mnurnrbtu mqrnlngiral :Snut111y Continuing LEHRE UND WEHRE MAGAZIN FUER EV.-LUTH. HOMILETIK THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY-THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY Vol. VI February, 1935 No.2 CONTENTS Page Foreword. (Concluded.) Thea. Laetsch. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 81 Zur :Bedeutung der Taufe Jesu. J. T. Mueller. • • • • • • • • • • • • 93 A Comparison of the King James and the Douay Version. Geo. A. W. Vogel •••••••••• 102 "Die Schrift kann nicht gebrochen werden." P. E. Kretzmann. • • • • • • • • •• 114 Der Schriftgrund fuer die Lehre von der satisfactio vicma. P. E. Kretzmann • • • • • • • • •• 121 Dispositionen ueber die altkirchliche Evangelienreihe.... 125 Miscellanea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 133 T.l:teological Observer. - Kirchlich.Zeitgeschichtliches. . . .. 141 :Book Review. - Literatur. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 153 Etn Predlger MUSS Dieht anetn 1DridM>, alao da&s er die Schafe unterweise, wie sle rechte ChrIaten soDen satn, BOndeI'D aueh daneben den Woelfen fDelinm, da.sa ale die Schate nleht uagreilen and mit falseher Lehre vertnehren and Irrtum e!n. fuehren. - Luther. Es 1st bin Ding, daa die Leute mehr bel der Klrche bebaelt denn die lUte Predigt. - ApologU, .Arl. !~. If the trumpet give an unceriatn BOund, who shall preps re himael1 to the battle f J Cor. J.6, 8. Published for the Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States CONCORDIA PUBLISHING EOUSE, St. Louis, Mo. Concordia Theological Monthly Vol. VI FEBRUARY, 1935 No.2 Foreword. (Concluded.) On October 22, 1934, the United Lutheran Ohurch of America, in convention assembled at Savannah, Ga., unanimously and enthusi- astically adopted a series of "Resolutions on Lutheran Ohurch Unity," showing reasons "in favor of negotiations with other Lutheran synods for unity of influence." (Lutheran, Nov. 1, 1934, p.1.) The chief reason why the Savannah resolutions favor a union of all Lutheran bodies in America is expressed in the following words: "We rejoice that the Lutheran church-bodies in America have held unwaveringly to the faith of the Ohurch set forth in its historic Oonfessions and that all of them, by official declarations, have recorded their sincere purpose to continue in their loyalty to this faith. . . . Inasmuch as our now separated Lutheran church-bodies all subscribe these same Oonfessions, it is our sincere belief that we already possess a firm hasis on which to unite in one Lutheran Ohurch in America and that there is no doctrinal reason why such a union should not come to pass." The Lutheran church-bodies in America have held unwaveringly to the faith of the Ohurch, we are told. Would to God that this had been the case or were the case to-day. If all Lutheran bodies had in doctrine and practise held unwaveringly to the faith of the Ohurch, to God's Word and our Lutheran Oonfessions, then there would have been not the slightest excuse for refusing to acknowl- edge one another as hrethren, for failing to cooperate, for maintaining a state of opposition or even separation. And as soon as the whole Lutheran Ohurch in America unwaveringly follows the faith of our Ohurch in doctrine and practise, the refusal of any individual or congregation or synod to establish and maintain fraternal relations with all other Lutherans or Lutheran congregations and synods would be tantamount to disobedience to God's clear will, Eph. 4, 4, and would lay them open to the charge of needless offense, unjustifiable waste of money and men, senseless opposition, sinful separatism. The ques- 6 82 Foreword. tion is: Have all Lutheran Ohurch bodies unwaveringly held to the faith of our Ohurch? More important still: Do they at the present time adhere in doctrine and practise to the standards laid down in the Bible and the Oonfessions of the Lutheran Ohurch? Let the facts speak for themselves. We rejoice that conditions in the Lutheran Ohurch in America are much better than they were 150, 100, 80 years ago. In 1792 the Pennsylvania Synod adopted a constitution in which the Lutheran Oonfessions were not even mentioned. When, on October 22, 1820, the General Synod of the Ev. Luth. Ohurch in the United States of America was organized, the constitution did not so much as name the confessional writings or the Bible; but it was synod (the general body) to which was given the right of approval and proposal to its constituent synods of such books as catechisms, liturgies, hymn-books, and creedal confessions. The constituent synods were expected to "duly heed a proposal of this kind" or give their reasons to the next General Synod for not heeding it. (Kraushaar, Verfassungsformen, reprints the entire constitution, p. 438 fl.) As late as 1855 Dr. S. Schmucker argued that this section of the constitution gave him the right to substitute the Definite Platform for the Augsburg Oonfession. Only in 1864 were the twenty-one doctrinal articles of the Augustana adopted by the General Synod. - We rejoice that in 1934 all the Lu- theran church-bodies in America have subscribed to the confessional writings of the Lutheran Ohurch and, officially at least, regard sub- scription of these confessions as one of the earmarks of Lutheranism. That is indeed a great step forward. But our joy is mingled with sorrow as soon as the question arises: Are the Oonfessions, is the Bible, actually applied as the norm of doctrine and practise in all the Lutheran church-bodies in America? Subscribing to the Symbol- ical Books is necessary of course; but is the mere subscription suffi- cient to make one a faithful, loyal Lutheran? Does not loyal Luther- anism involve that these Oonfessions be made the standard and norm for the doctrine and practise of the individual, the congregation, the church-body, that are subscribing? Sincerity and honesty cer- tainly demand this; else why subscribe at all? Why, then, was it found necessary or deemed expedient to add to the paragraph of the Savannah Resolutions recognizing as Lutherans all such Ohristian groups as accept Scripture as the norm "by which all doctrines are to be judged and who sincerely receive the historic Confessions of the Lutheran Ohurch (especially the Unaltered Augsburg Oonfession and Luther's Small Oatechism)" the words "as a witness of the truth and a presentation of the correct understanding of our predecessors"? While Holy Scripture is the norma normans of Ohristian teaching, why not place the Oonfessions next to Scripture, alongside of it, as the norma normata, whereby Lutheran doctrine and practise are Foreword. 83 to be judged? vVhy, above all, add another paragraph stating: "We believe that these Oonfessions are to be interpreted in their his- torical context, not as a law or as a system of theology, but as 'a wit- ness and declaration of faith as to how the Holy Scriptures were understood and explained on the matters in controversy within the Ohurch of God by those who then lived' (Formula of Concord, Part I, Introd., ed. Jacobs, p. 492)"? We confess we are at a loss how properly to understand, and cox- rectly to interpret, these words. vVe are told that the Oonfessions are "a witness of the truth" and that "we set up no other standards or tests of Lutheranism apart from them or alongside of them" (the Bible and the Oonfessions). In the same breath we are told that these Oon- fessions are not to be regarded "as a law or as a system of theology," but merely as a true and reliable historical document of the doctrine and practise of sixteenth-century Lutherans. I dare say in this sense any JI![odernist or Liberalist would willingly subscribe the Oonfessions. We cannot believe that this was the only sense in which, and the only purpose for which, all the pastors and congregations within the U. L. O. A. subscribed to our Oonfessions. Why, then, this equivocal statement? Why such ambiguous language? Why this perplexing distinction ~ Why not clearly state either that we regard the Oon- fessions as normative of twentieth-century Lutheran doctrine and practise or that we do not regard them in that light ~ The fact of the matter is that the neglect to make Scripture and the Oonfessions noxmative of its practise is one of the charges constantly raised against the U. L. O. A. by other Lutheran bodies in America, as we shall now see. When the U. L. O. A. was organized in 1917, the Kirchenzeitung, the official organ of the Ohio Synod, in its issue datcd May 12, 1917, co=ented as follows on this merger of Lutheran bodies: "The great and glorious work of Dr. Krauth in the Oouncil has been nullified. The General Synod's practise of fraternizing with the sects will pre- vail. ~What is sound and good in the Oouncil will crumble; the proposed union is a great victory for the lax portion of the General Synod and a pitiable defeat for the Oouncil. Indeed, we shall be told about the 'salt' that the Oouncil may be in the new body; but that is an old, old game, which cannot fool people any more. And this to celebrate the Reformation Jubilee! Woul-d that Luther could return and with the thunder of his scorn shatter this celebration of his work! Where unionism has its jubilee, all true Lutherans turn away in sorrow and anger." The KirchenblaU of the Iowa Synod had the following criticism: "It is apparent that the influence of the General Synod on the General Council has paralyzed the practical principles of the fathers and that the contemplated merger is tantamount to an annulment of these principles as far as the official practise of this 84 Foreword. new church-body will come into question. And yet, just this life, the ecclesiastical life and practise of the ministers and congregations, is the mirror in which the real confessional attitude may be seen. We [Iowa] owe much to the General Oouncil and will always remem- ber this gratefully; but now our roads separate, and we must part. American Lutheranism which the General Synod has always stood f01' and which has had its adherents also in the General Oouncil, espe- cially among' its nativistic representatives, will control also the new church-body. This, according to our understanding, means that a far- reaching influence of a Reformed nature will manifest itself, espe- cially with respect to church practise and the attitude toward all manner of societies and antichristian lodges." These strictures were directed especially against the position of some of the merging synods on the questions of lodge-membership and pulpit- and altar-fellowship. Has the U. L. O. A. since 1917 observed a practise in conformity with Scripture and the Lutheran Oonfessions? When on October 24, 1934, Dr. O. O. Hein, the president of the American Lutheran Ohurch, came to Savannah for the purpose of presenting the greetings of the A. L. 0., he said, according to the Lutheran of November 8,1934, "that the American Lutheran Ohurch was satisfied with the doctrinal basis of the United Lutheran Ohurch as set forth in its subscription to the historic Lutheran Oonfessions and that it accepted the 'Washington Declaration ll on practises as it understood it, but that he felt com- pelled to say that certain familiar inconsistencies in practise, in viola- tion of the Washington Declaration as understood by the American Lutheran Ohurch, were still barriers to that pulpit- and altar-fellow- ship which both bodies desired. Dr. Hein announced that the Amer- ican Lutheran Ohurch had authorized a committee to confer with committees from other bodies on all subjects pertaining to the union of Lutheran bodies in this country." The editor of the Kirchenblatt, October 6, 1934, in a footnote to an article by Dr. O. Pannkoke writes: "It is not, /31. g., 'a pitiful, petty division' on the part of narrow- minded and superannuated literalistic Lutherans when they feel con- strained by their conscience to testify against the unjustifiable evil that there are pastors in Lutheran synods who hold membership in the JliIasonic Lodge. This must simply be stated and repeated until the responsible church-leaders cease to hide behind constitutional diffi- culties and till they find the courage to act. Here is a ground for separation that is not at all pitiably petty, but which in our opinion is valid. To connive here in order to enable the Lutheran Ohurch better to fulfil its important obligations would in our opinion be nothing else than pitiable cowardice." Dr. O. R. Tappert in Lldhe- rischer Herold, the German periodical of the U. L. O. A., feels con- 1) The Washington Declaration of 1920, reprinted in the last issue. Foreword. 85 strained to ease his conscience by the following remarks: "The presi- dent of the A. L. O. is of the opinion that membership in secret soci- eties on the part of pastors and the practise of indiscriminate pulpit- fellowship conflicts with this declaration. Is he wrong~" After having shown that according to Scripture and the Lutheran Oonfes- sions the doctrine of justification is the doctrine with which the Church stands and falls, the editor continues: "Is justice done to this doctrine by the religious cerem,onies of secret orders, or do they not rather teach a doctrine directly contrary to it, viz., that man is justified and saved by his nobility of character and his own good works ~ Is it not a serious matter when at the very moment when a human soul stands beforc God's judgment-throne and when the only thing that counts is that Ohrist, his Vicar, intercedes for him and acknowledges him as His own, - that at this very moment, at his coffin and grave, his lodge brethren perform a religious ceremony in which the justi:fication by the grace of God and the merits of Christ are deliberately omitted and, instead, his so-called virtues are praised as the basis for the hope of his salvation? It is to be regretted when laymen do not recognize this contradiction between the religion of the lodge and the Ohristian faith; for pastors there is no excuse in this matter." The author then calls attention to the offense given by such pastors and proceeds: "The same holds true when pastors participate with pastors of other denominatioIlS in religious celebra- tions at which a clear and unmistakable testimony of our most holy faith is not desired and will not be given. Such an action can only create the impression as if, after all, not much depended on the Ohris- tian doctrines of sin and grace, of the Son of God and the only Savior and Redeemer; as though all ways led to heaven, not only the narrow way leading through the strait gate, Matt. 7, 13. Thereby again consciences are troubled and the souls of men endangered." The editor feels that perhaps only isolated cases of such denial of our doctrines and principles occur. In his opinion they are less frequent than they formerly were in certain sections of the Ohurch. He sur- mises that they may be due to the fact that even pastors may not have learned to draw the proper conclusions, but believe that they may square their membership in secret societies and their participation in all possible kinds of religious celebrations with their Ohristian faith and Lutheran confession. "Yet it must be clear that their action gives offense and proves a stumbling-block, and is the chief obstacle opposing the union of the Lutheran groups in America. One could expect that, irrespective of other considerations, they would sacrifice their personal hobby to the welfare and unity of the Ohurch." After having voiced his dissent with the policy of some of the pastors within the U. L. O. A., the editor continues: "Herewith the Herold has, in keeping with the demand of the Washington Declara- 86 Foreword. tion of Principles, 'appealed to the consciences' and may now exclaim in the Latin phrase: Dixi et animam salvavi. "With the above, however, we do not mean to declare that the position of the A. L. O. is correct when they on account of isolated, exceptional cases in practise deny full church union to the U. L. O. A., since the pure preaching of the Gospel and the Scriptural administra- tion of the Sacraments are the criterion of the true Ohurch, not the greater or lesser strictness or laxity in church discipline. And we may rejoice that all Lutheran groups in America may mutually acknowledge each other as far as these marks of the true Ohurch, according to Art. VII of the Augsburg Oonfession, are concerned. There is no other church denomination in this country so unanimous in faith and doctrine." Truly a pitiful vacillation, a halting between two opinions, sad- dening to the heart of every loyal Lutheran. Endeavoring to silence and salve one's conscience by voicing one's indignation and then per- mitting conditions to continue! Reading these words, we could not help recalling the words of Elij ah: "If the Lord be God, follow Him; but if Baal, then follow him." If lodgery is a matter affecting the very heart of Ohristianity, if Masonry is a denial of Ohrist's deity and atonement, as the editor correctly stated, why, then, be satisfied with Eli's half-hearted reprimand, 1 Sam. 2, 23? Why not demand a decision as Elijah did? Or if one objects. that the spirit of the Old Testament should not rule in the Ohurch of the New Testament, misinterpreting Luke 9,55. 56, why not apply the words of Paul in the New Testament? If Masonry is unrighteousness, - and it cer- tainly is, since it rejects Ohrist's righteousness, - if Masonry is dark- ness, - and it certainly is, since it knows not Ohrist, the only Light, - if Masonry is idolatry, what fellowship can Lutherans, who claim to be righteousness and light and the temple of God, have with Masonry, which is the very opposite, the avowed adversary, of all these? Hence: "Oome out from among them and be ye separate." Merely voicing one's dissent, merely reprimanding, is not sufficient; action is required. "Oome out, separate!" so says not the Synodical Oonference only, not the A. L. O. only; so says the Lord. Then, and then alone, "will I be your God." In the face of this clear word of God can we consistently ask God to bless us and be our God if we deliberately join with, or tolerate in our midst, such as reject and oppose the very fundamentals of our faith? And concerning pulpit- fellowship, what are we to do if in the face of such clear passages as John 8, 31. 32; Rom. 16, 17; Matt. 7, 15, and others we are asked to tolerate, or even to participate in, a practise so evidently displeasing to God? Must it not sadden the heart of every loyal Lutheran to read comments like the following, glorifying unionism: "We have seen that the relations between the Lutheran and Reformed churches Foreword. 87 in the United States in the eighteenth and :first quarter of the nine- teenth centuries were exceptionally close and cordial. This was as it should be with churches that were in many ways so closely related in Europe. These beautiful personal friendships among individuals, these records of joint achievement and common experience among congregations, these cooperative enterprises between the general bodies of Lutherans and Reformed, are among the :finest chapteTs in the history of Protestantism. They reveal the hand of God in history, and they point the way for the future." (The Lutheran Ohurch Quar- terly, Vol. VI, p.327.) Such quotations might easily be multiplied. Surely these matters are not unimportant questions nor "issues of endless doctrinal re:finement," nor "matters which have lost their force except among older members of seminary faculties and in far-off rural sections." These are matters which affect the heart and soul of Ohristianity, the very life of every child of God. Shall we, dare we, compromise here ~ Would not a compromise be a denial ~ And does not Matt. 10, ;32. 33 apply in the twentieth century just as it did in the days of Ohrist's life on earth ~ Why not muster up courage, as the editor of the Kirchenblatt suggests, and clear away these obstacles to true Lutheran unity and union? If the excuse is offered that according to the constitution of the U. L. O. A. "the synods alone shall have the power of discipline" and that hence the U. L. O. A. has not the authority to sever connections with any individual pastor or congregation still in membership with any of the constituent synods, we ask in all sincerity and with all candor, Why do not the synods act, and why adopt and retain such a constitution ~ Is a synodical constitution more authoritative than the Word of the Most High? We again are in full agreement with the editor of the Kirchenblatt and with him maintain that union is impossible until "the responsible synodical leaders cease to hide behind constitutional difficulties and :find the courage to act." Such un-Lutheran, unbiblical practise as is being tolemted in the U. L. O. A. would alone be sufficient grounds for a refusal to enter into fraternal relations with that church-body. According to Dr. Hein's address at Savannah, these "familiar inconsistencies in practise, in violation of the Washington Declaration," were the "bar- rier to that pulpit- and altar-fellowship which both bodies desired .... The American Lutheran Ohurch is satis:fied with the doctrinal basis of the U. L. O. A. as set forth in its subscription to the historic Lu- theran Oonfessions." Yet we are sure that within the A. L. O. there are many pastors and congregations that have another reason making it impossible for them to enter into union with the U. L. O. A. at the present time. We refer to the many instances of false doctrine, of I~iberalism, and of Modernism being taught and tolerated within the U. L. O. A. Even its attitude toward lodgery and pulpit-fellowship 88 Foreword. is a matter not only of practise, but one involving the fundamentals of Ohristianity. And with a sorrowful heart we must point to the fact that under the garb of Lutheranism doctrines are publicly taught and preached within the U. L. O. A. which undermine the very funda- mentals of Ohristian faith, and such teaching and preaching has been tolerated for years and is being tolerated to this day in spite of the friendly remonstrances from other Lutheran church-bodies. We shall add only a few examples to the many that already have been men- tioned in our periodicals. Why are Lutheran instructors at Lutheran seminaries permitted to teach (and publish such teachings): "The holy writers were inspired with a supernatural knowledge of God and of His will, and on these subjects their words are final and infallible. On scientific matters they neither knew nor professed to know more than other men of their day"? (Stump, The Ohristian Faith, p. 320.) Why are such books as Oadman's Prophets of Israel, Bewer's Litera- ture of tlw Old Testament, recommended without a word of protest against their liberalistic, modernistic tendencies (Luth. Ohurch Quart., Vol. VII, 80 f.), and why does the Sh01,t Bible by Goodspeed and Smith 2) receive the following praise: "An amazing amount of histor- ical and literary information, written in a fascinating, non-technical style, is packed into them" (the introductions to the various books). "Indeed, if they were to include all the books of the Bible and were printed and bound together, they would in themselves comprise a valu- able little manual of introduction to the Bible. . .. The need to apply the concept of development in the study of the Scriptures is obvious, and the chronological arrangement of the books of the Bible, even though in some cases only approximate, is an indispensable first step. To say this is of course to say the obvious, but it is precisely the obvious that so many readers who find the Bible uninteresting too often fail to grasp"? (Lutheran Ohurch Quarterly, Vol. VII, p.85.) Why is Shailer Mathews, the well-known Modernist, paid this tribute without a word of criticism: "Although the Dean passed his seven- tieth birthday on May 26 and has retired from his position on the Ohicago faculty, he is by no means at the end of his period of service. He is still in the full vigor of his powers and will continue with voice and pen to carryon and enrich American theological thought" (Vol. VII, p. 340)? Why are statements such as the following per- mitted to be made publicly: "I would not be understood as commit- 2) The Short Bible arranges the contents of the Bible chronologically along the lines of liberal higher criticism; omits completely both books of the Chronicles; states, on p. 221, that the books of the Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah are "an imaginative priestly recast of Jewish history"; omits in Luke 7 the story of the raising of the son of the widow of Nain, p. 145, and in John 11 the raising of Lazarus. These are only a few examples of the modernistic spirit which is evidenced throughout the Short Bible. 89 ting myself to an acceptance of the entire theology of Luther. The distinction between the Deus revelatus and the Deus absconditus as he develops it seems too dualistic. The communications are too scho- lastic, and the doctrine of the ubiquity of the body of Ohrist expressed too much in spatial terms. Nor can I follow him in his Aristotelian rather than Biblical view that God is impassible. His emphasis on the exacting sternness of God led him, after the manner of Anselm, to dwell too much on the equivalence of sin and justice in his con- ception of the Atonement. But in spite of all these, the regulating principles that shaped his theology are such as commend themselves not only to Lutherans, but also to many other Protestants who still hold to a theology of revelation. Every forward step in theology since Luther's time has been deeply indebted to him" (Vol. VII, p. 40) ~ Why is the Scriptural doctrine of the Holy Spirit misrepresented in so flagrant a manner as is done in the article entitled "The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit," reviewed in OONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY, Vol. VI (1935),58-64. Dare we under such circumstances unite, establish fraternal rela- tionships, even though it would be desirable from many viewpoints ~ We concede that reasons of economy speak in favor of union. We concede that the lack of cooperation and the open opposition on mission-fields are detrimental to the Lord's work, that it would be far better if we could work together in brotherly harmony. Yet the fault rests with those whose clinging to unscriptural doctrine and practise makes union and cooperation impossible. We concede that just at the present time a union of the Lutheran churches is desirable in order to resist more successfully the evils of antichristian move- ments and to counterbalance the "wide-spread tendency among Ohris- tian groups to abbreviate or dilute the Ohristian message in an effort to make it acceptable to the modern age." Yet how can we hope to overcome these tendencies and movements if we tolerate them in our own midst in the form of antichristian Masonry and anti-Scriptural dilution and perversion of fundamental doctrines of Ohristianity~ The only way to combat successfully the forces of Satan arrayed against the Ohurch of Ohrist is by standing four-square, whole- heartedly, on that rock of the apostles and prophets, the Holy Bible. Our faith is the victory that overcometh the world, and faith cometh only by hearing and such hearing only by the Word of God. Let us read and take to heart what the Lord tells His congregation at Philadelphia, Rev. 3, 7-13. In view of these facts we must confess that we cannot under- stand the statement, so frequently met with in periodicals, that, as far as doctrine is concerned, complete unity exists between all the Lu- theran church-bodies in America since all have subscribed to the Lutheran Oonfessions. Surely subscription alone does not suffice, sub- 90 Foreword. scription must mean willingness to adhere to, to confess and teach, the doctrines subscribed and to avoid and to reject and to abhor all contrary doctrines. Uniting with a synod tolerating the teaching of such manifest heresies would llot establish unity, but be adding an- other obstacle to inner and outer unity and union of all the Lutheran church-bodies in our country. For, sad to say, such obstacles exist not only as far as a union with the U. L. C. A. is concerned; there are still valid reasons which under existing circumstances render a union of the Synodical Conference with the American Lutheran Church impossible, though our fervent prayer is that all obstacles for a complete and whole-hearted union between all Lutheran churches may be swept away, and that right early. In his synodical address of 1917, published under the title Die luthel'ische Kil'che del' Vel'einigten Staaten im Jubilaeumsjahl' 1917, Dr. C. C. Hein voices his conviction that the doctrinal differences sepa- rating Ohio and Missom·i do not consist in mere words nor concern only inconsequential matters, that rather the discllRsions dealt with "the center of the Gospel." Since 1917 intersynodical conferences have been held repeatedly, and certainly not without good results. :M uch has been accomplished by these conferences; many misconcep- tions and misunderstandings have been removed; many have declared that the expression intuitu fidei is founded neither in Scripture nor in the Confessions and is subject to misunderstanding, may easily lead to false doctrine, and should therefore not be used. Yet syner- gism is quite frequently found in various publications edited within the American Lutheran Conference, with which body the American Lutheran Church is affiliated. Witness Prof. C. O. Solberg's recent publication, The Call to Sel'vice. While he rejects the intuitu fidei, he writes: "The 'possibility' of conversion lies in the fact that con- version is 'a change of man's mind, heart, and will wrought by the Holy Spirit, so that man is able through such operation of the Holy Spirit to accept proffered grace.' Thus the Lord J esliS says: 'Behold, I stand at the door and knock.' The opening of the door would mean simply a ceasing of opposition. Only by the active cntrance of ,Tesus, of divine grace, can any change be brought about in the nature of man. . .. The Lord takes man back to the original point of departure for a new start on a right way. As man in Eden chose deliberately under temptation to follow his own preference, so man is taken back to the fact of his natural preference and then is asked to yield to the Lordship of the Savior. . .. The choice to which the disposition and will of man are moved, should be as far as possible a permanent one. As such the choice, since it is that of a naturally weak creature, prone to ways not acceptable to God and to ways inconsistent with not only the practise of Christian principles, but the life itself which is dis- tinctive of thc regenerate, must be dirccted and supported. A choice Foreword. 91 such as we have outlined, by its very nature is subject to the ministra- tion of the Spirit; this Spirit directs to the help of the means of grace; it directs to the whole counsel of God, as even in His Word; it directs to the fellowship of Ohrist, the Good Shepherd, who con- ducts men into the ways of righteousness." (Pp. 65. 66.) Synergism pure and simple; an elTor concerning which the Formula of Ooncord says: "For the controversies which have occulTed are not, as some would regard them, mere misunderstandings or disputes concerning words (as are apt to occur), one side not having sufficiently grasped the meaning of the other, and the difficulty lying thus in a few words which are not of great moment; but here the subjects of controversy are important and great, and of such a nature that the opinion of the party in error cannot be tolerated in the Ohurch of God, much less be excused or defended." (Triglotta, p. 849.) The Opgjoer, Madison Theses, with its unscriptural compromise is still the official confession of the Norwegian Lutheran Ohurch, an integral part of the American Lutheran Oonference. Ohiliastic ten- dencies are in evidence; so when complaints are voiced in the official organ of the Norwegian Lutheran Ohurch that "even our theological seminaries have not thoroughly treated the doctrine of Ohrist's second advent. Luther himself has not set forth this doctrine with sufficient thoroughness." (l~ev. N. I.unde in Lutheraneren, July 3, 1929.) Especially in the Augustana Synod chiliasm is rampant. See OON- CORDIA THEOLOGIOAL MONTHLY, Vol. I, 873. 901; V, 63. Doubts as to the inerrancy of the Bible are not only rather frequently expressed in the church periodicals published within the Ameriean Lutheran Oonference, such doubts are even designated as "evidence of logical argument and profound ecumenical spirit." (Geo. M. Stephenson, Ltttheran Companion, Augustana Synod, June 21, 1930.) Again we ask: Are these matters of no consequence, "superlogic refined till life and reality are buried" ~ Or are they no more than "forms of the past, the problems and solutions of a bygone day, the formulas of a dying age"? Oertainly not. They are doctrines con- cerning "the heart of the Gospel," as Dr. Rein put it in 1917; they are doctrines clearly revealed in that Scripture of which the Savior says: "If ye continue in ~!(y Word, then are ye My disciples indeed," John 8, 31. Dare we unite" with such as do not continue in Ris IN ord in these doctrines? Should we not become partakers of other men's sins? 1 Tim. 5,22. Dare we unite before these matters are adjusted, and adjusted in keeping with God's Word and our Oonfessions? The Ltdheran Herald of April 17, 1934, says: "We have no objection to the doctrinal position expressed by the Synodical Oonference in its Brief Statement of the Doctr-inal Position of the ]Jlissour-i SVnod." Why, then, not renounC0 the Opgjoer, whose unscriptural position is so clearly refuted in the Brief Statement? Why not purge out the 92 Foreword. old leaven completely? Has not experience time and again shown the impossibility of sweetening leaven by placing it in a mass of dough? Will not invariably the leaven slowly, but surely exercise its leavening power until the whole mass is permeated, leavened? Why court the danger so often warned against in Holy Writ? Why become lax in combating error in every shape and form in doctrine and in practise? Has not such laxity time and again proved the ruin of congregations, synods, chu1"(;hes, becoming weary of contending for those precious gifts, purity of doctrine, Scripturalness of practise? We know that every true and loyal Lutheran will whole-heartedly subscribe to the sentiment expressed by Prof. J. A. Dell, writing in the Pastor's Monthly of December, 1934: "That basis [for friendly relationships] can never be attained by remaining aloof from one another and calling names. Neither can it be obtained by getting together and ignoring very real differences and pretending that there are no grievances. It is to be hoped that we are sincere enough Ohristians to meet each other fairly, to face problems honestly, and to judge issues, as Lutherans should, by the standard of God's Word. In that spirit let us go forward." If that spirit guides us, God will surely bless our efforts at getting together and establishing a basis for truly Ohristian, fraternal rela- tionships, a basis which will stand as long as God's Word shall endure and a relationship which shall be of untold blessing and unending continuance, since it is based on, and is engendered by, and receives its nourishment from, the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever. Doubts have been expressed as to the possibility of ever arriving at complete unity in doctrine. It has been stated that doctrinal dis- cussions would be useless since they had so far failed to establish unity. We grant that complete unity has not yet been established between the church-bodies participating in these conferences and discussions. Nevertheless we hold that these efforts were by no means useless~. They have brought the synods closer together tllan they ever were before. In a number of instances the participants in such dis- cussions have found that they were in fact one in doctrine. Shall we in view of these facts cease our efforts merely because complete unity of all the members of the various bodies has not yet been accom- plished? Or shall we follow the suggestion of some that we merge now, since so much has been accomplished, and trust to God that unity would come after union has been established? Neither the one nor the other. The latter would be dishonest, as Prof. Dell correctly states; the former not in keeping with God's will. Even if complete unity should never be established, it is our God-given duty to work towards that end, Eph. 4, and leave success or non-success to the Ruler of His Ohurch. If in the spirit of love and charity, in that spirit 8m l8ebeutung bet staufe ~~fu. 93 of complete submission to God's Word which brings every thought into captivity to the obedience of Ohrist, in that spirit of unflinching loyalty which will not yield one iota of this Word, - if in this spirit the differences which separate the Lutheran church-bodies are dis- cussed, God will surely grant His blessing to His children on earth endeavoring to do His will. Is not His Word a light, a lamp? Shall we not in its light see the truth, and shall not that light, if only we permit it to illumine us, so fill our hearts and minds that we will gladly walk in the ways it points out both as to doctrine and practise? Shall we say that such unity is impossible? God speed the day on which it shall be evident that, while impossible with man, all things are possible with God! THEO. LAETSUH. ~ . ~ gUt ~ebeutuug bet :taufe ~@fu. IDl a it fj. 3, 13-17. 1. SIlaf3 bie 5raufe ;'5@fu bon aUen 61)nojJtifern lieridj±et unb fomit oe,: ftiHig± roirb, ift nicf)i bon ungefiiIjr. ;'5n bief er 5ra±f adje finben roir mit ffiedj± eine ~e±onuug ber jill i dj ± i 9 rei ± ber 5raufe unfer§ ~eiIanbe§. 6ie roar nidj± eine ,\"Janblung, bie gIeidjfam nur ilufiiUig in ba§ 2eben unb llrmt§roirfen be§ giittIidjen @diijer§ fjineinfdjlug; fie ljaHe im ®egen±eH roirHidje, bIeibenbe ~ebell±l1ng fur fein ganile§ ~eiIanMroerf. SIla§ iff je unb ie bie ~rf[iirung unferer SIlogmatifer unb @!:egeten ge" roefen, unb ba§ Ijaben aud) ItJir un§ immer roieber bor llrugen ilu fufjren. ;'5@fu ~efdjneibung unb 5raufe Hegen geroilfermaf3en auf gleidjer 6±ufe; oeibe geIjiiren ilU bem, roa§ ;'5@fu§ a!§ ber erf djienene IDleffia§ un § arm e n @l il n b ern ilU 9 u ± e gefan fjat. SIlarin mulfen roir iIjre fjofje ~ebeu±ung finben. SIliefen j,j,Sunfi fja± man fitH±ig gemadjt; e§ lofjnt fidj baIjer, baf3 roir iljn neu oefonen unb in§ redj±e mdj± f±eUen. 2. 2XUerbing§ oeridj±en nidjt aUe @It,]ltojJiifer ;'5@fu 5raufe mit berfeHien ®enauigfeit unb ~illle aUer einfdjIiigigen ~egebenfjeiten. ;'5ofjanne§ feJ;l± bie :rallfe ;'5~fu bOtaU§; fie liHbef gleidjfam ben ~in±er" grunb ber joIjanneifdjen j,j,Srolegomena. IDlarru§ lieridj±e± einfadj bie nmite 5ra±fadjc ber :ranfe, fug± aber priignan± Ijinilu, roa§ barauf foIgie. uljnHdj berfiiIjrt 2ura0, luenn aud] bon einem anbern ®efidj±§jJunIt au§. @ine eigen±Iidje, eingeIjenbc SIladcgung unb @rfIiirung ber 5raufe ;'5@fu finbe± fidj nnr oci9JcatiIjiiu0, unb an beffen ~eridj± mulfen roir un0 fjaIten, rooUen roir bie 5raufe be§ ~diifer§ redj± berf±efjen. ;'5mmerfjin feJ;len audj IDlarfu§ unb 2ura0 ;'5@fu 5raufe in merliinbung mit ber nadjIjer erfolgten ~eftiitigung unb ~aIliung be0 ~eiIanbe§ unb fo mit feiner offiilieUen 2Xu§ruf±ung filr fein 2Xmt§roerr. ~ei reinem @ll)nojJ±iIer: