# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1954_S41
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Ev. Luth. Synodical Conference of North America, 1954 41

‘Missouri Synod, or anyone else for that matter, to continue in
support of it would be a grievous thing indeed.

It is necessary, therefore, because of the kind of charges which
have been raised against the Common Confession, that we must
face them honestly and objectively and either bow to them or show
them to be without foundation.

When the speaker was asked to represent The Lutheran Church
— Missouri Synod on behalf of the Common Confession in Mil-
waukee and here at Detroit, no one told him where to stand or what
position to take. He accepted and approached his task with great
fear and trembling and with the prayer that God would graciously
guide his every step. The results of these efforts have been made
public in Another Fraternal Endeavor, pp. 5—29, and in A Fraternal

eply.

To date the speaker has on his part heard nothing from any
quarter which has basically altered these findings. We are sin-
cerely hopeful that all who have brought charges against the
Common Confession, on hearing the defense which our church
has to offer, will be most happy in good conscience to dismiss them,
at least to this extent, that, the Common Confession being set aside,
they will not feel compelled to insist upon its repudiation.

It is with this in view that the speaker continues to defend the
Common Confession with respect to the allegations that have been
made against it. Let us, then, proceed to take them up under the
various doctrines involved.

I. JUSTIFICATION

The charges against the Common Confession on this article
are the following:

1. That the Common Confession “does not . . . confess the
doctrine of Objective Justification” (100 Questions and Answers
for Lutherans of the Synodical Conference, p. 12);

2. That “the Common Confession has merely a doctrine of an
-accomplished Redemption” (The Confessional Lutheran, XV, 45);

3. That “the Common Confession gives an unclear picture of
God’s judicial act” and hence does not portray “the Bible picture”
of objective justification (Wisconsin Synod’s Tract No.3, Every
Sinner Declared Righteous, p. 6);

4, That “the statement of the Common Confession:

By His redemptive work Christ is the Propitiation for

the sins of the whole world; hence forgiveness of sin has

been secured and provided for all men. (This is often

spoken of as objective justification) ... 2 Cor. 5:19,

does not settle the differences between the Synodical Conference
and the American Lutheran Church on the doctrine of Objective
Justification. For the doctrine that forgiveness of sin has been
secured and provided for all men belongs to the article concerning
Redemption, not to that of Justification.” (Overture of the Norwe-
gian Synod of the American Evangelical Lutheran Church. See
Reports and Memorials for the Forty-third Convention, Synodical
Conference, 1954, p. 69.)

5. That “although the justification of all mankind in Christ
(objective justification, Rom.4:5; Rom.5:18) has been openly