# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1954_S25
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Ev. Luth Synodical Conference of North America, 1954 25

place, rather than that God imputes Christ’s righteousness “through
the Gospel.”

No matter how often we read and reread the Common Con-
fession, we cannot see how it adequately defends the position which
has been valiantly upheld and defended by the Missouri Synod
for many years. Has God on the basis of Christ’s redemption
forgiven all sins to all men? Has He declared the whole world
just in the death and resurrection of His Son? Is that what we
mean by objective justification, basing this doctrine especially on
Rom. 5:18,19 and Rom. 4:25? Or does this doctrine merely set
forth the truth of an accomplished atonement, stating that Christ
has secured and provided forgiveness of sin for all men, leaving
room for the interpretation that God’s actual declaration of right-
eousness must be held in abeyance until the missing factor of
personal faith is supplied? With much logic the Common Confes-
sion’s statement on justification has been defended by men of the
Missouri Synod. This has been done by defining the phrase “for-
giveness of sin” as a “declaration whereby the ungodly have been
declared godly.” The correct meaning, in other words, is inherent
in the proper understanding of what we mean by “forgiveness of
sin.’ Pieper’s Dogmatics and the Lutheran Confessions are cited
to show that if we understand the term “forgiveness of sin” cor-
rectly, we shall see that the Common Confession says exactly the
same thing as the Brief Statement. The only difference lies in the
fact that different terminology is used, it is asserted. We certainly
do not question the fact that those who have defended the Common
Confession in this way may, as far as they themselves are con-
cerned, have a correct understanding of objective justification.
But their interpretation in the light of Dr. Pieper’s Dogmatics is
certainly no proof that the American Lutheran Church subscribes
to the same interpretation. Especially since such a wide divergence
of opinion has existed on this very doctrine between Dr. Pieper
and men like Drs. Reu and Lenski. If we wish to defend this
article on Justification through definitions which have been set
forth by Dr. Pieper, why should we not be satisfied to use the
words which he employed in the first place? Why not simply
remain with the wording of the Brief Statement?

No article of the Common Confession is more open to the
charge of ambiguity than this article on Justification. No article
leaves the old issue more unsettled. The points carried out at some
length above are the very same called attention to in the “Review”
of our Synod’s Standing Committee on Church Union three years
ago. Our Synod already then unanimously agreed with its con-
clusion: “Since this formulation (of the Common Confession on
Justification) admits of false answers to the question concerning
the function of faith in justification, the article must be rejected”
(Proceedings, 31st Convention, Wisconsin Synod, p. 129).

B. Conversion

The next subject dealt with by our Synod’s “Review” concerns
itself with Article VII of the Common Confession, the article on
Conversion. The Common Confession presents this doctrine in
three sentences, one of which is a quotation from Scripture. We
quote its concise paragraph on this subject in full: “The sinner’s
conversion takes place when God brings the contrite sinner to