# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1954_S50
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

50 Proceedings of the Forty-Third Convention,

be converted,” then the church could no longer hope to convert
anyone, for the entire mankind which she confronts in every age
and out of which she must make her converts is confessed to be
a “MANKIND WHICH willfully resists EVERY ENDEAVOR OF
GOD to save it from destruction.”

lll. THE MEANS OF GRACE

The charges and allegations made against the Common Con-
fession on this point have been met quite fully in Another Fraternal
Endeavor, pp. 18—22, and in A Fraternal Reply, pp. 11—15. (See
A Fraternal Reply, from page 11 to bottom of page 15.)

We are of the conviction that the charges made against the
Common. Confession on this point have in no wise proved that the
Common Confession fails to teach clearly and unambiguously the
verbal and plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. However,
that as a result of the many discussions on this matter and that
for the satisfaction of many good brethren supplementary state-
ments might prove helpful one could hardly dare to deny.

IV. THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION

With respect to the doctrine of election the Common Confes-
sion has been faulted about as follows. It is alleged:

1. That the Common Confession accepts as its definition of
the “election of grace” the very definition which the Brief State-
ment rejects (Fraternal Word Examined, p. 9, par. 3; The Lu-.
theran Church — Missouri Synod Proceedings, 1950, p. 576);

2. That certain vital and indispensable statements are not to
be found in the Common Confession, viz., (a) “A clear and un-
mistakable statement that this election is an election unto faith”;
(b) “the positive assurance that this election is the cause of our
salvation and what pertains thereto”; and (c) “a definite recogni-
tion of the certainty of this election (‘which cannot be over-
thrown’)” ( Proceedings, 1951, Wisconsin Synod, pp. 130, 131);

3. That this “article also falls short of confessional clarity by
failing to state that God’s eternal decree of election did not merely
set up a description of those who will be saved, but means that
He has chosen ‘each and every person,’ a specific number, unto
faith and eternal life (Personenwahl)” (ibid.);

4. That “this article of predestination” .. . “neglected to assign
clearly and unmistakably to faith its place in God’s act of election”
(ibid., p. 181); and

5. That the Common Confession does not reject the error
taught in the American Lutheran Church that God elected His
people to eternal life in view of their foreseen faith” (Our Relations
with The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod, by the Norwegian
Synod, p. 10).

ANSWER: 1. The first charge is answered on page 16 of A Fra-
ternal Reply.

2. The second allegation concerning certain indispensable
statements is covered in full in Another Fraternal Endeavor,
pp. 15—17 (ending with the words, 2d par. from top, “.. . and in
this article of the Common Confession”).

“a