# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1954_S28
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

28 Proceedings of the Forty-Third Convention,

The Common Confession has been defended by statements tc
the effect that “the distinction between natural and willful resist-
ance is not the point at issue in the Common Confession” (Minutes
of the Meeting of the Presidents, May 12, 1954, p.16). We say that
it most certainly is when we are concerned with a document which
claims to be a settlement of past differences. If it -was a burning
issue in 1929, one which required a direct, antithetical statement
in the Brief Statement of 1932, why is it no longer a point at issue
today? Simply to state “that there is no evidence that the ‘American
Lutheran Church today teaches the old distinction between willful
and natural resistance” (Minutes of the Meeting of the Presidents,
May 12, 1954, p.17) is avoiding the issue. How can we know this,
we ask, unless the American Lutheran Church is willing to rule out
this error in plain language? There are times when it becomes
necessary to call a thing by name, to point the finger directly at the
. issue involved.

We close with a statement of our Review Committee, which
calls attention to the ignoring of this issue and says: “Since this
is precisely the issue that was in controversy between the synods
of the American Lutheran Church and the Synodical Conference,
it must, as a confession, be rejected” (Proceedings, 31st Convention,
Wisconsin Synod, 1951, p. 130).

C. Election

False teachings concerning the Scriptural doctrine of Election
were very much in evidence before the drawing up of the Formula
of Concord. Melanchthon, the father of synergism in conversion,
was also the father of synergistic predestination. In order to
harmonize the universal grace of God with the fact that only some
are elected unto eternal life, he spoke of a cause of election residing
in man, an “ability to apply himself to grace.” One of his followers
later expressed it this way: “We are elected and received because
we believe in the Son.” The Synergists argued: Since man’s con-
tempt of God’s Word is the cause of his reprobation, man’s accept-
ance of God’s grace must be regarded as a cause of his election.
While Synergists thus denied the sola gratia in an effort to explain
the mystery, Calvin and his adherents taught a double predesti-
nation, as set forth in the Westminster Confession: “By the decree
of God ... some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting
life, and others foreordained to. everlasting death.” ‘Thereby, of
course, the universal grace of God was denied..

Article XI of the Formula of Concord defends the doctrine of
the Bible over against these heresies. On the basis of Eph. 1:4, 5
and Acts 13:48 the Formula declares that the election of God “not
only foresees and foreknows the salvation of the elect, but is also,
from the gracious will and pleasure of God in Christ J esus, a cause
which procures, works, helps our salvation.” On the basis of Ezek.
33:11; 2 Peter 3:9; and 2 Tim. 2:21 an election of wrath or a pre-
destination to sin and damnation was plainly rejected. “Man’s own
fault” is declared as the sole reason of his perdition (Matt. 23:37).
Since the doctrine of Election is so closely related to Conversion,
even the most subtile form of synergism: in conversion was again
positively excluded in Article XI. No attempt was made to har-
monize or modify the doctrines of sola gratia or universalis gratia