# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1954_S22
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

22 Proceedings of the Forty-Third Convention,

But this is something which remains to be presented, and ir
our second part we shall state our reasons for finding the Commor
Confession inadequate as a settlement of past differences which
are in fact not settled.

Part II

Our Reasons for Finding the “Common Confession, Part I,”

A. Justification to Be Inadequate

The chief objections of our Synod to the Common Confession,
as stated before, are summarized in a “Review of the Common
Confession,” prepared by our Standing Committee on Church
Union before the New Ulm convention. This convention unan-
imously concurred in the findings of our Standing Committee as
found in its “Review.” Since the first article treated in this doc-
ument is fittingly the one described by Luther as the “article with
which the church stands or falls,” the very heart of sola gratia,
the article on Justification, we shall begin with this article also.

We are all certainly aware of the fact that a serious clash
over this doctrine existed between the old Ohio Synod and the
Missouri Synod fifty years ago. At that time Ohio flatly rejected
the truth upheld by Missouri that God already declared the whole
world justified of all sins in the death and resurrection of Christ
(Rom. 5:18, 19; Rom. 4:25; 2 Cor. 5:19). Particularly Dr. Stoeck-
hardt in his beautiful exegesis on Romans emphasized Missouri’s
position that justification was basically a forensic act, a pronounce-
ment of God in which forgiveness of sin was declared to the whole
world, that this objective truth was an accomplished fact, not
conditioned by any attitude, merit, or faith on the part of man.
God did not, in other words, justify only those who He knew
would come to faith. Although it is true — as Dr. Stoeckhardt and
others pointed out — that man by faith apprehends or accepts this
universal imputation of righteousness which avails before God,
this faith is a passive instrument. It never enters the picture as
a cause of justification. The Scriptures do not state, as our Lu-
theran Confessions also emphasize, that man is justified “on account
of faith (31d zloty). By faith we “lay hold of Christ, and thus
in Christ of that righteousness which avails before God” (Formula
of Concord, Epitome). Dr, Stoeckhardt was especially interested
in calling attention also to the comfort derived from this objective
truth. “God has in Christ,” he writes, “already forgiven the sins
of the whole world. The entire Pauline doctrine of justification,
and also all comfort derived from this doctrine, stands and falls
with this special article of objective justification. For thus alone
does it become unmistakably clear that justification is in no way
dependent upon man’s conduct (Verhalten). And thus alone can
the individual become certain of his own justification. For it is
a compelling conclusion: if God has already in Christ justified all
men and forgiven them their sins, so I also must have a gracious
God and the forgiveness of all my sins.” (Roemerbrief, p. 264.)
In answer to those who felt that neither Luther nor the early
Lutheran Confessions made this distinction between “objective”
and “subjective” justification and that we must consider faith as
something necessary to complete a justification which God has
only made possible, Dr. Stoeckhardt declares: “Never in this