# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1954_S54
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

54 Proceedings of the Forty-Third Convention,

6. The Last Things. Note: Underscored “are still clearly dis-
cernible in the Roman papacy.” — Also underscored: “We hold it
to be an error to teach anything as a sign of Christ’s second advent
not promised or foretold in the Holy Scriptures,” etc. It would not
be contrary to this paragraph to teach a mass conversion of the
Jews so long as it was not held to be a sign of Christ’s second
advent. This paragraph also furnishes us the closest approach we
have in the entire Common Confession to an antithesis, yet not in
the Confessions’ antithetical form: “We reject,” but rather: “We
hold it to be an error.”

In the doctrine of the Antichrist it is that five-letter word
“still” which causes one to wonder. There is not the definiteness
here which we find in Paul’s statement (2 Thess. 2:8) concerning
that Wicked (one) “who shall be destroyed with the brightness of
Christ’s coming.”

While it is not marked in the marginal notes of my copy of
the Common Confession, we did call attention, in our day-long
session with the Missouri Synod’s Unity Committee representatives,
to the rather unfortunate way of handling the proof passages, in
‘most instances listing them at the end of the article, and often-
times referring to an entire chapter when but a small portion: of
the chapter was called for. The use of John 17 as a proof passage
in the interest of an outward union with church bodies which have
shown that they are not vitally concerned about that oneness
about which our Savior’s petition centers will have to be called
inadmissible.

In that discussion we were led to believe that the proposed
Common Confession was to serve as a basis for discussions through-
out the conferences of our respective synods in the Synodical Con-
ference, and that due heed would be paid to just and valid criti-
cisms. To make certain that we did not misunderstand the Missouri
representatives on this score, this statement was by our secretary,
the Rev. C. M. Gullerud, formulated and read back into the records
of the meeting, after having been approved by the Unity Committee
representatives: “This Common Confession is not proposed by the
committee as a basis for future church fellowship, but is reported
as a fruit of our discussions at this point.” But what was the result
of our objections? The Common Confession as it had been read
to us in this meeting was accepted VERBATIM by majority vote
at Missouri’s triennial convention in Milwaukee in 1950. It was
not until after our repeated protests against this Common Con-
fession as a settlement of differences which had separated us from
the ALC that we were promised again a second document, which
would take into account our objections, the so-called Common Con-
fession II, which has not to this day been accepted by the ALC or
by Missouri. And now we are informed that the settlement of doc-
trinal differences was not final and conclusive, but that only the
unfolding of history can show us that. Cf. Another Fraternal En-
deavor, page 7. While we do not want to be facetious in matters
pertaining to our most holy faith, we must say that this borders
on the idea of trial marriage. And as for waiting to see what his-
tory will unfold, that will be quite unnecessary, so far as our Nor-
wegian Synod or our sister synod of Wisconsin are concerned. That
bit of history was revealed to us by the ALC commissioners in our