# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1926_S187
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States. 1926. 187

4, We would therefore recommend not to break off negotiations
with the representatives of the Iowa, Ohio, and Buffalo synods, but
to continue them, so that, God willing, unity may be attained also in
points still coming under consideration. We take it that the Wis-
consin Synod also would again send representatives. Synod could
either commission the President and the Vice-President to carry on
the negotiations or again elect a special committee.

Respectfully submitted by your Committee:
’ J.G.F. Kueinans. W.Arnpt. Teo. GRAEBNER.

Report of the Committee
Elected in 1923 to Examine the Intersynodical Theses.
(Unofficial Translation. )

In 1923 Synod adopted the following recommendation of the
Intersynodical Committee: “That Synod would appoint a special
committee whose duty it would be to subject the documents [Inter-
synodical Theses] to a rigid examination. Whoever has any criti-
cisms to make about these theses is to report his doubts to this com-
mittee, and that within the next two years. At the next convention
this committee is to present the result of its examination, any pos-

mittee has carefully examined the theses as well as the criticisms
submitted and has found that, the following changes * are necessary.
(We have already sent our proposals to the individual pastors and
teachers of Synod for examination and would herewith present them
to Synod for careful consideration.)

Conversion, Thesis 3: Insert after “hostilely”: “therefore mali-

ciously in the proper sense of the term, as natural man can do nothing
else than to resist in such fashion.”
. Note.— This addition, together with some others, has become
- necessary in order to ward off the statement repeatedly made since
the publication of the Chicago Theses that there is a so-called mali-
f cious resistance differing in its nature and kind from the natural
E.  vesistance found in every man, the former, in distinction from, the
latter, making conversion impossible.

‘ Conversion, Thesis 10: We recommend the following version: —
g “We therefore confess: — .
a “a) That conversion is solely and exclusively the work of divine

grace, which man by nature only resists and only can resist, and that

* The translation of the recommendations made by the Examining
-Committee was prepared so as to fit the changes recommended into the
official English translation of the theses on conversion and predestination
published by the Rev. A. C. Haase, 14 Iglehart Ave., St. Paul, Mimn., sec-
retary of the Intersynodical Committee, January, 1923. The translation
of the Examining Committee’s report is not official. — P. F. B.

sible changes, improvements, ete., to Synod.” This Examining Com-