# Pieper Correspondence_St. Louis Missouri_Franz Pieper to Dr. H. G. Stub 2 November 1916_S1
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Transcribed by R. Lah, Lafayette, Indiana, November 1996.
(~ tilde used where letters were not discernible)
=============================================
Concordia College
St. Louis, Mo.
Dr. Franz Pieper, President

St. Louis, Mo., 2 November 1916.
[illegible in the transcription] Doctor!
Professor Dau told me that because(?) of your weakened health you would for some time yet not be able to take part in a discussion with representatives of the Synodical Conference. But I thought it might be good, and might further the goal of our mutual striving, if I personally, thus not as representative of the Synodical Conference, shared with you briefly my thoughts about a possible understanding. Last week I read once more my writings that refer to the Norwegian Synod (1). In doing so it again came before my eyes how we fought shoulder to shoulder in the great battle against Erasmianism. Nor can I shake off the conviction that we are still one heart and one soul, and that the cloud which for some years has come between us could easily be dispersed. For some years we have not corresponded with each other. I wanted to avoid the impression that we German Lutherans were pressing ourselves on the Norwegians, because I had been informed by you and also by the fathers Ottesen, Preus, Koren, Larsen and others that
-------------
(1) The writings go back to the year 1879.

(page 2 of letter).
a part of your people [illegible in the transcription]. To be sure, I corresponded with the late Dr. Larsen. But that happened solely on Dr. Larsen's initiative. In the end he wanted to know from me whether I still regarded him as a Missourian and brother in the faith. I affirmed that, but asked him to use his influence so that especially two [transcription: "Irre:"] points in the Opgjör would be changed: the coordination of the two [transcription: "Irre::"] "forms of doctrine" and man's responsibility for the acceptance of grace. As for the first point, Dr. Larsen's position on the Opgjör did not become entirely clear to me. It seemed to me that, as 30 years ago, he wanted to base the second [transcription: "Irreite"] form of doctrine only as a description of the elect, in the sense of: The elect are those who in time(?) believe or die in faith; faith forms a part of the general order of salvation in which the elect too are led to salvation. His position on the second point, however, became clear to me through the last letter he wrote me. I reminded him that "man's sense of responsibility toward the acceptance or rejection of grace" did not cover his
(page 3 of letter)
(To Dr. Stub, 2 Nov 1916.)
personal belief. He only meant to say that man is responsible(?) for the rejection of grace, but did not mean to say that man is also responsible for the acceptance of grace. To this Dr. Larsen used the strong expression that a sense of responsibility regarding the acceptance of grace is indeed nonsense. But he feared that a change in the Opgjör would be difficult to bring about after its adoption by the districts. This was Dr. Larsen's last communication to me.
Permit me now a brief presentation of my personal understanding of the situation: 1). You, dear Doctor, belong to those among us who have shown most fully and thoroughly that only the first form of doctrine is the doctrine of Scripture and Confession. It corresponds [illegible in the transcription] to your personal position if the coordination of the two forms of doctrine is removed. 2). You too hold from the heart that man is indeed responsible for the rejection of grace, but that it implies synergism, at least in expression, if one speaks of a responsibility of man also for the acceptance of grace. So I imagine agreement on these two points to be quite easy. 3). This summer Professor Dau, passing through St. Paul, had a brief conversation
(page 4 of letter)
with Dr. Kildahl. Professor Dau gained the impression that Dr. Kildahl is a conscientious and able theologian and might well be ready to enter into a negotiation that could bring the United Synod too into doctrinal unity with us. 4). Because the doctrinal position represented by you and us is at bottom the position of all Christians, and is easily recognized as the right one by our Christian people when clearly presented, an altered Opgjör would also find joyful and general agreement among your Norwegian people. 5). How glorious it would be if the noble Norwegian people in 1917 were to take a stand on a basis free of every echo of the old and modern Erasmianism. I am by no means thinking of any organic connection of the Norwegian Lutherans with the German Lutherans of America. I am thinking solely of standing together in the one pure doctrine and in the one confession of the truth. 6). Almost all our English congregations have Norwegians in their midst. There it is surely desirable that no doctrinal difference come between us. 7). At Dr. Stoeckhardt's funeral Professor Hove told us that you too would have preferred to see a discussion before adoption(?) of the Opgjör.
(page 5 of letter).
That is how I view the general situation. It is the most favorable imaginable for a complete understanding. Let us apply diligence to bring about the understanding before the devil drives us still further apart. Should you have(?) time and strength for a personal conversation, I am glad to be ready to come to St. Paul. I would also gladly make the acquaintance of Dr. Kildahl.
Our institution is so full this year that we were glad to have sent out 40 students as vicars. Next month (Dec. 18-22) 5 members of our faculty will have a concluding conversation with the Wauwatosa faculty. We expect complete agreement.
In old friendship and love,
Your
F. Pieper.