# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1954_S51
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Ev. Luth. Synodical Conference of North America, 1954 51

~. ‘3. The answer to allegation No. 3 is found on page 17, in the
second paragraph from the bottom of the page (ibid.).

4. The fourth and fifth charges relating to the place of faith
in election are met on page 17 in the last paragraph on the page
(ibid.) and also in A Fraternal Reply (pp. 17—19, ending with the
words “when in 1950 it adopted the Common Confession”).

All other points we believe to be treated adequately in A Fra-
ternal Word, Another Fraternal Endeavor, and in A Fraternal
Reply. We trust that these efforts have not been in vain, but will
be used in God’s gracious hands to effect what pleases Him. This
grant us, dear Father in heaven, for Jesus’ sake.

The Norwegian Synod’s Reasons for Rejecting
the “Common Confession”
Dean Norman Manson

What the Rev. Wendland already has stated as the Wisconsin
Synod’s case against the Common Confession we do not propose to
better. He has well presented the Norwegian Synod’s case as well.
But since it is in accord with the chief essayist’s express wish that
we also speak out from the knowledge and experience gained in
these intersynodical matters over a long period of years (we have
served on our synod’s Union Committee since 1938 and on the
Intersynodical Relations Committee of the Synodical Conference
since the early Forties), we shall as briefly as possible bring our
testimony, fully realizing the odds against us in the attempt —
weariness on the part of the hearers. For it is as true today as it
was on the day that Solomon penned it by way of admonition to
his son: “Of making many books there is no end; and much study
is a weariness of the flesh.” Eccl. 12:12. Brevity, then, being of the
essence in this instance, we shall not be exhaustive, but rather
merely call attention to points which may be dwelt upon at greater
length in convention committee hearings or by individual speakers
from the floor of the convention.

As Luther says in his “Kurzes Bekenntnisz vom heiligen Sac-
rament wider die Schwirmer,” where he applies Titus 3:10 to the
false teachers of his day, telling us that he is going to take that
particular passage with him as a testimony before the judgment
seat of Christ, so we might also say: “They have often enough, and
earnestly enough, been admonished by me and many others; the
books are open to the world.” (St.L. Walch, XX:1764—65.) But
since there are comparatively few within the far-flung reaches of
our sister synod of Missouri who read our official organ, the Lu-
theran Sentinel, we shall have to bring it to the attention of as
many as possible at this general convention. What then are the
points which we as a synod have made and are now reiterating
against the Common Confession?

We object to its very conception and birth. And why? Because
both were in violation of the treasured Confessions to which we
stand committed as an orthodox Lutheran conference. In our
Formula of Concord, Thorough Declaration, we confess regarding