# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1848 10 31_S37
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

37

with a more downcast heart through the "Lutheraner" than this.

The article to which we here refer is contained in the number of the "Lutheran Standard" of the 11th inst., under the department New Philadelphia (Grünwald?), and runs as follows under the heading "The General Synod":

"We wish to keep our readers acquainted with the state of the Church and with the proceedings in the various divisions of it. Although some difference exists both in doctrines and in measures, yet we are still One Church(?), and our members of all parties have an interest in becoming acquainted with the proceedings of our ecclesiastical bodies, whether they approve of them in every particular or not. For this reason we have furnished in the present number a series of extracts from the proceedings of the General Synod. It is conceded by all, whether they be friends or opponents of the General Synod, that this body exercises a very important influence upon the character of the Lutheran Church in the United States, and therefore all must feel an interest in knowing its proceedings. Let it be permitted us here to set forth what is perhaps already well known to all our readers, that we for our own part have always been inclined toward a union (uniting) of all our Synods with the General Synod. Without wishing to force our views upon anyone, we will venture to lay before you our reasons why we are inclined to such a connection, and our readers may accept or reject them as it pleases them.

"1. A connection with the General Synod does not require that one renounce any Lutheran doctrine or measure which is dear to the old-Lutheran Synods.

"2. A union with the General Synod does not require or involve an approval or justification of any particular doctrine or measure which the individual members of this Synod advocate.

"3. If such Synods as those of Pennsylvania and of Ohio were represented in the General Synod, the doctrines and measures which those Synods advocate would become better known and would win a wider circle of friends.

"4. The influence which these Synods would be in a position to exercise upon the character of the Church in the United States would be by far more important and beneficial than it now is.

"5. Those Synods themselves also would derive an essential advantage from such a connection in several respects, especially in that they would take up something of the laudable zeal for the institutions of the Church such as is shown among those Synods which are now connected with the General Synod.

"6. The purpose of such a union of all our Synods would be to diminish prejudices, to make our preachers acquainted with one another, and to bring our Church to a higher stage of unity in sentiment and of harmonious action.

"7. A Synod may enter into connection with the General Synod and yet retain its present constitution, as was the case with the New York Synod.

"8. No resolution (act) of the General Synod is binding upon the individual Synods unless it is confirmed by the latter; therefore such a union cannot in the least do any injury to the independence of the individual Synods.

"9. It is not required that contributions be raised from our congregations for the treasury of the General Synod.

"10. The expenses of the journey of the delegates to their meetings are paid by the General Synod out of the fund which arises from the sale of the hymn-books.

"These reasons, together with others which might be presented, have always inclined us with overpowering force in favor of a connection with the General Synod. Be that as it may, our readers are now in a position to judge of the strength of those reasons as we are; and with them we leave it."

So far the "Lutheran Standard." For this time we communicate to our readers this exceedingly lamentable article, which is altogether contrary to God's Word, only for consideration and warning, and reserve to ourselves the right to illumine it in the next number with the light of God's Word.

Balaam's Ass.

Numbers 22, 28.

Among all the miracles of Scripture none has to bear more than Balaam's speaking ass. This poor animal has already been shot at with the arrows of mockery so thick as hail that it would indeed be no wonder if it could long since no longer bray like an ass, to say nothing of speaking like a man.

"An ass with human speech!!" The matter appears to our clear-sighted thinkers so utterly absurd, so wholly unthinkable, that it must without any contradiction be the maddest fable. And thereupon they naturally are wont to draw the conclusion: what worth can one attribute to a book that passes off such things for current coin?

But what is still worse, even believing people who would gladly see the divine authority of Scripture maintained, who accept other miracles in the Bible without hesitation, are put in perplexity by Balaam's ass, and their heart is quite pinched against the wall, like Balaam's foot.

But I should like to know, for all the world, what then hinders us from letting this miracle count, which is plainly related as a fact and confirmed in the New Testament (2 Pet. 2, 16.)?

Should it then have been simply impossible for the dear God to let human words go forth from an ass's throat? It is well known that the animal organ is not altogether incapable of our languages. That barber's starling could very plainly pronounce: "I am the barber's starling!" "You blockhead!" etc. A cardinal in Rome had a parrot which recited the three articles of faith like the best catechism pupil. And now an ass, he lets already by nature two of our vowels (I A) be heard in fair purity. What could he not do at last, if it depended on his organ! Why then should the dear God, of whom one may moreover affirm that he is almighty, not once, by way of exception, have been able to put the words into the throat of such an animal: "What have I done unto thee, O my lord Balaam, that thou hast smitten me?" Ah, I believe indeed that God could also, if need be, let the stones speak (Luke 19, 40.), which yet by nature have not two vowels in them. But that in our miracle the dear God and not the ass did the most, stands expressly written there, for it says: "The LORD opened the mouth of the ass."

A miracle it always remains, to be sure; but it is meant to be one. But I beg — not the Friends of Light, but the weak in faith with the pinched heart, I beg them most earnestly, that they would once consider it well, whether this miracle with the speaking ass is a greater and — so to speak — more impossible miracle than when the LORD feeds 5000 men with 5 loaves and 12 baskets full of fragments remain over.

If you believe the latter, you can also believe the former with your whole heart. I believe it, in the most perfect earnest. But if I did not believe it, I should also not believe in Jericho's falling walls, in Elijah's merciful ravens, and much else; I should then also not believe in the five wonderful loaves.

W. Redenbacher.

Luther's Judgment concerning the Saints.

I do not say that I hold those whom you adduce to be by no means saints or the Church of God, but that it cannot be proved, if anyone denies it, that they are really saints, but that it remains wholly uncertain. The proof which one takes from their holiness is therefore by no means reliable for the confirmation of an article of faith. I call them saints and hold them to be such, I give them the name of the Church and esteem them so, according to the rule of love, but not according to the rule of faith; that is, love, which thinks the best of everybody and is not suspicious and believes and presumes all good of the neighbor, calls every baptized person a saint, and there is no danger if it errs, for the lot of love is to be deceived, since it, as a universal servant, of the good and