ch suffered the greatest change by insertion of the
declaration on intuitu fidei finalis is now less clear than it was before.
® ach in the theses is not sufficiently simple to be understood by
: en—aD unconditional necessity in confessional theses.
"The chief criticisms of your Committee are that in the “Short
» ete. and under “CO” the Scriptural doctrine of the
 gniversal will of grace is not clearly separated from the doctrine of
jection by grace. One gains the impression that election is included
in the universal will of grace and concerns persons only in so far as
it decrees that those shall enter heaven who, according to the fore-
knowledge of God, already believe. Everywhere one misses the clear
statement that in Christ Jesus, God elected unto faith, unto sonship,
unto perseverance, and unto salvation certain persons who are known
to Him alone.
We must furthermore criticize the fact that neither in the “Short
Presentation,” etc., nor under “A” the distinction between natural
and malicious resistance was ruled out. At the end of “B” one misses
the unqualified declaration that election is not the application of the
universal will of grace to those who are saved, but something entirely
different from the universal will of grace, to wit, a special act of God,
consisting in the election of certain persons unto faith, unto sonship,
unto perseverance, and unto salvation. The attempt, in the declara-
tion concerning intuitu fidei finalis, to distinguish clearly between
election and a so-called decision of God to receive into heaven those
who believe unto their end, has failed. In the declaration about Cur
alii prae aliis? umbrage is still cast upon the mere asking of the
question and upon the question itself as something dangerous and

The chapter whi

presentation,

misleading.

Most of the paragraphs under “D” are inadequate. They do not
remove, but keep silence about, the old differences. We nowhere find
a clear statement of the fact that the doctrines of the Church, the
Ministry, Sunday, Chiliasm, and Antichrist are not open questions,
but clear and well-defined doctrines of the Scriptures and our Con-
fessions. —In the article on the Church a clear confession that the
Church, in the true sense of the term, is invisible, was not made.
The language enables the opponents to retain their old doctrine of
a visible side of the Church. — In the statement regarding the spir-
itual priesthood and the doctrine of the ministry nothing is said of
the doctrine of conveyance (U ebertragungslehre) ; neither is it clearly
stated that every local congregation is the supreme and sole authority
in calling a minister, independent of the clergy of the body to which
it belongs. The paragraphs concerning Antichrist do not touch the
old position of the opponents. The doctrine of Sunday is not pre-
sented; nor is there a statement to the effect that the false doctrine
cannot be tolerated beside the true doctrine. The same thing is true