# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1954_S36
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

386 Proceedings of the Forty-Third Convention,

points to be satisfactorily answered in a “twin document” of this
kind, as our brethren of the Norwegian Synod have pointed out.
Assuming that both synods will adopt Part II, “it will be a real
problem whether to read Part I in the light of Part II or to read
Part II in the light of Part I, wherever they may seem to differ.”
(Our Relations with the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod, Union
Committee of the Norwegian Synod, p. 15.)

It still remains, however, to consider some of the answers
set forth in Part II as a complete answer to our objections. On the
subject of Justification one additional statement is offered by the
writers of A Fraternal Word, a statement which speaks of the
“forgiveness SPOKEN by God to the world in the death and
resurrection of His Son Jesus Christ,” from which no one is
excluded (A Fraternal Word, p.4). We still maintain that this
does not express the truth of Objective Justification, that God has
already declared all sinners righteous in His sight. “Spoken” can
still mean nothing more than “offered,” which is what the American
Lutheran Church has always taught. On the subject of Conversion
an additional statement is supplied which speaks of a mankind
which “willfully resists every endeavor of God to save it from
destruction.” Our attention is called to the fact that the Common
Confession “nowhere indicates a distinction between natural and
willful resistance, but speaks of willful resistance only.” A Fraternal
Word, p.5). This is, however, simply an evasion of the point in
question. The fact remains that such a distinction has been made
and openly taught by the American Lutheran Church. That was
the controversy which the Common Confession is said to have
settled. We asked for a rejection of this untenable distinction, but
none is given. On the subject of Election the same evasiveness
is encountered. Additional statements from Part II can be accepted
by anyone who holds to the views held by men like Fritchel, Reu,
and Stellhorn without conceding any point mentioned in our crit-
icism of Part I. It is again a matter of making one’s language so
specific that errors which are known to have been in existenc
cannot hide behind it. .

On the subject of Inspiration we are happy to see Part II
provide a statement with the use of the term “God’s verbally
inspired Word.” It reads: “The Holy Scriptures are God’s verbally
inspired Word, that is, God moved men to write what He wanted
recorded in the words He wanted employed. They alone con-
stitute God’s inerrant Word to men.” Our Norwegian brethren
have pointed out that the phrase we desired is used “in a setting
which makes it possible still to limit inspiration to the doctrinal,
spiritual portions of the Bible” (Our Relations with Missouri, p. 16).
Others have raised the question: Did God want everything recorded
that is in the Bible, or did men add things to what “He wanted
recorded”? We would be willing to grant that an obvious attempt
has been made to meet one of our objections. But it hasn’t been
adopted as yet, and in the meantime statements continue to appear
in American Lutheran writings which speak of a “limited revela-
tion” (Lutheran Standard, February 21, 1953, p.15). Additional
statements of the subject of the Antichrist are considered unneces-
sary in Part II, as well as any reference to the doctrine of Sunday,
omitted from both parts.