Decorah-posten og ved arnen., 1916-05-26


Strio nldo ielca lepen0e. &ou hap.
oe mootaget mango @reoe ira Solf
lem par tonlmct / ltor Neo fife
alenc nleo @enipn iii Sper9$manlet
cT llbpGlgclien io1n ielu De lproeItc
Scologer life fan bli enige ont, men
meo Scnipn I'll felipe ariitentroen /
ilr IIminoeligheo. q Ipage ior-
pirreS iaa al benne Strio, at set
gnor bnarbt iro enbog paa oeres
6oritouos SeporeIie. % bar giuet
s. foniererenNe Snmiuno 2pite ON
Screening. Sfal hi bolbe bette Sol.
te? eller ifnI nj life qiere os Cant
oittlgbeo az oct, ON ri bar talt
ion0t eIer life?
CONNER @rinoelanos Gale | Sor.
bngsmpoet ben 20oe Woi loo iaalc.
6cs:
"The opposition to the Union and
of the proposed constitution is all
based upon "opgjer". Can it be that
"opgjor' promulgates any new doc
trine? NO. But the Norwegians of
America have been so long stepped
in church strife and doctrinal con
troversies that it has become a mania
and has produced warning devines and
disagreeing theologians who cannot
rid themselves of an underlying host
ility and suspicion to their former op-
ponents; hence the trouble to become
~reconciled to the acceptance of
"opgjpr" and organic union.
What is there to all this cry about
"falsk lere" in 'opgjor"? Here
is Pontoppidan's doctrine of cleo
ton that the church has had
for over $50 years, "Dobbelte
Forklaring', as we used to call
it, with answer to question SAB
was taught to our grandparents, to
our fathers and our mothers, and this
doctrine has been tolerated by the
synod since its organization.
We have been taught to accept it
as orthodox.
When it seemed to be questioned
under the doctrinal controversy that
ragged in 1882, the l~ay-people wanted
to know without any IFS or ANDS
and put the question directly up to
the synod in the Iowa district, and
here is the answer: Synoden uttaler
sig f~uldkommen med menighcterne,
naar de uttaler Diet som sin ~overbevis-
ming, at den lere ON naadevalget,
som fndes i Pontoppidan's Sandhet
til Gudfrygtighet, er ret,
Yet in spite OF all this the storm
Of opposition comes because W. have
Pontoppidan's doctrine OF election in
"opgj9r".
If we are to throw "opgj6r" over
board on OF false doctrine,
we may also throw Pontoppidan with
it, o only that, but we may also
r~epudiate the record of the synod in
1882, and let that record also go over
board with Pontoppidan. Not only
that, but we must ~repudiate the APP
proval that the grand man, Laur.
Larsen, placed upon "opgjor'; not
only that, we must also repudiate DR..
Stub, Formand V~angsnes, Nordby,
Bjorgo and Foss, the venerable Prof.
A. Mikkelsen, Formand H. Halvor-
sen and finally repudiate a large ma
Jority of III pastors.
Brother layman, with these facts
staring you in the face, can you do
it? No.
If Pontoppidan's doctrine of cleo
ton as found in "anden lereform'
was right when it was taught to
father and mother, when it was
taught to us, when the synod told US
so, expressly in 1882. can we then
consistently. can we then conscienti-
ously join with the technical theolo-
gians now in defeating union because
of this same doctrine beeing approved
by "opgjer'? clubbing over techni-
cal distinction too fine to be seen,
has brought to much mischief and
misery to our church people already.
Mischief because it fixes the atten-
ton so strongly upon distant imag-
mary evils that might result from
such or such form and expression,
that present sins escape the atten-
ton that moral obligation demands.
Misery because it begets hatred in
stead OF brotherly love.
No historian has been able to
picture the bitterness engendered,
the suffering endured and the harm
done by the doctrinal controversies
into which the theologians have from
time to time plunged the Norwegian
Lutheran church OF America; the
harms and sufferings produced; the
broken hearts, the saddened homes
caused by these controversies cry
aloud to us today. If the laymen are
united. il they as a unit stand by
Pontoppidan and by the record OF
the synod. the microscopic differences
in theological conceptions and the
hairline boundaries between theologi-
cal interpretations would not cause
such disturbances. The present bit
ter doctrinal controversy would
starve i~tselves very soon, if il. had
not laymen to feed upon. How long.
oh. how long shall we let these con-
troversies prey upon US? ! am not
unmindful of the great and noble
work done by our Norwegian Luth-
eran church in America. There is
where I received my best education,