LC-MS: Toward Geneva or Wittenberg?
By L. Blecker

Infiltration of Reformed theology into the Lutheran Church is nothing new. Less than 20 years after the dearth of Luther, the Saxon Lutheran Church was in the toils of Calvinist doctrine, led by Melanchton and Peucer. Fortunately, however, Chemnitz and others were able to unmask the Crypto-Calvinism of the Phillipists, and the Saxon Elector, Augustus, restored the pure doctrine into the Saxon Church in 1574, pointing the way toward the Book of Concord.¹ More recently, Sam Schmucker and his "Definite Synodical Platform" of 1855 sought to bring into being "American Lutheranism", which was Reformed-friendly, editing Augustana far more freely than Melanchton ever dreamed of doing.² At that time, Walther and Krauth marshaled the forces of confessional Lutheranism, and "American Lutheranism" was pushed into the background for a time.

Fast forwarding to recent times, taking 1989 as the date of departure. Since 1989, certain leadership elements in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod for whatever reasons and in lubricous indifference to the Symbols of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (despite their pledged quia acceptance thereto) have overtly taken positions closer to Geneva than to Wittenberg. Other Synod leaders, while not overtly endorsing Reformed doctrine, but by their reluctance to take action against such false doctrine, have conceded Synod as a quasi-EKD (Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland). That is to say, both Lutheran and Reformed doctrine are tolerated, and Synod exists as an administrative body. The tendency toward Reformed views seems evident in Synod’s current Dispute Resolution process and the Nordlie matter.

The separation of Scripture into Law and Gospel is a fundamental tenet of the Lutheran Church as well as is the doctrine of the separation of kingdoms within the Kingly Office of Christ. Calvinists, on the other hand, by their denial of universal grace, seem at a loss as to the role of the Gospel apart from the Law. Mueller quotes a Calvinist view on the role of the Gospel as follows:

…the Gospel is "a proclamation of the terms on which God is willing to save sinners and an exhibition of the duty of fallen men in relation to that plan,"³

The statement, couched in terms of duty, certainly sounds quite a bit like a new law, and thus seems a clear indication of confounding of Law and Gospel, according to Lutheran thought. Calvin, himself, in his Institutes saw the Old and New Testaments as differing in administration but not in substance.⁴ One perhaps confusing question is, how shall the Church Militant be administered: according to Law or Gospel? First, let’s be clear on our term "church." The Church Militant is divided into the visible church and the invisible church. We know by their outward profession, who adhere to the visible church, but the identity of the invisible church (the elect) is known but to God, Who, alone, knows men’s hearts. We concern ourselves here with the visible church, not all of whom are members of the invisible church, or as Walther put it, "A person may pretend to be a Christian while in reality he is not."⁵ Indeed, Walther in his Kirche und Amt devoted considerable attention in making the distinction between the visible and invisible church. In Thesis VI, Walther asserts:

In an improper sense Scripture also calls the visible aggregate of all the called, that is, of all who confess and adhere to the proclaimed Word and use the holy sacraments, which consists of good and evil [persons], "church" (the universal [catholic] church); so also it calls its several divisions, that is, the congregations that are found here and there, in which the Word of God is preached and the holy sacraments are administered "churches" (Partikularkirchen [particular or individual churches]). This it does especially because in this visible assembly the invisible, true and properly so-called church of believers, saints and children of God is hidden; outside this assembly of the called no elect are to be looked for [anywhere].⁶

Walther quotes J. B. Carpzov as follows:

The church properly so called is not an assembly consisting of hypocrites and nonsaints, but it an assembly with which the hypocrites and nonsaints are mingled. This fact the Augsburg Confession carefully explains in the beginning of Art. VIII … Hence, when an assembly composed of hypocrites and saints is called a church, this designation is merely synecdochic or figurative and denotes the saints who are found in the assembly. So also a pile of grain is called wheat even if most of it is chaff.⁷

Thus, Walther is clear on the fact that the visible church does contain unregenerate persons to whom the Gospel is a closed book. However, what of the regenerate, the members of the invisible church? May they be trusted at all times to do that which is upright in the sight of God? Reference to the Loci Theologici of Chemnitz supplies an answer, where Chemnitz says:

John is speaking of the same thing when he says, "If we say we do not have sin, we are liars," 1 John1, 8; for he is speaking of the weakness and wicked emotions which occur in the regenerate, not of their actual falls which are against conscience, that is, when they voluntarily indulge in corrupt desires.⁸

We found it striking that Calvin had nothing to say about 1 John 1:8 in his Institutes⁹: but then, according to his lights, how could 1 John 1:8 apply to the elect?

Indeed, Walther quotes Luther concerning sins of the elect:

The sins into which the elect fall take away their holiness and drive the Holy Spirit from them. This is quite evident, first, in Adam and Eve, who were elect, but miserably lost their holiness and the Holy Spirit nevertheless, so that by the discomfiture of these first men, all their descendents have become feeble and sinful by nature. … Likewise when David had slept with the wife of Uriah and had caused her godly husband to be slain, etc., he was under the wrath of God and had lost his holiness and the Holy Spirit until he was converted again.¹⁰

Walther indicates that Calvinists, on the other hand, do not see that the adultery of David caused the king to be under the wrath of God; according to Walther:

The Calvinists, then, claim that, when David became an adulterer and even committed murder, he did not lose either his faith or the grace of God, but his faith merely withdrew somewhat, so that he could not exercise it.¹¹

To summarize the Lutheran view: the members of the visible church, admittedly containing nonchristians as well as the elect, can and do sin; the elect of the invisible church may also sin in the sight of God. As Dr. Montgomery has put it: "In a sinful world, - and, last we heard, the Christians also are simul justi et peccatores – there is need for adjudicative processes that will seek justice as their primary goal."¹²

Accordingly, the Fathers of the Lutheran Church subscribed to the necessity of Kirchenordnung, and in Article XIV of the Apology (Of Ecclesiastical Order) viewed church regulations as a necessity laid down by the ancient Fathers, not as divine law (jus divinum) but as human law (jus humanum). Article XIV states in part:

Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church-discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention.¹³

So, it would seem that the Lutheran Church, at least according to its Confessions, is to be administered according to human law, not divine law and most certainly not by the Gospel, as we Lutherans understand the Gospel. Therefore, it would seem that the administration of the Lutheran Church is adiopheral. Where do we go from here?

We do not say that Calvinists oppose a proper administration of the Church; quite the opposite is the case. However, Calvinists assert that the church is to be governed according to divine law, thus making its administration a matter of faith.¹⁴ If one makes no distinction between Law and Gospel, it is possible for some to claim that all matters pertaining to the visible Church fall within the purview of the Gospel, which they transmogrify into a new law.¹⁵ Recently, Lowell Green’s well-crafted article "The Discipline of Church Law and the Doctrine of Church and Ministry" appeared in Logia. Dr. Green writes:

Dare one speak of church law in the Lutheran churches of America? For years there have been voices that decried church law and insisted that we are not governed by the law but by the gospel. One hears this argument on all sides, and especially among the more independent sorts of people who want to free themselves from synodical restraints. Such reasoning, however, is flawed. To deny the validity of church law is a form of antinomianism that contradicts the Lutheran distinction between law and gospel. The gospel is not a codex of rules for governing the church, but rather the announcement of forgiveness and reconciliation. To claim that we are governed by the gospel is to make the gospel a nova lex, a new law, a procedure that is repudiated in the Lutheran Confessions.¹⁶

We believe Dr. Green is not speaking in theoretical terms, but rather he may allude to a deception perpetrated upon Synod at the 1992 Pittsburgh Convention.

Prior to 1992, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod adhered to an adversarial adjudication process to address disputes within the church.¹⁷ Each district had a Commission on Adjudication as did Synod as well. In addition, there was a Synodical level Commission on Appeals. The members of all boards were elected, either at the district or Synodical Convention, and there was a requirement that at least two members be lawyers.¹⁸ Section 8.05¹⁹ of the Bylaws required an attempt at informal reconciliation before any matter was placed before a commission for adjudication. To be sure, there was no preamble of misplaced citations from Scripture to justify Synodical Adjudication, since adjudication, in conformance to the Confessions, had been considered adiopheral. Nor do we recall any general consensus calling for a change in the adversarial system.

After the 1989 Convention, Dr Robert D. Preus was "retired" as President of CTS. Defense for this action was tenuous at best according to Canon Law, and Dr. Preus eventually appealed his case to civil court. President Bohlmann and the Synodical Praesidium then suspended Dr. Preus from Synodical membership for going to the civil courts with a deceptive citing of 1 Cor 6, to which even Calvin would take issue.²⁰ Had he held membership in LC-MS, one wonders whether St. Paul, likewise, would have been suspended from Synod for appealing his case to Caesar in Acts 25. Article XVI of Augustana does not preclude Christians from using civil courts, where it states:

Of Civil affairs they teach that lawful civil ordinances are good works of God, and that it is right for Christians to bear civil office, to sit as judges, to judge matters by the Imperial and other existing laws …²¹

Indeed, Apology Article XVI spells out more clearly that a Christian may seek public redress in civil court as follows:

Public redress, which is made through the office of the magistrate, is not advised against, but is commanded, and is a work of God, according to Paul, Rom. 13, 1.²²

In this matter, Green puts it plainly, "President Bohlmann and the Praesidium had acted contrary to the Confessions!"²³ After wending its way through the Synodical adjudication process, the Commission on Appeals (COA) found the ecclesiastical charges against Dr. Robert Preus as well as his removal from the presidency of CTS without merit, and Dr. Preus was re-instated to Synodical membership. The Board of Regents of CTS refused to abide by the COA ruling in violation of the then existing Bylaw 8.69.²⁴ On church law, Green asks the question, "In other words, is church law employed lawfully or lawlessly?"²⁵ In the Dr. Robert Preus matter, the answer to Dr. Green’s question is obvious. Article II, 2 of the Synodical Constitution requires a subscription "without reservation" to the Symbols of the Lutheran Church, of which Augustana and the Apology are part and parcel. It is, indeed, difficult to see how, in view of Article II, 2 of the LC-MS Constitution, Dr. Bohlmann and the Praesidium were even acting according to rule of Missouri Canon Law in their charges against Dr. Preus. However, a quia subscription to the Confessions in today’s Missouri, similar to money in inflation, has lost its former value.

It is one thing to tell the emperor his attire is lacking in substance, but it is quite another to get away with lèse majestè. In the end, Dr. Bohlmann marked "paid" to the Synodical Adjudication process. Commenting on the vindication of Dr. Preus by LC-MS adjudication system and Dr. Bohlmann’s reaction to that vindication, Dr. Montgomery asserted:

But, then, to Bohlmann’s utter frustration, the church courts entirely vindicated Preus: first by voiding his enforced retirement from the presidency [of CTS], and second, by restoring him to the ordained ministry of the LCMS. Now the only possible recourse for Bohlmann was to attack the church court system itself!²⁶

From a Lutheran point of view, to advocate use of the Gospel in the administration of Synod seems, as Green suggests, a form of antinomianism. Green here seems much too kind. The confounding of Law and Gospel is a consequence of Calvinism, which merely views the Gospel as a new law. It would seem naïve to say that Dr. Bohlmann with an earned doctorate did not realize the adjudication he advocated contained (as we shall see) antinomian or Crypto-Calvinist elements. The fact that Dr. Bohlmann was able to sell the snake oil of "Synodical Reconciliation" seems evidence that an unbridled democracy and political expediency can be, and at times are, at variance with the Confessions. Unfortunately, the 1992 Convention bought into "Synodical Reconciliation", really an inferior and unfair form of adjudication under another name. The lengthy, incoherent preamble to Section VIII of the 1992 Bylaws (hereinafter Section VIII) seems an example of shoddy, self-serving and specious application of Scripture, which may be construed as antinomian or a confounding Law and Gospel, despite its protestations to the contrary (see Appendix i). By applying the Gospel as nova lex, Synod moved toward Geneva in its substitution of jus divinum for jus humanum in the administration of the church, and even Calvin would bristle at its abuse of 1Cor. 6 in the second paragraph of the preamble.

Let’s take a look at some of the more egregious Scripture citations in the preamble to Section VIII, especially the third paragraph.²⁷ Matt. 8, 15-20 was cited with pious mutterings as the basis for church discipline at the local congregation. So far, so good. However, it is difficult to see, as was done in the preamble, how Matt. 18:17 applies to Synod, since Synod is not "the church" in the context of the Scripture cite. Franz Pieper put it this way:

On the other hand, the union of congregations into larger church bodies, such as conferences, synods, etc., has not been ordained by God. The command "Tell it unto the church," according to content, pertains to the local church, or congregation, and it must be restricted to the local church. "Tell it to the synod", etc., is a human device.²⁸

The late Dr. Harold Buls of CTS commented on the Matt. 18 device of paragraph 3 in the preamble to Section VIII :

The first sentence of the paragraph just quoted is the only acceptable sentence in the paragraph. Until Pittsburgh, the LC-MS rightly understood Matthew 18: 15-20 as pertaining exclusively to congregational discipline. Look at the passage yourself. Of necessity, the word " church" (ecclesia) must mean the local congregation. That is as clear as the brightest sun at high noon. The next several sentences attempt to justify the use of Matthew 18 for conflict resolution, but it just won’t fly because the method of conflict resolution is adiaphoral, not Biblical, though we may strongly urge that any system of conflict resolution be solely, only and always in Jesus’ name for His sake.²⁹

Reference to Section VIII preamble (paragraph 3), also includes a citation of 2 Cor. 5:18 in the context that the church has been given the "ministry of reconciliation." The "ministry of reconciliation" given to the church refers to the Gospel. Dr. Buls indicated:

The reference to 2 Corinthians 5:18 is a terribly bad application of Scripture. Read that passage for yourself. It speaks exclusively of the objective and general reconciliation brought about by God with man in Jesus Christ. The term "ministry of reconciliation" is a synonym for the Gospel.³⁰

Even Calvin was on the right track here: "No wonder: for seeing that the Gospel is "the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Cor. 5 v. 18), there is no other sufficient evidence of divine favour, such as faith requires to know."³¹

We also read the following in Section VIII, the last two sentences of the third paragraph of the preamble:

Hence conflict resolution in the church is to lead to reconciliation, restoring the erring member in a spirit of gentleness (Gal. 6:1). Its aim is to avoid the adversarial system practiced in society.³²

Again Dr. Buls takes issue with the Scripture citation:

In the last [sic] sentence of the pertinent paragraph Galatians 6:1 is invoked in the context of conflict resolution. The [Greek] verb prolambanomai can mean either (contextually) "to be caught up in the very act" or "to be overcome" (by sharp lust). It is light years away from conflict resolution. That second last sentence in the pertinent paragraph says conflict resolution is to lead to reconciliation. No way. Conflict resolution seeks justice and justice only, not absolution. The last sentence reads: "Its aim is to avoid the adversarial system used in society." Well, that sentence is simply unrealistic. It is simply inevitable that when Christians cannot settle their differences themselves or with the help of the local congregation, someone else must step in to help. And then they become adversaries. Even teams in sports are adversaries. They don’t "reconcile." They play it out adversarially. That in itself does not mean it is sinful.³³

Deceptive Scriptural citations are bad enough. However, the intent of such citations seems an attempt to use Scripture to move adjudication from the adiopheral Lutheran position of jus humanum into a Calvinistic jus divinum.

Bylaws §8.01and 8.02 of the 1992 Handbook indicate that the procedure specified in Section VIII must be the exclusive remedy in Synod for all theological, doctrinal or ecclesiastical matters.³⁴ Of course, no civil court is competent to decide theological or doctrinal matters. However, if a member of Synod believes a civil wrong has been done him by another member of Synod, and he goes to civil court for relief, that member may be subject to expulsion from Synod. Here Synod presumes to legislate in matters pertaining to Caesar, by forbidding its members to avail themselves of civil remedy affirmed by both Scripture and Confessions.

Unfortunately, we are unaware of any interest by the current Synodical administration in seeking the abolishment of the current Section VIII of the Bylaws, given its anti-Lutheran, Crypto-Calvinist underpinnings; replete with misleading Scriptural citations, and patent unfairness. Sure, there has been some tinkering over the past two conventions with adjudication. However, just as one does not tinker with a cancer in one’s body but, if possible, has it excised, no amount of tinkering short of its repeal will remedy the odium that is now Section VIII of the Bylaws.

While the current adjudication process in Canon Law might be seen as a covert bit of Crypto-Calvinism being tolerated in Missouri, we are also aware of some not so veiled Calvinism tolerated in Synod. We refer to the Dr. Robert Nordlie matter. It is not our purpose to delve deeply into all the aspects of the Nordlie matter. However, briefly stated, Dr. Nordlie, a member of Synod, thereby ipso facto a quia subscriber to the Lutheran Confessions, through his written and spoken word, allegedly has confounded Justification / Sanctification as well as Law and Gospel, traducing the Gospel into nova lex. Dr. Nordlie is the co-author of a book entitled The Goal of the Gospel, published by CPH with the imprimatur (at least for a time) of Synod’s doctrinal review process. The book allegedly asserted, that "the goal of the gospel was the obedience of Christian people."³⁵ Dr. Nordlie reportedly also had problems with his congregation, 26 members of which filed charges of false doctrine against him. The case was given to the local D.P., Dr. Lane Seitz, who allegedly found no fault with. Nordlie’s doctrine. Dr. Seitz’s decision was appealed by the 26 to the Synodical Praesidium (presumably under §2.27.b. of the Bylaws³⁶). The praesidium allegedly refused to intervene because Nordlie had not been officially admonished, even though they purportedly found he was teaching reformed theology.³⁷ The charges were renewed after a period of admonishment had apparently elapsed without any perceptible change in Dr. Nordlie’s teachings on Justification. Again Pres. Seitz found Nordlie’s teaching sound. For a second time, the Synodical Praesidium received an appeal from Seitz’s decision. On March 29, 1999, the Praesidium addressed a letter to Dr. Nordlie, the complainants and to Dr. Seitz. The letter presented their findings as follows (in part), representing the efforts of six years struggle:

…"The praesidium would again underscore its determination that there are serious concerns with Pastor Nordlie’s teaching in regard to the distinction between justification and sanctification and between law and gospel. The praesidium finds that Pastor Nordlie continues to be unable to discern his deficiencies in this regard."

The praesidium formally endorsed the lifting of doctrinal certification for The Goal of the Gospel by the Commission on Doctrinal Review, which stated: "[The] basic flaw is the muddling of justification and sanctification [and between] law and gospel. Obedience is spoken of in a way more at home in the reformed tradition than the Lutheran. There are times when the actual exposition of scripture and the confession (what there is of it) is not only weak but misleading."

The praesidium found Dr. Nordlie’s teaching to be responsible for confusion and upset in his congregation. "The praesidium notes with sadness that the situation has resulted in offense being given to the many people of God, both within his own congregation, and even beyond the congregation."

The praesidium lamented the fact that Dr. Nordlie teaching is not unique in Synod. The praesidium characterized such teaching as "…’reformed-like’ articulation of the relationship of justification and Christian life." The praesidium recommended more study "of the proper understanding and articulation of justification and sanctification and the proper distinction between law and gospel."

The praesidium declined to suspend Dr. Nordlie, hoping that Nordlie would finally get his teaching straight.

The praesidium hoped that Dr. Nordlie would seek out brother pastors in Synod who would straighten him out on his false teaching.

The praesidium recommended that Dr. Barry direct Dr. Seitz to hold a series of meetings with Dr. Nordlie to discuss the issues raised. The praesidium recommended that Dr. Barry direct Seitz to see to it that Nordlie correct his perceived deficiencies, and that Seitz submit regular reports to Dr. Barry on Nordlie’s progress in that direction. The praesidium expressed its expectation that recognize his deficiencies and to correct them.³⁸

The Praesidium’s cited letter seems an oblique finding of false doctrine taught by Dr. Nordlie and an incredibly flawed remedy to the problem. The Praesidium seem to have adjudged Dr. Nordlie culpable of not one, but two charges found in Article XIII of the Synodical Constitution, for which one might be expelled from Synod, to wit violation of Constitution Article II (false doctrine) and giving persistent offense after previous futile admonition.³⁹ The Praesidium’s remedy was lacking in basic logic to achieve its directed result. Dr. Seitz, who twice previously was unable to discern any false doctrine in Dr. Nordlie’s teaching, was to counsel with Nordlie in order that Nordlie’s doctrinal deficiencies be corrected. In the case of Seitz counseling Nordlie, we seem to have the halt leading the lame. The Praesidium’s remedy also defines the revolving door non-solution. The Praesidium has set the stage for other persistent teachers of false doctrine to remain in Synod, if their respective district presidents are unable to discern evidence of false doctrine in their teachings, despite what any Praesidium might find to the contrary. Thus, we have a de facto situation in LC-MS, where Reformed as well as Lutheran doctrine are tolerated, exactly the situation in the EKD, in which both doctrines are admissible and the EKD is merely an administrative unit. The Praesidium did, however, seem to make public the sad situation in LC-MS relative to its Constitution Article II, 2, such that a quia subscription to the Confessions in Synod now seems to have as much meaning as von Goethe’s cynical quia subscription thereto. Von Goethe, Germany’s greatest literary figure, was by all reports not a Christian, despite his quia subscription to the Lutheran Confessions, which is displayed in the Stadtsmuseum of the city of Weimar. Merely the fact that one subscribes to the Confessions does not make him Lutheran, or in von Goethe’s case, a Christian, either.

The Praesidium’s admission that inroads of Reformed doctrine have occurred in Synod and its remedy: to merely recommend more study of justification / sanctification as well as Law / Gospel does nothing to fortify Missouri’s self-image as an orthodox Lutheran church body, in view of Pieper:

With regard to the orthodox character of a church body note well:

A church body is orthodox only if the true doctrine, as we have it in the Augsburg Confession and the other Lutheran Symbols, is actually taught in its pulpits and its publications and not merely "officially" professed as its faith. Not the "official" doctrine, but the actual teaching determines the character of a church body, because Christ enjoins that all things whatsoever He has commanded His disciples should actually be taught and not merely acknowledged in an "official document" as the correct doctrine. It is patent that faith in Christ will be created and preserved through the pure Gospel only when that Gospel is really proclaimed. (2) A church body does not forfeit its orthodox character by reason of the casual intrusion of false doctrine. The thing which the Apostle Paul told the elders of Ephesus: "Also of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:30), came true not only in the Apostolic Church, but also in the Church of the Reformation and will occur in the Church of the Last Day. A church body loses its orthodoxy only when it no longer applies Rom 16:17, hence does not combat and eventually remove false doctrine, but tolerates it from within without reproof and thus actually grants it equal right with the truth.⁴⁰

Item no. 29 of the Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod says essentially the same thing as does Pieper as to the orthodox character of a church body.⁴¹ Would it be fair to characterize the Praesidium’s remedy to inroads of Reformed doctrine in Synod, such as that, which Pieper would recognize as combating false doctrine with a view to its removal? If so, then how does one square the Praesidium’s refusal to suspend Dr. Nordlie as an application of Rom. 16:17, which Pieper seems to indicate is sine qua non before the combating and removal of false doctrine?

In the Lutheran Church, doctrine is determined by Scripture and the Confessions: Scripture is the norm by which doctrines are determined to be true or false. The Lutheran Confessions decide whether a person has clearly understood the true doctrines of Scripture.⁴² However, artful dissembling obscure the teachings of both Scripture and the Confessions. Article II of the Synod’s Constitution requires it members to subscribe "without reservation" to the infallible Scriptures and to the Lutheran Confessions. As we have mentioned previously, subscription can be a meaningless exercise. To be sure, Prof. Kurt Marquart hit upon truth, when he asserted that the Confessions, themselves, are not at all interested in a formal subscription, but rather in their actual doctrinal content.⁴³ What stands between the doctrinal content of the Confessions and actual doctrinal practice in Missouri, creative dissimulation notwithstanding, is its Canon Law. If Scripture and the Confessions are not really upheld as Synod’s unassailable norms for doctrinal practice as well as "official" doctrine, but are permitted to be moving targets, then Synodical Conventions can become free-for-alls, in which the democratic process and political expediency at times run roughshod over doctrinal command. We were present at a Synodical Convention, at which the oxymoronic Lay Minister question was dealt with. Prof. Marquart quite clearly pointed out that the concept of "Lay Minister" was at odds with Augsustana XIV. It is doubtful, whether very many pastoral delegates and an overwhelming majority of lay delegates either cared about or understood Prof. Marquart’s concerns. Marquart was correct and the convention was wrong when it ratified the Lay Minister resolution of the moment. A church body, which ignores its own professed doctrinal standards is asking for trouble, and Missouri has gotten what it has asked for. If Synod is serious about the doctrinal content of the Confessions, rather than acceptance of an empty, meaningless subscription to the same, its leadership must apply the principles set forth by Pieper relative to purging of false doctrine. Moreover, the Administration must deal resolutely with false doctrine in order to halt and reverse the inroads of Reformed theology in Missouri. If they continue to be unwilling to do so, the doctrinal norms of Synod will continue to suffer at the hands of the democratic process and political expediency … unless or until false doctrine is effectively combated, instead of its being discussed or studied ad infinitum. If unchecked in LC-MS by doctrinal command, the democratic process may well pave the way toward the same type of doctrinal indifference in Missouri as now seen in the ELCA. Indeed, "Church Growth" (a Reformed concept) is already upon us, and the spectre of PLI looms over us.

It seems that two key issues before the 2001 Convention will be the Nordlie matter and the adjudication process: the former the frank admission of lapse into toleration of Reformed theology and the latter a consequence thereof. To those ends, please find attached Appendix ii and Appendix iii, which are offered as memorials for consideration by this group.

Soli deo gloria

---

A note about Endnotes

The endnotes used in this work are linked from the note number in the text to the endnote at the bottom of the page, and vice versa.  In addition, where a note uses "ibid." or "op. cit.", it is linked to the appropriate parent endnote information.
If you use this "ibid." or "op. cit." link, you will need to use the BACK button on your browser to return to the endnote you started with.  From there, you can click on the endnote number to go back to where you were in the text.

1.   Bente, F. (ed.) , Concordia Triglotta,, CPH, St. Louis 1921, pp185-192.

2.  Luecker, E., Lutheran Cyclopedia, CPH, St. Louis 1975, p. 227.

3.  Mueller, J. T., Christian Dogmatics, CPH, St. Louis 1955, p. 484.

4.  Calvin, Jean, Institutes of the Christian Religion, (trans. Henry Beveridge), Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, 1998, ii, 10, 1, p. 388.

5.  Walther, C. F. W., The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, Thesis 1, Second Evening Lecture, CPH, St. Louis 15^th printing 1991, p. 17.

6.  Walther, C. F. W., Kirche und Amt (trans. J. T. Mueller), THESIS VI, CPH, St. Louis 1987, p. 77.

7.  Ibid., p. 85, (Isagoge in libros ecc. Luther. Symbolicos, pp. 305-306)

8.  Chemnitz, M, Loci Theologici (trans. J. A. O. Preus), CPH, St Louis 1989, 668.

9.  Calvin, Jean, loc. cit., p. xviii.

10.  Walther, C. F. W., The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, Thesis IX, Twentieth Evening Lecture, CPH, St. Louis 15^th printing 191, p. 218.

11.  Walther, C. F. W., The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, Thesis IX, Twentieth Evening Lecture, CPH, St. Louis 15^th printing 1991, p. 215.

12.  Montgomery, J. W., "An Invitation to Injustice", Christian News, September 14, 1992 (CN Enclclopedia, Vol. V, p. 3803)

13.  Bente, F. (ed.) , Concordia Triglotta, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article XIV, CPH, St. Louis 1921, p. 315.

14.  Calvin, Jean, loc. cit.,iv, 3, 8, p. 321 & iv, 4,6, p. 331.

15.  Pieper, F., Christian Dogmatics, Vol. III, CPH, St. Louis 1953, p.247.

16.  Green, Lowell, Logia, vol. IX, no. 3 (Holy Trinity 2000), p. 35

17.  1986 Handbook of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, pp. 127-133

18.  ibid., §8.15, p.129

19.  ibid, pp. 127-128.

20.  Calvin, Jean, loc. cit., iv, 20,21, p. 668.

21.  Bente, F., loc. cit., Augsburg Confession, Article XVI, p. 51.

22.  Bente, loc. cit., Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article XVI, p. 331.

23.  Green, loc, cit., p. 38.

24.  1986 Handbook the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, p. 133.

25.  Green, loc. cit., p. 35.

26.  Montgomery, J. W., loc. cit.

27. 1992 Handbook of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, pp. 123-130.

28.  Pieper, F., loc. cit., p. 421.

29.  Buls, Harold, New Jersey Confessional Lutheran Quarterly, Vol. III, No. 2 (1993), "Something to Think About", pp.1&2.

30.  Ibid.

31.  Calvin, Jean, loc. cit, , iii, 2, p. 494.

32.  1992 Handbook of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, p. 123.

33.  Buls, H., loc. cit. P. 2

34.  1992 Handbook of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, p.125.

35.  CN, April 19, 1999, p. 10.

36.  1995 Handbook Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, p. 28

37.  CN, April 19, 1999, p. 10.

38.  ibid., p. 12.

39.  1995 Handbook Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, p. 16.

40.  Pieper, F.. loc. cit., p. 423.

41.  Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod, CPH, St. Louis, p. 13.

42.  Luecker, E. W. (ed.), loc. cit., p. 580.

43.  Marquart, K. E., Anatomy of an Explosion, CTS Press, Ft. Wayne 1977, p. 70.

November 3, 2000