Theses Concerning Church Fellowship

7/29/2019 Theses Concerning Church Fellowship

1/94

Theses Concerning Church Fellowship

Preliminary observation on the following theses.

The word "Church fellowship" is not treated here in the wider sense. For in and under

this exists a certain amount of church fellowship simply because of the confession of Holy

Scripture as the Word of God between all congregations standing in this confession against

pagans, Jews, and Muslims.

Rather this word1

is used here in a narrow sense as the fellowship of Evangelical

Lutheran congregations against more or less corrupt heterodox church fellowships.

Thesis 1

The only internal bond of fellowship between individual Lutheran congregations in many

nations and languages is true, just, and saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, who with and in

Him also seizes and holds fast to His most holy and perfect merit.

Thesis 2

The only external bond of fellowship between individual Lutheran congregations in

many nations and languages is the Unaltered Augsburg Confession.

Remark: Not absolutelynecessary for Lutheran church fellowship is acceptance of the

other Lutheran Confessions, provided it is not denied that these are interrelated with the

orthodox Unaltered Augsburg Confession.

Thesis 3

Because the Unaltered Augsburg Confession (which in its origin is just as historicallyparticular as it is ecumenical in its doctrinal content) is the pure and genuine2

explanation and

exposition of God's Word, for doctrine and defense, the consciences of all Lutherans, whether

individuals or congregations or church bodies, are thus bound by them.

Thesis 4

Accordingly, there is no orthodox Lutheran congregation or Lutheran church body that

does not adopt the doctrinal and defendable words of this confession as they are.

Thesis 5

Whoever also denies the logically resultant conclusions from the words of this

Confession is not a true member of the Lutheran Church if he now wrongfully holds fast thename Lutheran.

1Tr.: The word for "Church fellowship" in German is one word: Kirchengemeinschaft.

2ungeflschte.


2/94

Thesis 6

It necessarily follows from the type and nature of this orthodox confession that

ecclesiastical practice is in accordance with the confession. Because every ecclesial action is

either a direct manifestation and effective implementation of the confession, or at least one

that, if it moves within the area of Christian liberty, must not be in violent contradiction to the

confession.

Thesis 7

It follows logically from this necessary connection between confession and practice that

a Lutheran synod, in which the prevailing practice is in accordance with the Church's

confession, may unite into an ecclesiastical body with a synod that calls itself "Lutheran" in

which the prevailing practice is contrary to the confession.

Thesis 8

This contradiction can take place in many different ways. First of all, it takes place when

a Lutheran church body that explicitly and emphatically commits herself to the Symbolical

Books nevertheless tolerates in their fellowship or even considers acceptable and approves

pulpit exchange with non-Lutheran preachers and Communion fellowship with non-Lutherans,

and does not decidedly oppose all forms of chiliasm.

Thesis 9

This contradiction finds further place when members of her congregations are still

members of secret societies, and neither a thorough public witness is extolled in preaching

against these societies and their incompatibility with Scripture and faith by the concerned

pastors, nor the individual lodge brothers taken into particular pastoral instruction and care.

Thesis 10No less a contradiction exists when a Lutheran synod or a composite synodical body

allows that individual so-called "Lutheran" pastors of hers continually serve congregations that

are actually "Union"3

congregations.

Thesis 11

It also contradicts the confession when the church body can put up with it the fact that

their pastors do not have a proper call, but only have a temporary call from their congregations,

or indeed reinforces this disorder through licensing4.

Thesis 12It is a glaring contradiction against the confession when a Lutheran church body does

not prove to be unending in her earnestness and zeal to bring orthodox congregational schools

into existence, which is her duty, where they do not exist.

3unirt.

4Licenzwesen.


3/94

Thesis 13

It is also a contradiction against the confession when a Lutheran body does not hold that

in their congregations only orthodox agendas, hymn books, catechisms, doctrinal books and

books of devotion are used, or yet does not invest due diligence that existing false religious

books of this kind are abolished and orthodox books are introduced.

Thesis 14

It is contrary to the confession in the strongest terms when doctrinal discipline is not in

a Lutheran church body, and the popular theory of "open questions" is revered in it.

Thesis 15

It is not according to the confession when a synod or larger church body does not work

to ensure that in their congregations more precise doctrinal discipline and discipline of life

gradually comes into fashion and into exercise, which is willed by Christ and in Matthew 18:15-

17.

Thesis 16

It stands in precise connection with the confession that every Lutheran synod in itspart

uses all diligence, to call and to help obtain orthodox schools for development of faithful and

capable preachers and school teachers for the preservation of the church in life.

Thesis 17

No less is it according to the confession that synods give attention to whether and how

individual congregations of their association demonstrate active love in caring for needy

widows, orphans, the sick, etc.

Thesis 18Finally, it is related to the confession that synods encourage congregations of their

association vigorously to participate on their part for the spreading of Lutheran doctrine and

the Lutheran Church, for external and internal mission.

We may well realize at the outset the importance of the subject matter discussed in this

thesis when we look at the current state of the Lutheran Church in general. It is this way in

Germany, as the prophet says, "like a little house in the vineyard, like a lodge in the pumpkin

garden, like a ravaged city."5

The Union there starts thereon to destroy the Lutheran church, as

for example in Hannover is now fairly before our eyes, while in other parts of Germany this

work of destruction has been completed. In yet other "Lutheran" state churches obviousunionistic spirit and most shameful cajolery of union-minded authorities takes over the upper

hand. Here in America, it is now certainly still well, thanks be to God, something different and

better. But we know only too well how hostile the General Synod is to the confession of the

Lutheran Church and, on the other hand, how the General Council shows no honest seriousness

in regard to Lutheran doctrine and sound church practice. The faithful God Himself has given us

5Isaiah 1:8.


4/94

grace that we are really serious with our works in God's Church. We do not want to confess the

ancient truth of the divine Word merely with the mouth and to use the confession of the

Lutheran Church as a mere figurehead. However, the longer the more we should now get

serious withproper practice, unless this is already happening. For that to happen, the theses

and their discussion should powerfully inspire us. We keep thereby only our localconditions in

mind, even if individual cases may be mentioned for exemplifying from other parts of theChurch.

To be sure, while the immediate aim of the "preliminary observation" is merely to define

more precisely in what sense of the word "Church fellowship" do the theses handle, we would

like to take the opportunity from the explanation given here of the understanding of the word.

It again emphasized that, although the enthusiasts and all false believers as such are not

certainly the Church of God, yet the Lord has everywhere His children, His Church, where God's

Word still is essential and pieces of blessed doctrine go in vogue. Precisely since there are

believers, because the Word of God, if it is still there, always and everywhere has its convincing

power again to give birth and therefore to awaken faith, despite all the damage that can be

found in such a church fellowship. For the sake of the now thus in their hiding believing children

of God are these precisely even rightly called "Church." These fellowships also confess

themselves to the apostolic Creed. This is the Church's response to the pure preaching of the

Word. Whoever still confesses for this symbol is part of the visible Church in the wider sense of

the word: to the congregation of those called. As evidence of how the Lord has His Church

everywhere, where God's Word is still essential, serve the following two

Testimonies:

Luther: "Therefore the church is holy even where the fanatics are dominant, so long as

they do not deny the Word and the sacraments; if they deny these, they are no longer the

church. Wherever the substance of the Word and the sacraments abides, therefore, there theholy church is present, even though Antichrist may reign there; for he takes his seat not in a

stable of fiends or in a pigpen or in a congregation of unbelievers but in the highest and holiest

place possible, namely, in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2:4). Thus our brief answer to this

question is this: The church is universal throughout the world, wherever the Gospel of God and

the sacraments are present. The Jews, the Turks, and the fanatics are not the church, because

they oppose and deny these things."6

Luther: "It is true, I admit, that the church in which you (papists) sit derives from the

ancient church as well as we, and that you have the same baptism, the sacraments, the keys,

and the text of the Bible and gospels. I will praise you even further and admit that we have

received everythingfrom the church before you (not from you). What more do you want? Arewe not devout enough? Will you not call us henceforth unheretical? We do not regard you as

Turks and Jews (as was said above) who are outside the church. But we say you do not remain in

it but become the erring, apostate, whorelike church (as the prophets used to call it), which

6Luther, M. (1999). Luther's works, vol. 26: Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald &

H. T. Lehmann, Ed.) (Ga 1:2). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.


5/94

does not remain in the church, where it was born and brought up7.... We acknowledge not only

that you have, with us, come from the true church and been washed and made clean in baptism

through the blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as St. Peter says here, but also that you

are in the church and remain in it. Indeed, we say that you sit and rule in itas St. Paul

prophesied in 2 Thessalonians 2:34, that the accursed Antichrist would sit (not in the

cowshed), but in the temple of God. But you are no longer of the church, or members of thechurch, for in this holy church of God you are building your own new apostate church, the

devils brothel."8

Thus Luther. The Missouri Synod in particular has been attacked and reviled by Grabau

for the sake of the doctrine witnessed here by Luther and by us. Soon it was said: You have in

your doctrine of the invisible Church with its members under all "Christian" denominations only

a paper Church; soon: You speak with this your doctrine only the word of the Union with false

believing fellowships. However, as we in the spirit of the dear orthodox fathers, yes, even to

speak with their words, witness the following

Testimonies:

Joh. Gerhard: "Because the elect and truly believing are not outside the assembly of the

called but are in this assembly of the visible church (in which hypocrites, too, are intermingled),

secondarily and consequently the visible church of the calledis also called catholic or

universal."9

V.E. Lscher: "We hold the Calvinist-Reformed as an irregular part of the universal

church."10

Especially those of us who have perhaps earlier themselves once thus Romanized that

they dreamed of a one saving particular church, know the importance of our present doctrine

of the Church: that rightly to appreciate the pure doctrine that the Church had in the true senseof the word among their members of all Christian denominations. And this doctrine we should

also carry on with diligence in our congregations, not only because one will not admit that e.g.

even those still in the so-called Catholic Church, for the children of God hidden in her, in truth is

the Church, but even so, when we testify against any and all false doctrine with all earnestness,

wherever it turns up, yet they learn to understand more and more that we abhor such

exclusivity, according to which all members of other fellowships would be damned, and that

our dear church children thus receive in the right way a truly generous heart.

Regarding the first thesis: One has to pay attention here to the contrast that one

arguably can externally belong to the Lutheran Church, for unfortunately many belong to heronly in this way, because one externally makes his confession as his own, yet thereby stands in

7Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 41: Luther's works, vol. 41: Church and Ministry III (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T.

Lehmann, Ed.) (207). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.8

Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 41: Luther's works, vol. 41: Church and Ministry III (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T.

Lehmann, Ed.) (209). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.9Loci Theologici, vol. 25: On the Church (279).

10Unschuldige Nachrichten. 1709. p. 293.


6/94

no inner connection with true Lutherans precisely because it lacks in the true, just, and saving

faith. The fact that this and only this causes internal church fellowship states, among many

others, the following

Testimony:

Baier: "The form of the Church (which makes the Church the Church) is the union of true

believers and saints with Christ through true and living faith. That (union) is not an external and

local (union) of bodies, but an inward and spiritual bond of souls. For although believers also

hold local sacred gatherings, yet they are not essentially the Church."11

Baier testifies here that what is essentially necessary for Christian and also for Lutheran

inner fellowship, what binds Christians with Christ, Christ with Christians, and thus Christians

also internally with one another, is faith. Specifically, faith is the only internal bond of

fellowship. Apart from it there is no other, as e.g. Delitzsch once obtained, although again

forfeited baptismal grace as such second place. We should and want to preserve that only

those Christians and therefore only those true Lutheran Christians can be those who are in

justifying faith. The only inner of fellowship bond is this faith, for where it is missing, there no

inward fellowship occurs with the Church of God, where this bond is broken, the same holds no

other more upright. Thus the Lord Jesus says explicitly in His high priestly prayer to His

Heavenly Father: "I do not pray for these alone" - for the apostles namely, "but also for those

who will believe in Me through their Word. That they may all be one, just as You, Father, are in

Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us."12

It is therefore incontrovertible that where

the bond of faith in Christ is also missing from any Christian unity, inward fellowship of

Christians and therefore even Lutherans among themselves may no longer be spoken by

anyone.

About now the objection would be raised that another inward bond of fellowship is stillin place among Lutherans as exists between all Christians in general. It is indeed true, of course,

that justifying faith internally binds faithful Lutherans with children of God in other church

parties just as well as with other devout Lutherans; only with this it has nothing in common

with dogmatic faith in regard to Lutheran distinctive doctrines. The common faith binds it with

those of theprimaryfundamental articles of Christian doctrine; besides, even with this

agreement in all other articles of faith. The common dogmatic belief is yet even now something

internal and precisely what had brought us together in the Synodical Conference, and precisely

because agreement in dogmatic faith is lacking between us and the General Council, we would

not be able to join them. If one has, e.g., three Lutherans and three Reformed before him, who

all believed in Christ and each of them also believe with his own Particular Church in regard tospecial teachings, then of course all six are internally connected through justifying faith; but,

however, are they not at the same time again separated by the designated differences from

each other, namely internally? Thus indeed Luther told Oecolampadius, etc.: "You have another

spirit." The word "spirit" indeed denotes something internal, and Luther did not want to deny

11Compend. III, 13, 9.

12John 17:20-21.


7/94

his opponents the state of grace. Apart from the unity in justifying faith, there is surely not only

a distinction that Lutherans have a different objective belief than non-Lutherans, but also

another subjective belief. Should not one here perhaps distinguish between justifying faith that

all Christians have in common, and dogmatic faith that not all have in common?

To the answer to these objections: One must go back to the doctrine of the Church

already dealt with among us in so many ways. The Lord has one Church that He calls His Own.This is in fact the so-called Church that we refer to as invisible and confess in the third article of

the Apostles Creed. This Church is not merely located among Lutherans; the Lord is not

ashamed to adopt others as His children. He chose these others from eternity and will bless

them and make them glorious. He bears witness to them as their God, their Redeemer and

Savior. But that which binds them to Him is nothing other than justifying and saving faith in our

Lord Jesus Christ. So in the first thesis we are talking about the Church in the proper sense of

the word as located even among Lutherans. The distinction between justifying and dogmatic

faith is here absolutely unjustified. Scripture itself tells us there is only one faith.13

This one

faith all of God's children have, wherever they may be found. A faithful child of God in another

church party has basically no other belief than a devout Lutheran. Even though it may be very

poor in knowledge and encumbered with error, regardless as individual true Lutherans

probably err here and there and otherwise often are sinful, it implicitly has with justifying faith

in truth all articles of faith. It is the Holy Spirit Who indeed works faith. He certainly never

creates a cripple, a faith in which it lacks only one article, i.e. part. If a Reformed, etc., does not

have this one faith worked by the Holy Spirit, then he is certainly not a believer. Yes, we admit

that we still associate a little more with faithful Lutherans than with believers outside the

Lutheran Church; but this is more: that in all articles of faith of identical confession is indeed

something external, if it is not equally denied that the knowledge and conviction of true

Lutherans in this regard requires the inner workings of the same; and the latter, the right actual

bond that internally connects all God's children, and that latter is and remains justifying faith: in

Him each and every internal fellowship of the body of Christ is lifted up. Or as a Lutheran islinked to another Lutheran in inner fellowship , who however has so much in common with

him, what a member of any other church does not share with him, but who only hypocritically

adheres to the Church? Certainly not! This clearly shows that justifying faith is the only inward

bond of fellowship between even Lutherans and Lutherans. The so-called dogmatic faith can

never be described here as such a bond. Yet, e.g. even our seven-year or eight-year-old children

are rightly called Lutherans among us, although some might say they still have no inward

awareness of Christian dogma, let alone a firm conviction. Internally, we call it the bond of

fellowship of faith, because this is concealed in the heart and only God manifests it, Who at all

times bestows with it right understanding of all sound doctrine, to the extent necessary for

salvation; but we recognize the faith of our neighbor only as far as possible, if he externallystands out by confessing. The faithful Reformed, e.g., however, even conceals his faith from us

if he commits himself to the distinctive doctrines of his church; I cannot come to the conviction

with him to the extent that he is a Christian as I can do with a Lutheran, who confesses the

same thing in all respects with me. But here I may indeed be wrong in Lutherans; he may only

associate his confession in the same with me in the end, and perhaps particularly attracted him,

13Ephesians 4.


8/94

while no internal fellowship has taken place or is taking place between us. As for me with

Lutherans, whether he is a true believer or not, what links us particularly is therefore

undeniably nothing than the same confession, i.e. an external bond, while internally I have a

bond of fellowship with no one, as with one who stands in justifying faith. Indeed, our

ecclesiastical confession uses the words used in the theses in exactly the same sense so that we

therefore speak entirely according to it, as it says, et al., in the Seventh Article of the Apology:"The Christian Church consists not alone in fellowship of outward signs, but it consists

especially in inwardcommunion of eternal blessings in the heart, as of the Holy Ghost, of faith,

of the fear and love of God. And this Church also has external signs, whereby one knows her,

namely where God's Word is pure, etc." And so it remains: That which binds faithful Lutherans

as others with Christ is none other than justifying faith; the fellowship that they now have with

Christis what binds them internally with each other. In comparison to the internal fellowship

thus created, dogmatic agreement is not significant: it is not at all significantly necessary for

internal fellowship. It is not the actual bond that ties internally, although the relevant dogmas

are indeed certainly true Lutherans matter of the heart and thus something internal. The heart

and the objective also of the distinctive doctrines is undoubtedly the Lord Christ Himself. We

Lutherans are now however in this respect in the benefit to the children God in other church

parties, as these have much less channels in the lack of recognition of our distinctive doctrines

as the goal than we.

Regarding the second thesis: Where justifying faith has been kindled by pure and sincere

preaching of the Word of God, which the first thesis has identified as the only pure internal

bond of fellowship of Lutheran congregations, there it is quite impossible that it does not find

its expression in words and therefore a confession occurs. Thus Peter answered the question of

the Lord: "Who do you say that I am?": "You are Christ, Son of the living God"14

, and gave

expression with these words only the faith that lived inside his heart. So also the apostles

speak: "We cannot but speakof what we have seen and heard."15

So now the Unaltered

Augsburg Confession is also the expression of what our faithful fathers and all faithful Lutheranswith them believe. The Augsburg Confession is denoted as the only external bond of fellowship

in contrast to other church parties, e.g. Papists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, etc., who

designate their canon law and all sorts of external regulations as a necessary external bond of

fellowship. We confess, however, in the seventh article of the Augsburg Confession explicitly

that it is enough for the true unity of the church, "to agree concerning the doctrine of the

Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments," that also no human ceremonies, as said

here, nor any other human ordinances etc. are required for such unity. If we now say the

Augsburg Confession is the single external bond of fellowship among Lutherans, or when one

says pure doctrine is this band, as it is known in the Augsburg Confession, then this is

completely covered.What the appended "Remark" of the second thesis concerns is to keep in mind that one

in the Danish and Norwegian Church indeed does not expressly commit to all other Lutheran

confessions as within the Norwegian Synod associated with our Synodical Conference. This is

only because that the Lutheran Church in those countries has not been affected by the fighting

14Matthew 16:15-16.

15Acts 4:20.


9/94

that the Church in Germany had to overcome after the adoption of the Augsburg Confession in

the 16th century and that even had made necessary the development of other confessions to

counter the errors that surfaced. So there was no need for explicit acceptance of these other

confessions. Undoubtedly, there are now also false-positioned so-called Lutherans that

probably say that they commit themselves to the Augsburg Confession, which is precisely why

they do not adopt the other Symbols, because they refuse to accept the Augsburg Confession inits own sense. If we now say the Augsburg Confession is the only external bond of fellowship of

the Lutheran church, then one might reproach us that we wanted to give way to these false

spirits. But we are far removed from it, as the "Remark" itself sufficiently encountered such an

accusation. But even the dear Fathers themselves give testimony, partly in their private

writings, partly even in other confessions, that the true confession of the Lutheran Church is the

Unaltered Augsburg Confession. To this end, the following evidence:

Testimonies of the thesis itself:

Formula of Concord: "Since in these last times God, out of especial grace, has brought

the truth of His Word (puritatem verbi sui) to light again from the darkness of the Papacy

through the faithful service of the precious man of God, Dr. Luther, and since this doctrine has

been collected from, and according to, God's Word into the articles and chapters of the

Augsburg Confession against the corruptions of the Papacy and also of other sects, we confess

also the First, Unaltered Augsburg Confession as our symbol for this time, not because it was

composed by our theologians, but because it has been taken from God's Word and is founded

firmly and well therein, precisely in the form in which it was committed to writing, in the year

1530, and presented to the Emperor Charles V at Augsburg by some Christian Electors, Princes,

and Estates of the Roman Empire as a common confession of the reformed churches, whereby

our reformed churches are distinguished from the Papists and other repudiated and

condemned sects and heresies, after the custom and usage of the early Church, wherebysucceeding councils, Christian bishops and teachers appealed to the Nicene Creed, and

confessed it."16

Jacob Andreae: "To the extent, your Electoral grace, it can be seen from the enclosed

letters, which the meaning is not undecided as if there should be a new confession, through

which we handled by the Augsburg Confession, as by the proper unifying Symbol of unity in

doctrine, as a newformula concordiae, but while used.... until by God's grace the churches of

the Augsburg Confession was again brought in good stable unity."17

Calov: "The Unaltered Augsburg Confession, as it was handed over to Emperor Charles V

in 1530 at the Diet, is the actual Symbol of our churches, through which the same is secreted no

less by the Papists and Zwinglians, as other heretics."

18

16Comprehensive Summary, Foundation, and Norm, paragraph 5.

17Presentation to Electoral Saxony on Account of the Formula of Concord (1570). Unschuldige Nachrichten (1718),

p. 192.18

Synopsis of the Controversy, Second Series of Articles. A.C. Wittenberg 1685. P. 3.


10/94

Testimony of the "Remark".

Book of Concord: "Therefore before God and all mortals we once more declare and

testify that in the declaration of the controverted articles, of which mention has already been

made several times, we are not introducing a new confession, or one different from that which

was presented in the year 1530 to Charles V, of happy memory, but that we wished indeed tolead our churches and schools, first of all, to the fountains of Holy Scripture, and to the Creeds,

and then to the Augsburg Confession, of which we have before made mention.19

Formula of Concord: Although the Christian doctrine of this Confession has in great part

remained unchallenged (save what has been done by the Papists), yet it cannot be denied that

some theologians have departed from some great and important articles of the said Confession,

and either have not attained to their true meaning, or at any rate have not continued

steadfastly therein, and occasionally have even undertaken to attach to it a foreign meaning,

while at the same time they wished to be regarded as adherents of the Augsburg Confession,

and to avail themselves and make their boast of it. From this, grievous and injurious dissensions

have arisen in the pure evangelical churches.... Necessity, therefore, requires us to explain

these controverted articles according to God's Word and approved writings, so that everyone

who has Christian understanding can notice which opinion concerning the matters in

controversy accords with God's Word and the Christian Augsburg Confession, and which does

not.20

Luther: "Thus are all, who believe and live according to the doctrine of the Confession

and the Apology, according to the faith and doctrine of our brethren", and their danger

concerns us all than our own. We cannot abandon it as members of the true Church, they may

be obedient to us if they want; they may do it in silence or in public, may live among us or in a

foreign land. This we say and confess."21

Selnecker: "But whether it is possible, your gracious Elector, with a number of other

estates, thus coming around to their concerns (in regard to the Book of Concord), and could bepatient if they confess the first part of the Book of Concord; however, your gracious Elector,

they wanted to be certain among and in their theologians, preachers, and professors of Saxony,

and demanded first of all subscription from all the preachers in the country, because there

were not a few who would have not willingly signed according to the instruction that

happened; afterwards by the Professors in both universities of Leipzig and Wittenberg; all

because nevertheless many found that they came around to their apology at Wittenberg, and

yet committed to the first part of the Christian Book of Concord. Your gracious Elector, These

have to be ordered to answer with these words: If we then find, that they are in agreement

with the first part of the Christian Book of Concord, on the condition that they are earnest, they

cannot reject the subscription to the disputed explanation of the articles, considering that thesame is directed at the books of the aforementioned first part and the Preface of the Christian

Book of Concord is kept sufficiently, that nothing new is made through the mentioned

glorification and only hollow misunderstanding becomes enlightened in the previously agitated

19Forward to the Book of Concord.

20Forward to the Solid Declaration.

21Judgment from the Departure of the Empire. St. L. 16:1857.


11/94

disputed articles in proper Christian understanding and unanimity. Dated, Dresden on January

3, 1581."22

Rudelbach: "It must be maintained forever that the one (asymbolos) symbol is that the

meaning of such terms as contained in the Formula of Concord contests for the development of

the confession and doctrinal presentation in the church.... No difference of opinion can prevail

between faithful Lutheran Christians if the question is whether we want to acknowledge theFormula of Concord as our own."

23

According to this evidence, it is therefore entirely justified ecclesiastically, when we say

that the Unaltered Augsburg Confession is the only external bond of fellowship of the Lutheran

Church. This latter truth may also probably guide us in the version of the paragraphs of

confession to the drafting of a new church order. Previously, many among us probably said they

would particularly have to prove their fidelity by the fact that they specifically cited in these

paragraphs all individuals confessions of the Book of Concord of 1580 and also the congregation

pledged to the same, but while the latter of most of them probably did not yet even know by

name and later the vast majority of its members knew not to learn. Because one should

nevertheless prefer to confine oneself to know the Unaltered Augsburg Confession and perhaps

Luther's Small Catechism, which our people know or can easily get to know, as the confession

of the congregation.

Note: On page 1 and 2 of the book, "The Proper Form of a Local Congregation

Independent from the State" an excellent testimony is found for Thesis 2 together with the

"Remark".

Regarding the third thesis: The Augsburg Confession itself puts the three Ecumenical

Symbols at the top and will itself be nothing but the further development of these Symbols,

which development was necessitated by the false doctrines of the papacy and the fanaticsarisen after the adoption of the ecumenical creeds, who had to be fought. If we are dealing

with members of other church parties, then we certainly cannot require from these parties that

they admit from the outset the Augsburg Confession is the pure and genuine declaration and

explanation of God's Word in all its articles of faith, for doctrine and defense; but with

Lutherans this admission is required: whoever refuses this shows that he is not a Lutheran.

Testimonies:

Chemnitz, Selnecker, and Kirchner: "Therefore the first reason they (the Calvinists in

Neustadt) reduce theAugsburg Confession and its authority is this: That it was a particularconfession of the churches that confess this and not the whole of Christendom; because of that

they could not have so much prestige. From this is our counter-report: That we perhaps

remember that it is aparticular confession of several and not all of Christianity. But that it

therefore should not be valid, we do not confess to them. For we are certain that it is strongly

22Carpzovii Isagoge in libros symbol. p. 20f.

23Historische-kritische Einleitung in die Augsburgische Konfession, Dresden 1841. p. 120.


12/94

grounded in God's Word; how it invented itself so far by God's grace to all Imperial Diets and

Colloquies. We have also never issued it as a general confession of all churches throughout

Christendom: but as the confession of our churches and schools. If they would now have

nothing to do with it, then it remains our church's confession one way or the other."24

Carpzov: "The symbol of the Augsburg Confession has not been held by Protestants as

an ecumenical symbol, although it summarizes the doctrine of the ecumenical symbols inthemselves. Because otherwise, it's an ecumenical symbol; otherwise to have and summarize in

itself the doctrine of the ecumenical symbol."25

Calov: "Although the unaltered Augsburg Confession is not equivalent to the ecumenical

symbols in regard to the their authority in the Church, they cannot even be called a general in

regard to their author, it is still a truly universal symbol, both in regard to the doctrines of faith

as the Orthodox churches, as what all the AC maintain as a symbol or at least accept the items

contained.

Regarding the fourth thesis: This thesis is directed against such congregations or

entities, such as the so-called Lutheran General Synod, who will not let go of the Lutheran

name, even though it is proven to them over and over that they are not Lutheran. As for the

aforementioned General Synod, if they were honest, they would have to have a different name,

as they do not want to adhere to the Augsburg Confession in all its parts. They indeed declare

individual articles of the Augsburg Confession as papistic leaven, as they themselves have

declared even in a letter to Germany. The General Synod stands entirely in the point of view of

the United Church.

Testimonies:

Formula of Concord: "To this Christian Augsburg Confession, so thoroughly grounded in

God's Word, we herewith pledge ourselves again from our inmost hearts; we abide by itssimple, clear, and unadulterated meaning as the words convey it, and regard the said

Confession as apure Christian symbol, with which at the present time true Christians ought to

be found next to God's Word; just as in former times concerning certain great controversies that

had arisen in the Church of God, symbols and confessions were proposed, to which the pure

teachers and hearers at that time pledged themselves with heart and mouth. We intend also,

by the grace of the Almighty, faithfully to abide until our end by this Christian Confession,

mentioned several times, as it was delivered in the year 1530 to the Emperor Charles V; and it is

our purpose, neither in this nor in any other writing, to recede in the least from that oft-cited

Confession26

, nor to propose another or new confession."27

J. Gerhard: "We can claim a threefold unityof the Evangelical churches. The first iscanonicalunity, by which - namely, with the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments - it

agrees in everything with our doctrine that we profess, for no Papist has even been able to

24Apologia oder Verantwortung des christliches Concordienbuchs. Dresden 1584, fol. 165.

25Isagoge in libr. symb. p. 110.

26vel transversum, ut ajunt, unguem.

27Preface to the Solid Declaration, paragraphs 4-5.


13/94

convict us of any error in the articles of faith on the basis of Holy Scripture. In fact, the foremost

Papist writers are forced to admit that they cannot overturn our confession at all on the basis of

Holy Scripture. The second is ecclesiasticalunity, by which - namely, with the church writers

whom they call "fathers" and especially with those who were closest to the times of the

apostles - it agrees with our doctrine. For we are ready in every article in controversy to provide

clear and manifest testimonies from the fathers in favor of our position. The third is symbolicalunity, a unity in which we embrace by common consent the doctrine contained in the

symbolical books of our churches: in the Augsburg Confession and the Apology of the same, in

Luther's catechisms, in the Smalcald Articles, and in the Formula of Concord. If anyone refuses

to give his name to this, we do not recognize him as a brother in the matter of faith and

confession."28

Regarding the fifth thesis:

Testimonies:

J. Dan. Arcularius noted the following: "Dannhauer writes: 'We by no means exclude all

legitimate, properly flowing consequences and ramifications that can be drawn from our

confession, and hold it both for our confession as well as if they were clearly and distinctly

written with such characters in it; and that so much the more, because Holy Scripture is not

actually contrary to such implications and consequences that even the Lord Christ and His

apostles consecrated and ennobled it themselves with the name of Scripture.'29

If the words of

the confession are true in their proper, actual, deep founded understanding, and I suppose the

truth of these words by heart, then I myself have to be afraid before any conclusion and if

twenty or thirty of those would be made in succession, if they only conclude quite strongly and

succinctly; then the rule remains forever fixed: Ex veris non nisi verum, from truth come no

lies."30Carpzov further writes: "The question, whether under the doctrine of the Augsburg

Confession was included only what is literally contained in it, but by no means the rest of what

either the Papists teach against Scripture or what is required for proof of the articles of faith, or

by means of a necessary implication flowing and following from this - the Saxon theologians

answered this question in the negative in the Evangelical eyeball."31

Carpzov writes: "The Protestants have emphatically added in the words: 'This is almost

the sum of the doctrine' etc., the little word 'almost'. For the Protestants did not want to

compose a list of all necessary articles of faith for salvation, but only want to make a confession

of those doctrines of faith that affect the current matter and could be sufficient."32

28Loci Theologici, volume 25: On the Church (522-523).

29Reformiertes Salve, p. 231.

30The Voluntary Confession of Faith or Admonition to Safekeeping of the Doctrine of the Augsburg Confession.

Frankfurt 1692. p. 136f.31

Isag. p. 131f.32

loc. cit. p. 115.


14/94

That is why the Augsburg Confession itself writes: "If there is anything that anyone

might desire in this Confession, we are ready, God willing, to present ampler information

(latiorem informationem) according to the Scriptures."33

Finally it says in the Formula of Concord: "Now although the Christian doctrine of this

Confession has in great part remained unchallenged (save what has been done by the Papists),

yet it cannot be denied that some theologians have departed from some great and important ofthe said Confession, and either have not attained to their true meaning, or at any rate have not

continued steadfastly therein, and occasionally have even undertaken to attach to it a foreign

meaning, while at the same time they wished to be regarded as adherents of the Augsburg

Confession, and to avail themselves and make their boast of it. From this, grievous and injurious

dissension have arisen in the pure evangelical churches."34

In the very thorough debate it was first pointed out that it is of very great importance to

be quite aware of the importance of the Fifth Thesis.

Some say that it is a very serious matter to confess consistently to everything arising

from the Augsburg Confession. Because if you do this, then indeed you confess to something

you still do not know, therefore perhaps also they would reject if they knew of it. And so one

could confess with the mouth to all the implications of the Augsburg Confession and not yet be

a true Lutheran. But this is not so. For either we must also admit the implications, or deny the

institution that God has given us, to infer truths from truths, namely reason. But that also may

have been drawn from conclusions of Scriptural truths and, if logically drawn, Scripture could

give no contradictory results, as the example of Christ toward the Sadducees teaches us.35

For

there He refers to the rejecters of the Resurrection though their perverse conclusion as one

contradicting Scripture, when He calls out to them: You err and do not know the Scriptures; but

at the same time He Himself draws a conclusion by which He precisely irrefutably proves to

them what they had wanted to deny away, namely the resurrection of the body.

Because of this, we also must not be afraid of the consequences of the AugsburgConfession because it is nothing other than the developed content of this Confession itself.

After Luther's death, many false spirits emerged with their heresies which were already

addressed by the conclusions of the Augsburg Confession. Calvin had not yet appeared in 1530,

but he was already condemned by the 10th article of the Augustana, namely by the conclusions

resulting from it. Further, when the Augsburg Confession teaches that Christ is God and man in

one person, then this is the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum, i.e., of the

communication of attributes, although not explicitly expressed, but so clearly shown, that a

valid inference of it necessarily draws forth. And so it is with the entire Augsburg Confession.

This is not explicitly mentioned in the Augsburg Confession of the general priesthood of all true

Christians, and yet it is confessed therein by the fact that the doctrine of Christian liberty, ofjustification, of the Church as the assembly of all believers and saints, etc., is confessed.

33Epilogue, paragraph 7.

34Solid Declaration, Introduction, paragraphs 6-7.

35Matthew 22:24-25.


15/94

Therefore the Iowa Synod, for example, is caught in a gross error when it wants to allow

to be valid in the Confession as such what, as they put it, is said "confessing" in it, to confess

directly what was therefore demonstrable in the intent of the fathers!

All doctrines are not thus expressed with explicit words in Holy Scripture that they

would have to be drawn out not only by a conclusion. For example, the word Trinity is not

expressed in Holy Scripture; but it is there: the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit isGod; it is also in Scripture: the Father is another, the Son is another, the Holy Spirit is another;

finally it is witnessed in all of Scripture that there is only one God. The ancient church has

drawn from this the logical conclusion against the anti-Trinitarians: Therefore God is a Triune

God, and have not tolerated as such Anti-Trinitarians, who wished not to disclose this

conclusion, who reject a clear basic doctrine of Scripture. It is true in a similar way with the

Augsburg Confession. According to the principle: Ex veris non nisi verum, i.e., no lies follow from

truth, we need not to be afraid of the conclusions of the Augsburg Confession.

If one accuses us in this connection that we go beyond the Symbols, then that is not the

case. For consequences drawn from the symbols means they do not go beyond the Symbols.

Obviously this would be terrible if a synod wanted to set new conditions of church fellowship

that earlier would have been either explicite or implicite. But this we certainly do not do. That

which is correctly deduced from the symbols belongs instead to the content of the symbols.

Thus e.g. the doctrine of inspiration (divine inspiration of Scripture) is not expressly stated in

the Augsburg Confession, but implicite it is there, as the Augsburg Confession never speaks

differently from the Holy Scriptures, except that it was entirely supplied by the Holy Spirit.

Wherein it will be seen from this, if one does not want to admit the conclusions of the

Augsburg Confession, that the Jesuits assert Lutherans still belong in the Papist church, despite

the Augsburg Confession, if they no longer believed in what is explicitly and by name

designated in the Augsburg Confession. But for that very reason the Jesuit L. Forer had asserted

that Lutherans should teach nothing other than what is "expressly and by name located" in the

Augsburg Confession. He was answered, among other things, in "Defense of the EvangelicalApple of His Eye"

36: "In the midst of this are nevertheless understood implicite even those

articles in the Augsburg Confession that may be in dispute between us and the Papists, whether

they already have been touched not just in particular, explicite and expressly. It is enough when

the opinion of our people on those points of the Augsburg Confession may be heard.... When

for example a great dispute is between us and them whether the Holy Scriptures also supply the

fact that articles of faith must be proved and discusses, whether it is a set of guidelines

according to which all disputes are to be decided? There is indeed no more particular article

available about this; but the Evangelical States give sufficiently to recognize their mind in a

different way about this point when they write in the Preface: 'They handed over their pastors

and preachers and even their confession of faith, what which form and was taughtfrom thebasis of Holy Scripture in their principalities etc.' Even a blind man can grasp that Holy Scripture

was being held as the foundation of the articles of faith.... It is not expressly stated in the article

on Original Sin that the Virgin Mary was conceived in sin; but because of all people it is said are

born thus according to nature, that they were conceived and born in sin: it is therefore not

361673.


16/94

difficult to conclude that among such people would be understood also the Virgin Mary;

otherwise she in particular would have been excluded."37

One should not therefore be intimidated. We do not go too far as to make new

conditions of church fellowship, we go no further than our fathers. But we must go so far that

we accept the conclusions. Still we must go further. If namely a doctrine is not contained in the

Augsburg Confession, however it is proven clearly from Holy Scripture, then we must alsobelieve it as any other doctrine named explicitly in the Augsburg Confession. For we would be

an obvious sect, yes, the most disgraceful church fellowship if we did not want to believe, as

what is explicitly confessed and given name in the Augsburg Confession. What is in the symbols

that we assume indeed simply because it is in Scripture, but what is in the Scriptures, that we

assume eo ipso.38

And it happened at that time that Adiaphorists, Syncretists, Synergists, etc.

confessed themselves to the Augsburg Confession, which indeed does not want to be an index

of all necessary doctrines for salvation, they accepted and invoked the Augsburg Confession,

but firmly held their heresies. We must not be surprised when this happens now, and still more

as then. But our fathers did not tolerate this back then, so we should not tolerate it and may

not hold church fellowship with those who deny the conclusions of the Augsburg Confession. To

draw conclusions is not a new practice, but a practice in which not only the fathers, but the

Lord Christ Himself goes before us, when He proves the resurrection against the Pharisees and

Sadducees through an inference from Matthew 22:29-32 and from Exodus 3:6 and His divinity

from Psalm 100.

What the word "logical" concerns in the 5th thesis aroused a more detailed discussion

about it, because one worried that this word might not cover everything that should be

expressed in this thesis. But it soon became clear to all that other expressions would either

more or less say the same thing or darken the whole matter. It is certain we can come to no

result in our conclusions that contradicts clear passages of Holy Scripture. But whoever thinks

that he could have indeed logically concluded, and yet it was possible that his result would

contradict the Scriptures, he is very much mistaken. A conclusion which leads to such a result iscertainly not compelling, not logical. And this not only on this account, not because its outcome

is impossible from the beginning by clear passages of Scripture, but because such a result is a

proof of the fact that one had not properly inferred. E.g. the conclusion: All men are sinners -

Christ is a true Man - therefore He is also a sinner - is false because the second sentence is false

in its relationship to the first. For it is not true in the terms "true Man" that He is a sinner.

Indeed, if it would mean and could mean: Jesus Christ was a man like us, then the conclusion

would be correct. One may relate the Word "logical" not only to the thought process, but it

must also relate to the sentences of the premises. For it is absolutely necessary to the logical

inference that the premises are correct. Otherwise it is impossible to infer properly. If for

example you would infer: All men are mortal - Christ is a man - therefore Christ is mortal - theneveryone sees easily that this is a false conclusion. But where exactly is the problem? In the

premises. For there is included in the major premise a term: descending from Adam according

37The same is proven in the following in relation to the doctrines of the certainty of salvation, of the number of the

sacraments, of the invocation and adoration of images, ofpurgatory. p. 168-171. Cf. "Doctrine and Defense"

14:204f.38

in and of itself.


17/94

to the flesh, conceived and born in sin, which is omitted in the minor premise. So it's likely that

the major premise is either not completely true or is at least ambiguous. Often something is

only true secundum quid.39

Then one must, in order to be able infer logically, also make the

same limitation in the minor premise. Such a separation of the formal thought process and the

accuracy of the assumptions is therefore quite inadmissible. If one would refer the logical

inference only to the formal thought process and not on the accuracy of the assumptions, thatwould have terrible consequences! Just think: our entire catechism, our entire dogmatics, in so

far as both do not contain words of Scripture, are nothing but conclusions from the Holy

Scriptures. If one now establishes a true and a false statement as premises, then one cannot

infer properly. The word "logical" presupposes here, rather, that both the premises as well as

the conclusio are in order because we only really speak of such premises that contain a Biblical

truth. Not only the form of the conclusion, but also the matter of the entire syllogism must be

correct.

A question, whether or not the issue here in the fifth thesis should be only about a

persistentdenial of the individual conclusions, was then answered: This thesis does not so

much take into consideration the behavior towards denial ofindividualproperly inferred

conclusions. Rather, it wants to set up a universally valid principle. This principle is: Whoever

denies that the logically resulting truths by conclusions from the Augsburg Confession are

binding, he is not a member of the Lutheran Church. This sense of the thesis may possibly

already be deduced from the words, "is not a true member of the Lutheran Church." But so that

this sense also will be quite unmistakably expressed in the thesis itself, the beginning of the

thesis was thus formulated according to a unanimous decision: "Whoever also denies the

binding force of the theologically resultant conclusions from the words of this Confession, etc."

This change appeared more necessary as surely no one will go so far to deny the Lutheran faith

to all those who does not recognize such a doctrine that is somehow in the periphery of the

doctrinal articles of the Augsburg Confession. But whoever denies principally the binding nature

of the conclusions of the Augsburg Confession, he proves that he is not a Lutheran but a fox,who also does not sincerely accept the Confession itself.

In this connection, the question was raised whether even unenlightened reason was

then able to draw correct conclusions from the Scriptures or from the Augsburg Confession, or

whether that only the enlightened reason of the regenerate was possible? Whether or not

there are mysteries of faith that could be explained by any conclusion? It was answered that

even unregenerate reason can make correct conclusions; if it does not proceed from misguided

propositions but from the word of God, then one can make its conclusion, if it is a compelling

one, it could be none other than a true one. If its conclusion according to God's Word is

incorrect, then we must draw conclusions about the inaccuracy of the conclusio that at least

one of the premises was wrong. It does not matter here who makes the conclusion, whether anenlightened Christian, or a heathen, Jew, or Turk, if he not only brings in his darkness with it,

but objectively concludes correctly; whether he means what he has concluded, believes it or

not himself, that does not come into question here. Thus e.g. the Jews and Nicodemus drew

correct conclusions about the divinity of Christ, although they were not in the faith.

39in a certain sense.


18/94

It should not be said in this thesis that the Augsburg Confession was added so that the

sophists practice their art on it, but that we confess our faith. We believe that the Augsburg

Confession is true, therefore we confess that nothing false could follow out of it. An example of

this is the entire Formula of Concord. This wants nothing more than to draw clear conclusions

from the Augsburg Confession; its content therefore actually rather pertains to the intentioned

conclusions in this thesis. But our faith is not based on conclusions as such, but on Scripture.Incidentally, the principle remains that a lie could never come from something true by correct

conclusion40

, is irrefutably certain even in regard to the Augsburg Confession, and such

conclusions, which still brings up a lie, are instantly characterized as false. If e.g. a Calvinist

wanted to conclude absolute predestination from the words of the 5th article of the Augsburg

Confession: "God works faith when and where He wills", then he would make himself guilty of a

sophistic dishonesty. For in these words only the time and the place is expressed, not the

selection of the individual man by God.

We speak of course in this thesis ofevidentconclusions. It must be such a conclusion

which everyone who is gifted with common sense can see. But it has now been repeatedly

stressed that here it is not about the method in a particular case, but about the principle that

the Augsburg Confession is true and that we can confidently draw validinferences from it,

without having to fear that we could bring our reason into a contradiction in this way with a

clear Word of Holy Scripture.

If Holy Scripture says about our reason that we should let it go into captivity under the

obedience of Christ, then it does not demand of us that we should forsake the organic use of

reason. For this organic (instrumental) or mechanical use of reason is as necessary in an adult

as knowledge of faith. The conclusion is not much of a product of reason. The truth must lie in

the premises as already enveloped, otherwise they could not extracted.

Regarding the sixth thesis: In the very detailed discussion the following was noted:

Nothing is easier than to sign the symbolic books, especially for one who has no conscience,and at a time when it pertains to the good reputation of a Lutheran preacher. If indeed simply

having to provide this signature, in order to be an orthodox preacher and an orthodox

congregation, then this would be no difficult requirement. That's not what the seventh article

of the Augsburg Confession has in mind when it will specify as a sign of the Church that "the

gospel is preached purely". To the one who fails to comply, where an ecclesiastical fellowship

recognizes pure Lutheran doctrine as correctly consisting among her and certainly also no

contradictory, heretical doctrine resounds in the pulpit, but only if the confession is

satisfactorily done, if one out of conviction and wholeheartedly embraces the familiar doctrine

of the Church of the Reformation and confesses it not merely with the mouth, but also in deed.

God is not satisfied with such a life, because one indeed performs pious speeches in the mouth,but in life belies it. James therefore commands: "Show me your faith with your works, and I will

show you my faith with my works"41

, and David says whoever hates discipline should not even

take the Word of God in his mouth. It is clearly apparent that this is the true Lutheran church,

the one that does not merely embrace pure doctrine with the mouth, but also testifies in deed.

401 John 2:21.

41James 2:18.


19/94

While this is the main part of a preacher, that the doctrine is pure, Paul, however, requires of

Titus that the work is in accordance with the supposed knowledge of God.42

Therefore not only

should pure preaching be in fashion in the church, but the entire action of the church should

comply with it, otherwise the church stands there as a big hypocrite.

The following testimony of Luther was given for the explanation of this thesis: "First, the

holy Christian people are recognized by their possession of the holy word of God.... But we arespeaking of the external word, preached orally by men like you and me, for this is what Christ

left behind as an external sign, by which his church, or his Christian people in the world, should

be recognized. We also speak of this external word as it is sincerely believed and openly

professed before the world, as Christ says, 'Everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also

will acknowledge before my Father and his angels'.43

There are many who know it in their

hearts, but will not profess it openly.... Now, wherever you hear or see this word preached,

believed, professed, and lived, do not doubt that the true ecclesia sancta catholica, 'a Christian

holy people' must be there, even though their number is very small."44

In the case of the General Council, e.g., the proper confession is perhaps on paper, but

in practice it is otherwise. Now it is quite possible that confusion still hinders them to recognize

this necessary connection between confession and practice. In the first class would be put, for

example, the actions of Holy Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution, as according to it they

must be administered in accordance with the institution of Christ. Also, there's still acts of the

second class in which the church has freedom, but they may not be used contrary to the

confession. So, for example, nothing is said howcongregational assemblies must be set up. In

Acts and elsewhere, we find only general indications about it. Setting it up is a matter of

Christian freedom. The establishment, however, would run counter to the confession, if the

right to vote would be given to those whom it does not belong. Johann Arndt's reaction in the

dispute about exorcism is remarkable. Arndt knew very well that exorcism is not commanded in

the Word of God; he would have been well aware that exorcism is not even an adequate

expression of the doctrine of original sin. But when he saw the Crypto-Calvinists urge theabolition of exorcism because they cast aside a forceful testimony against their teaching that

the children of Christian parents by nature may be found in the kingdom of God, because he did

not let the matter rest there, merely to preach the pure doctrine of original sin, but also again

most earnestly opposed the abolition of exorcism and allow himself to be chased out of the

country by the Crypto-Calvinist government of Anhalt.

We call adiaphora such things that "are neither commanded nor forbidden" by God45

;

but they are in any event only in the abstract sense. In particular cases it may no longer be

possible to stand in freedom, to act one way or another, namely, when love is offended, as the

apostle aims at when he says: "'All things are lawful,' but not all things are helpful."46

Hereof we

find a specific case from the life of the apostle Paul. He allowed Timothy to be circumcised forthe sake of the weak Jews in order to take him with him on his apostolic journey because it was

42Titus 1:16.

43Matthew 10:32.

44Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 41: Luther's works, vol. 41: Church and Ministry III (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T.

Lehmann, Ed.). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.45

FC X.46

1 Corinthians 10:23.


20/94

in Christian freedom. But then when one party formed with the teaching: one must pass

through the Jewish church in order to go into the Christian church, faith in Christ was not

merely necessary for obtaining salvation, but also observation of the principal laws of Moses.

But then these skunks47

probably invoked: because Paul had let Timothy be circumcised for the

sake of the weak, so he must now consequently also let Titus be circumcised, yet Paul did not

give way to them even for one hour and did not allow Titus to be circumcised. Luther shows towhat extent a Christian has his freedom in adiaphora and yet can be bound in relation to the

use of the same when he writes: "Your freedom is full and round between you and your God,

but you have no freedom between you and your neighbor. Faith makes you the master of all,

the love slave of all."48

The freedom of a Christian in adiaphora relates only to conscience and

not on external action. The Christian is definitely not a free man in regard to the neighbor, but a

slave. One should be prepared to refrain from a free adiaphora for the sake of the neighbor, as

the apostle says, "Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I

make my brother stumble"49

; but while one refrains from it out of love for the sake of the

neighbor, one must also know that it is free. Adiaphora itself are not subject to change, they

remain what they are; but the custom of adiphora is not always free. No creature can make

laws to bind the conscience, only God can. And it is not to be expected of God that He set up a

new economy and will prohibit something free, as in the Old Testament; we have an immovable

kingdom in the New Testament. Even the Church can make no such conscience binding order.

Her duty and responsibility is to save people. How does she respond when she throws stones in

the way of souls through ordinances? Her ordinances in certain circumstances may have

therefore been good and salutary which must be changed in other times; because to make such

ordinances, which are at all times good and wholesome, only the all-wise God can do. In regard

to church orders and church traditions, we must not intend to bind consciences but must

confess freely: What the Church has arranged, but God has not arranged, can be eliminated.

One can perhaps sin in eliminating, but one also sins if one denies this freedom. Therefore our

Church confesses in the tenth article of the Formula of Concord: "The congregation of God ofevery place and every time has, according to its circumstances, the good right, power, and

authority to change, to diminish, and to increase (adiaphora), without thoughtlessness and

offense, in an orderly and becoming way."

Since it had been observed that there are certain ecclesiastical acts that are not an

immediate expression and effective implementation of the confession, but should not violently

contradict the confession: Adiaphora could never actually be sinful in itself, but its use is not

indifferent and should therefore never be against the confession: so one would be asked how

the use of an adiaphoron could contradict the confession? Answer: This we see, for example, in

the Interim Controversies. Luther had fought for Christian freedom and declared among other

things the elevation, vestments, episcopal polity, etc. as free adiaphora. But later, with theintroduction of the Interim, many so-called Lutherans claimed that one could probably yield to

the papists in these adiaphora, since it was only a question quite indifferent things. But the

47Stnker.

48A Report to a Good Friend on Both Kinds in the Sacrament on the Bishop of Meissen's Mandate. WA 26.555-618.

Not available in Luther's Works.49

1 Corinthians 8:13.


21/94

faithful Lutheran fathers would prefer to put up with everything, except to yield in these parts

to the enemies, because the papists used these things in order to conceal and thus to introduce

their false doctrine. The faithful Lutherans declared that they would have indeed been able to

bear the Bishop, but they would not deny the truth of the Gospel under the appearance of

freedom; they followed in this the example of the apostle Paul, who first used circumcision, but

when some false brothers wanted to rob him his freedom in Christ, he then did not give way tothem for even an hour, in order that the Truth of the Gospel might remain. The same

explanation goes to the Reformed. Luther explained to Karlstadt: "And although I had intended

also to abolish the elevation, now I will not do it, to defy for a while the fanatic spirit, since he

would forbid it and consider it a sin and make us depart from our liberty. For before I would

yield a hairsbreadth or for a moment to this soul-murdering spirit and abandon our freedom (as

Paul teaches50

), I would much rather tomorrow become a strict monk and observe all the

monastic rules as stringently as I ever did. This matter of Christian liberty is nothing to joke

about. We want to keep it as pure and inviolate as our faith, even if an angel from heaven were

to say otherwise. It has cost our dear, faithful Savior and Lord Jesus Christ too much. It is also

altogether too necessary for us. We may not dispense with it without the loss of our

salvation."51

Compared to the Reformed, the breaking of bread is not an act of Christian freedom.

For they say, if you do not break bread in the Holy Supper, then it is no true Supper. They make

this a symbolic action, as if Christ therefore would want to present his suffering and death

symbolically to us. Thus they want to deny the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in

the Holy Supper, making it a mere commemoration and thus deny the Truth of the Gospel. If

we give way to them in this part, we would consent in their error and give away our Christian

freedom. We thus see: every ecclesiastical act must be so designed that they do not contradict

the Church's confession. According to our thesis two things are required: 1. every ecclesiastical

act must be according to the confession and 2. it must not violently contradict the confession.

Therefore it is said in our thesis: Every ecclesial act is either a direct manifestation and effectiveimplementation of the confession, or at least one that, if it moves itself within the area of

Christian liberty, must not be in violent contradiction to the confession. All ecclesiastical acts

can be brought under these two categories. Everyone confesses this principle.

However, since there seemed to be a contradiction that according to the thesis

something changes in the area of Christian freedom and at the same time could contradict the

confession. So the thesis was adopted unanimously with the omission of the disputed words in

the following form:

"It necessarily follows from the type and nature of this orthodox confession that church

practice is in accordance with the confession. Because every ecclesial act must be either a

direct manifestation and effective implementation of the confession or must not violentlycontradict the confession."

50Galatians 5:1.

51Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 40: Luther's works, vol. 40: Church and Ministry II (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T.Lehmann, Ed.) (133134). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.


22/94

Thesis 7

If one asks: why should this not be done? the answer is: We should indeed work with all

who are one with us in faith and confession, even this unity through fellowship of confession

and love, even, where possible, by ecclesiastical association. If we would not and do not do this,

then we would be schismatics and separatists or we would give at least the evil appearance ofseparatism. But if in another ecclesial body a practice contradictory to the Church's confession

prevails, then it is evident that such a confession of the mouth does not come from the heart

and that it is not serious about its confession. For whoever does not act according to his

confession reveals the fact that he neglects the proper practice of his confession either from

church politics or even from ignorance of the implications and consequences that flow from his

confession. We cannot recognize such calling themselves "Lutheran" body in which the

prevailing practice contradicts the confession of a true,pure, andfaithfulLutheran synod. We

must also maintain no fellowship of faith and church fellowship with them, but must constantly

chastise such actual hypocrisy and denial of the confession seriously. Our confessions testify in

the Formula of Concord Article X to the fact that no ecclesiastical connection must be entered

into with such bodies. Here the Interimists are rejected, who gave way in adiaphora to the

enemies of the truth and compared themselves to them. These Adiaphorists would not be such

fools and at the time of such persecution oppose the enemies and the power of the Emperor

because of such adiaphora. In contrast, our confession says: "Such ceremonies should not be

reckoned among the genuine free adiaphora, or matters of indifference, as make a show or

feign the appearance, as though our religion and that of the Papists were not far apart, thus to

avoid persecution, or as though the latter were not at least highly offensive to us ; or when such

ceremonies are designed for the purpose, and required and received in this sense, as though by

and through them both contrary religions were reconciled and became one body; or when a

reentering into the Papacy and a departure from the pure doctrine of the Gospel and true

religion should occur or gradually follow therefrom. For in this case what Paul writes, 2 Cor.6:14-17, shall and must obtain: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what

communion hath light with darkness? Wherefore come out from among them and be ye

separate, saith the Lord."

If our confession is here talking about the papistic religion, then it also talks about any

other false religion. We have to guard ourselves carefully even against the pretext as if we were

united in such adiaphora with the Reformed and newly emerging sects. Everyone must

immediately be able to recognize that we are not sects, not Baptists, not Methodists, not

Episcopalians, etc. Faithful confessional Lutherans would not maintain brotherly faithful

fellowship with Interimists or Adiaphorists. Therefore, if a member of such a congregation

seceded and came to faithful Lutheran preachers, then he was accepted. For Adiaphorists havebeen reckoned among the false teachers and put on the same level with Papists, Calvinists,

synergists, Majorists, and Schwenkfelders, although they called themselves Lutherans and are

in the midst of the proper Lutheran church. Tilemann Heshusius writes: "If the case befalls that

other people are not thus sitting in our parish but sit either under the anti-Christian papacy or

underfalse teachers, as Calvinists, Synergists, Majorists, Adiaphorists, Schwenkfelders, for

which a Christian must guard against, or be weighed down by their tyrannical pastors against

their conscience... or otherwise need comfort, and would strengthen their consciences by the


23/94

practice of the Sacraments, covet our service and look to us for the sacraments, in such and

similar cases, we are free preachers, to every man, it is tantamount to the rising or setting of

the sun (provided that he makes proper repentance and believes the Gospel) to communicate

the Sacraments, by virtue of the saying: 'The Holy Spirit will convict the world'52

, i.e. the

kingdom of Christ and the holy Preaching Office stretches around the entire world and is not

bound to any place, person, or time."53

The orthodox character of a truly Lutheran synod is by no means robbed if practice

contradictory to the confession in its midst is revealed, if it does not merely grant permission or

toleration to it, but, as soon as such practice comes to its attention, intervene against it with

serious discipline according to God's Word. But it is a different situation, e.g., with the General

Council. False doctrine and practice, pulpit exchange with false believers, communion

fellowship with the heretics, and membership in the ungodly lodges are not only tolerated in it,

but also defended, and faithful Lutheran congregations are destroyed. This also happens in the

individual synods of the General Council, e.g., the New York Ministerium, as such, tolerates

false practice; no doctrinal discipline is practiced, no testimony filed against secret societies,

and even if some witnesses rise up against it, then they cannot get through. This makes our

position difficult and undermines our congregations. Even from the Michigan Synod it was

testified that it does not practice doctrinal discipline.

To the question of whether one could therefore hold the General Council as false

believers, inasmuch as it bears witness to the Symbols, it was answered: We consider the

General Council as not confessional, as not truly Lutheran. The Confessions serve them as a

figurehead. Its practice belies the Confessions. Anyone who cannot observe the theory must be

convinced from practice and life that such an oral confession is only fraud. We shall not have

any church fellowship with such false Lutherans. The position of the General Council is

dangerous, as open rejection of the confessions and the theory, as happens in the General

Synod. No one who wants to be Lutheran will go to the General Synod, but the General Council

still deceives many Lutherans with its confession. We initially welcomed the confession of theGeneral Council with gladness. But no sooner had we accepted them, it was hardly embraced

again by their practice.

Although it is not especially emphasized in this thesis that we are not able to recognize

such entities, because we now deal not about the Church, but about Church fellowship. The

General Council does not even plead with us for recognition; it knows our position well and

leads bitter complaint about it. A special explanation is therefore unnecessary in our thesis. It is

this particular task of those of our pastors, who come into contact with the General Council.

However, because the Synodical Conference occupies a prominent position and the public

journals of the Council, which will be read everywhere, lead the complaint about our refusal to

recognize the Council as truly Lutheran, it is necessary to encourage such a perennial witness tothe Council, partly in order to convict dishonest ways, partly in order to strengthen the

contending members of the Council in the Truth, partly for our own congregations who have to

contend with the Council. Even the leaders of the Iowans recently stated that it is an impiety to

separate from the General Council. But also the nominal elenchus in our testimony is

52John 16.

53Dedek. Thesaur. II:438.


24/94

forevermore necessary, because one should refute and admonish before them not only sin and

error of false teachers, but also convict the bearers of the errors themselves by naming names.

Thesis 8

Not merely heterodox sects are to be understood as non-Lutherans, but also all thosewho indeed recognize the rightness of our doctrine, but do not reject false doctrine and do not

want to depart from false-believing fellowships. If such members false believing churches come

to our Lord's Supper, then they shall be informed of the difference of doctrine and the errors of

their false churches. If they indeed recognize the Scriptural moderation of our doctrine, but at

the same time do not reject the error and secede from their false-believing fellowship, then it is

obvious that they are stuck in unionism, they must therefore be turned away from the Lord's

Supper until they have seceded from the heresy and false fellowship. Only agony of death is an

exception; because a confession of the Truth would be necessary if no obstinate adherence of

error exists. But one would have to explain to others: You bear witness to a lie and deny your

confession with your deed. If one is honest, then a decisive, continual, actual witness best helps

him to break away from the false fellowship.

Three characteristics of false Lutherans are mentioned in our thesis:

1. Pulpit exchange with non-Lutheran preachers. The General Council will not abandon

this according to its own declaration. It is among the famous, or rather infamous "Four Points".

Whoever practices such pulpit exchange with non-Lutheran preachers does not only consider

his doctrine as correct, but at most as plausible. Luther says: "It contradicts wanton spirits,

otherwise your confession is only a false face54

and good for nothing. Whoever keeps his

doctrine, faith and confession to be true, right, and sure, can lead with another, thus keeps

false doctrine and is devoted to it, neither standing in a stable nor giving evermore good words

to the devil and his scales. A teacher who remains silent about the errors and will nevertheless

still be a true teacher is worse and a common enthusiast. He does more damage with hishypocrisy. He is a heretic and not to be trusted. He is a wolf and a fox, a hireling and a belly

servant and must surrender and despise doctrine, Word, faith, Sacrament, Church, and school.

He is either secretly under one roof with enemies, or is a skeptic and weather vane and wants

to see where he wants to go, whether Christ or the devil will prevail; or is entirely uncertain in

himself and not worthy that he should be called a student, much less a teacher, and will offend

no one, let alone speak Christ's Word, let alone hurt the devil and the world."55

This is a powerful witness against such false Lutherans. Their confession is merely a false

face. The same faith of Luther does not live in the heart when one remains silent about errors

or even allows false spirits to preach for themselves. If one allows such to have proper

confession, then he is still a wolf and a fox. He's either with enemies under one roof or is askeptic and wants to go with the wind, to see who wins at last, in order to be able to keep them

with him. He is not suitable for a student, much less for a teacher and preacher. He unites

himself with those with whom God has no fellowship. For Psalm 94:20 states: "You will never,

never be one with the pernicious chair that disreputably interprets the Law " Chair is here

54Larvenwerk.

55"Dialogue with Dr. George Major". Walch XVII:1477.


25/94

teaching chair or pulpit. Under pulpit fellowship one now understands the one deplorable

custom that one occasionally relinquishes the teaching office in his congregation to preachers

of other confessions. False teachers should be avoided according to God's Word; beware of

them and do not greet them as a brother. How can there be a false teacher, a false preacher in

his pulpit? How can a congregation listen to him? The [General] Council certainly raises the

objection: the American preacher is a gentleman56

and will not abuse such courtesy to proclaimhis heresies. We respond: 1. It is sinful to put his trust in people and their honesty, integrity, or

even courtesy. 2. Whoever remains in false doctrine, his whole doctrine is permeated and

corrupted with this leaven. A Lutheran preacher who allows a false teacher in his pulpit

reinforces himself and his congregation in their errors and their unionism, denies his own

doctrine, and angers the orthodox Church. One should not give his pulpit to a false teacher in

this case, provided he reads aloud or wanted to present a written sermon by a orthodox

preacher.

But what if we are invited by false believers to preach to them? Answer: With our

resolute testimony and rejection of all heresies such cases will not often occur. But if we come

into this situation, then we seriously have to guard ourselves that we do not invite the glow of

unionism on us, because we live in an syncretistic age where one at best puts up with a

testimony of the Truth, but not the rejection and condemnat

Documents

Theses Concerning Church Fellowship