# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1954_S49
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Ev. Luth: Synodical Conference of North America, 1954 49

Il. CONVERSION

The charges made against this section of the Common Con-
fession may be summarized about as follows. It is charged

1. That the Common Confession does not “absolutely rule out
the distinction between natural and willful resistance,” something
which the Brief Statement is alleged to have done and which The
Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod in 1929 is alleged to have
considered necessary (Wisconsin Synod’s Tract No. 4, pp. 4, 5).

2. That the Common Confession in this article expresses no
more than what the American Lutheran Church has always claimed
to teach (see Wisconsin Synod’s Tract No. 4, pp. 4,5).

3. That the Common Confession “does not reject” “the error
of the American Lutheran Church that some people are converted
to Christ while others are not, because the converted offer only
a natural resistance, while others offer willful resistance” (Nor-
wegian Synod Tract, Our Relations with The Lutheran Church —
Missouri Synod, p. 9, under “Thirdly”).

4. That the Common Confession, though presenting “an excel-
lent statement” on conversion, “does not rule out the ALC false,
un-Scriptural distinction between a natural and willful resistance
as a factor in conversion and is therefore inadequate as a set-
tlement of the doctrinal differences that exist between the ALC
and the Synodical Conference on the doctrine of Conversion”
(100 Questions and Answers for Lutherans of the Synodical
Conference, p. 14, Q. 39).

The bulk of these charges you find answered in Another Fra-
ternal Endeavor, pp. 12—14, and in A Fraternal Reply, pp. 7—-10.
(See A Fraternal Reply from p. 7 to p. 10, excluding “Another
Inaccuracy.”)

An additional answer to the allegation that the Common Con-
fession does not satisfactorily eliminate the error that “the con-
verted offer only a natural resistance” is found in Common Confes-
sion, Part II, Article I, where we have the following: “It [the
Church] confronts a mankind which, without the gracious working
of the Holy Spirit, is totally corrupt in trespasses and sins, is
completely blinded to the will of God, and willfully resists EVERY
endeavor of God to save it from destruction” (emphases mine).

The purpose of this addition is to fortify what Common Con-
fession, Part I, says on the total inability of man to save himself.
Common Confession, Part I, says that “all men ... willfully con-
tinue to transgress (God’s holy Law.” Common Confession, Part II,
adds the truth that all unconverted men willfully resist also God’s
holy Gospel, for all those who at any given time are still outside
the pale of the Christian Church are depicted here as “a mankind
which ... willfully resists every endeavor of God to save it from
destruction,” hence also God’s endeavor by means of the Gospel.

The Common Confession thereby makes it impossible justly to
charge it with permitting one to teach that whereas all men do
by nature resist the Law of God willfully, they do not by nature
resist the Gospel in this fashion. This supplementary section also
effectively prevents the teaching that “he who willfully resists the
Gospel cannot be converted.” If it were true that “he who willfully
resists God’s endeavor to convert him through the Gospel cannot