# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1954_S26
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

26 Proceedings of the Forty-Third Convention,

faith in Christ as his Savior. This change of heart with respect
to sin, and this reliance upon Christ for salvation from sin, is the
work of God the Holy Spirit, without any co-operation whatsoever
from sinful man. ‘No man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by
the Holy Ghost, 1 Corinthians 12:3d.”

The objections of our Synod’s Union Committee to this article
are centered in the following statement: “In view of past con-
troversies on this subject a clear and correct presentation of the
doctrine of Conversion must include a rejection of the untenable
distinction between a natural and a willful resistance of man, as
well as any other attempt at explaining the mystery cur alii prae
aliis. (Cf. Brief Statement, Art. 12—14.)”

To one approaching this subject with little knowledge of, or
consideration for, the historical background involved, several ques-
tions will immediately be raised by our objections. First of all,
why drag into this simple presentation such a confusing issue as
an “untenable distinction between a natural and a willful resistance
of man”? Furthermore, if such a distinction ever had been made
in an effort to explain why some are converted and others not,
would not the exclusive particles in trebled form decisively and
categorically exclude any and every possibility of co-operation in
conversion on the part of man? “Without any co-operation what-
soever” should certainly be a strong-enough form of expression
to satisfy the most exacting critic.

“In view of past controversies on this subject,” our Synod’s
objection begins. This prepositional phrase covers seventy years
of continuous discussion on this matter between representatives
of the Ohio and Iowa Synods over against men of the Missouri
and Wisconsin Synods. This discussion arose out of the contro-
versy over the doctrine of Election, and in its early stages the issue
was very clear. Early utterances of Iowa and Ohio were distinctly
synergistic as to form and substance. Dr. G. Fritschel, for example,
attempted to explain the mystery of conversion in this way: “By
some His [God’s] gracious purpose is frustrated because they stub-
bornly and wilfully resist the grace offered to them, whereas in the
others God’s work is accomplished because they do not willfully
resist but let God’s work be done on themselves” (Monatshefte,
1872, p. 99). We note here the distinction made between those who
stubbornly and willfully resist the grace of God and those who do
not do so, rather letting God’s work be done on themselves. At
about the same early period Ohio flatly stated: “Everything de-
pends on the conduct of man over against the grace of God and the
means of grace: Whether he lets the grace operate on himself,
which he can do by the strength inherent in him, or whether in
spite of it he willfully thrusts it away” (Kirchenzeitung, 1885).

This synergism, so evident in these earlier writings, however,
gradually gave way to a newer mode of expression. Pastor J.
Buenger states the subsequent dilemma which arose at the time of
the formulation of the Chicago Theses: “What most of all bewilders
a person unaccustomed to their new mode of expression is the fact
that they now ascribe the whole conversion from beginning to end,
and in every respect, wholly and solely to the grace of God, who
without any co-operation on the side of man performs the work
of conversion, man doing nothing but resisting the divine grace.
And still they insist that this is essentially the same doctrine they