# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_Juni 1913_S272
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

272 Kirchlich⸗Zeitgeschichtliches.

wirklich seine Gedanken zum Ausdruck bringt, so hat er in dem von ihm
geführten dreißigjährigen Krieg wider Missouri einen von ihm selbst ge⸗
machten Strohmann bekämpft, welcher leugnet, was Missouri nicht tut und
nie getan hat, daß die ewige Seligkeit eines Menschen etwas zu schaffen
habe mit dem rechten Verhalten gegen das im Evangelium angebotene Heil
oder, was dasselbe ist, mit dem Glauben, der die dargebotene Gnade an⸗
nimmt und eben deshalb das rechte Verhalten gegen dieselbe und Entschei⸗
dung für Gott ist. Die Streitfrage zwischen Ohio und Missouri ist nicht
und war nie die, ob der Glaube, das Annehmen der Gnade oder das rechte
Verhalten gegen die Gnadenbotschaft des Evangeliums zur Seligkeit nötig
sei oder nicht, sondern immer nur die, wie dies rechte Verhalten des Glau⸗
bens entstehe, ob in jeder Hinsicht allein durch Gottes Gnadenwirkung, oder
ob Bekehrung und Seligkeit in gewisser Hinsicht abhängig sei nicht allein
von der Gnade, sondern auch vom Menschen. Es ist nicht das erste Mal,
daß wir diese ignoratio oder mutatio elenchi seitens der Ohioer, die wohl
das Wasser trüben mag, aber nicht dem Interesse der Wahrheit dient,
zurückweisen. F. B.
Liberalismus und Generalsynode. D. L. S. Keyser vom theologischen
Seminar der Generalsynode in Springfield, O., sagt in einem an uns ge⸗
richteten Schreiben vom 24. Mai: „The last meeting of athe General Synod
at Atchison, Kans., took deécided action against the liberalistic theology
and negative criticism of the times. Fearing the reports in the daily
papers might give a wrong idea of the action taken and all the circum-
stances connected with it, I herewith send you, in connection withea num-
ber of other Lutheran papers, aà correct version of the matter. LVou may
read in the papers that there was considerable discussion of the question,
and that one document, offered by myself, was laid on the table, and a sub-
stitute adopted in its stead. This is true, but the discussion was not on.
the merits of the issue, nor because the General Synod was not ready at
any time to make a solid and positive declaration against liberalism. The
question of personality was injected at once after I had offered my first
paper, and that so obscured the issue that a fair consideration could not
be given. Besides, many of the members of the Synod had not posted
themselves sufficiently before coming to the convention to vote intelligently
on the document first presented. When I saw what the difficulty was,
IJoffered a substitute, which was adopted with a powerful and practieally
unanimous vote. Thus, while no individual is directly rebuked, yet the
liberalistic views the individual aimed at were firmly rejected and dis-
approved. This was done, too, with a vigor that could not be mistaken.
The following is the statement that was adopted by the General Synod:
Forasmuch as liberalistie tendencies in theology and rationalistie views
of the Bible have become more or less prevalent in some of the denomina-
tions, and in view of the possibility of their gaining a foothold in the
General Synod, we are convinced of the importance of declaring our sin-
cere convictions on these crueial questions. Therefore, against the lati-
tudinarian views and tendencies of the day, we desire to record our con-
tinued and bearty acceptance of all the doctrines of our evangelical faith
as set forth in the inspired Seriptures of the Old and New Testaments
and the Unaltered Augsburg Confession. We also protest against the oft⸗
repeated assertion that almost the whole trend of modern thought and