| Summary: | GUDMUNDSON v. THINGVALLA LUTHERAN CHURCH 323 retained in the Bible, but the Bible is the Word of God as a whole,", and that his church opposed the so-called right of private judgment. That a congregation passing the resolution adopted by the majority on June 5, 11)10, would not be admitted to the Norwegian Lutheran Church, and that the same would constitute a departure from the faith is the witness would interpret the meaning of ยง I. of art. 2 of the con stitution of the Thingvalla Congregation, which the witness testifies to understand that it is thereby meant that the "Bible as a whole is the inspired word of God in its entirety." Witness, however, stated : "To day there is a great difference between my church and the church of Norway as to the interpretation of some of the fundamentals of Lutheranism. Every one hundred years Christianity changes. The state of the church to-day in Norway is exceeding deplorable. I under stand that the church of Norway is somewhat in the same deplorable condition as the church of Iceland, and the same sad truth is true of the church of Germany. It is here the humbug starts every time. Then it goes over to Norway, then to Denmark, and finally to Iceland, about twenty-five years afterwards. The position of the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States is not, and never was, the same as that of my church with reference to the doctrine of inspiration. All reformed churches have as their guide their reason. They accept what they think is reasonable, and reject what they don't like. The Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States is afflicted with the same hum-hug as the Lutheran Church of Germany is on this point. You cad go further, and even say that they are full-fledged Unitarians. Many of them reject the Deity of Christ. I would not say anything on this point as to the position of the Presbyterian Church in this country; I know it is the most Calvinistic of them all. This humbug is some1 thing that has been repeated and repeated once every century it is nothing new." This witness does not express any opinion as to whether this "humbug" existed in the church of Iceland in 1889, or whether 't. instead of the doctrine of plenary inspiration, might have been a fundamental doctrinal belief of Thingvalla Congregation when organ ized. Witness Olafson was recalled, and testifies to practically the same is Professor Xess, adding, "there is nothing specific in the confessioa awut inspiration, because the doctrine of inspiration was not in dispute
|
|---|