# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1975_S48
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

48 THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

and practice. The concerns expressed by the Board for Evange-
lism can be summarized in the following two questions:

1. To what extent may our pastors and congregations become
involved ecumenically in the area of evangelism without be-
coming guilty of unionistic practice?

2. Is confrontation evangelism as conducted by the Campus
Crusade, the Billy Graham organization, and the Kennedy
program in harmony with Lutheran theology?

Concerning the first question the CTCR recommends that
the Board for Evangelism be guided by the recent document
“A Lutheran Stance Toward Ecumenism.”

With respect to the second question the Commission on
Theology and Church Relations offers the following opinion.
The designation ‘confrontation evangelism,” typified by the
Graham crusade counseling, the “Four Spiritual Laws” of Bill
Bright, and more recently the so-called Kennedy method, is
usually understood to denote a method of witnessing in which
the Gospel is presented by an evangelist to an individual on a
one-to-one basis. After having heard the witness of the evange-
list, the prospect is frequently asked whether he desires to have
eternal life. At this point, if the prospect answers in the affrma-
tive, the evangelist frequently offers to pray a commitment
prayer which makes a request for faith. It is to a concern which
arises in connection with this procedure that the commission
now addresses itself. (The commission’s opinion is here limited
to a response regarding only this one aspect of confrontation
evangelism.) Is such a procedure in harmony with Lutheran
theology?

This problem is not new, nor is it unique. The same question,
in a slightly different context, was faced by the framers of our
Lutheran Confessions. It is discussed in the Formula of Concord,
Solid Declaration, Article II], Free Will. There it is succinctly
stated as follows:

The chief issue is solely and alone what the unregenerated man's
intellect and will can do in his conversion and regeneration, by those
powers of his own that have remained after the Fall, when the Word
of God is preached and the grace of God is offered to him. Can man
prepare himself for such grace, accept it and give his assent to it?
(FC, SD, I, 2)

The answer they gave is equally well stated:

In order to settle this controversy in a Christian way according to
the Word of God, and by God's grace to bring it to an end, we submit
the following as our teaching, belief, and confession: We believe
that in spiritual and divine things the intellect, heart, and will of
unregenerated man cannot by any native or natural powers in any
way understand, believe, accept, imagine, will, begin, accomplish,
do, effect, or cooperate, but that man is entirely and completely dead
and corrupted as far as anything good is concerned. Accordingly, we
believe that after the Fall and prior to his conversion not a spark
of spiritual powers has remained or exists in man by which he could
make himself ready for the grace of God or to accept the proffered
grace, nor that he has any capacity for grace by and for himself or
can apply himself to it or prepare himself for it, or help, do, effect,
or cooperate toward his conversion by his own powers, either alto-
gether or halfway or in the tiniest or smallest degree, “of himself
as coming from himself” [II Cor. 3:15], but is a slave of sin (John
8:34), the captive of the devil who drives him (Eph. 2:2: II Tim. 2:26).
Hence according to its perverse disposition and nature the natural
free will is mighty and active only in the direction of that which is
displeasing and contrary to God. (FC SD, I, 6-7)

The manner in which conversion does take place was then
carefully outlined in the following paragraph:

In the third place, Holy Scriptures ascribe conversion, faith in Christ,
regeneration, renewal, and everything that belongs to its real be-
ginning and completion in no way to human powers of the natural
free will, be it entirely or one-half or the least and tiniest part, but
altogether and alone to the divine operation and the Holy Spirit,
as the Apology declares [Apology, XVIII, 7, 8]. To some extent
reason and free will are able to lead an outwardly virtuous life. But
to be born anew, to receive inwardly a new heart, mind, and spirit,
is solely the work of the Holy Spirit. He opens the intellect and the
heart to understand the Scriptures and to heed the Word, as we read
in Luke 24:45, ‘Then he opened their minds to understand the Serip-
tures.’ Likewise, “Lydia heard us: the Lord opened her heart to
give heed to what was said by Paul" (Acts 16:14). ‘‘For God is at work
in you, both to will and to work” (Phil. 2:13). God “gives the repen-
tance” (Acts 5:51: II Tim. 2:25). He works faith, for “It has been
granted to you by God that you should believe on him" (Phil. 1:29).
“It is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). ‘This is the work of God, that you
believe in him whom he has sent” (John 6:29). God gives an under-
standing heart, seeing eyes, and hearing ears (Deut. 29:4: Matt.
13:15). The Holy Spirit is a Spirit ‘‘of regeneration and renewal”
(Titus 3:5, 6). God removes the hard, stony heart and bestows a new

and tender heart of flesh that we may walk in his commandments
(Ezek. 11:19: 36:26: Deut. 30:6; Ps. 51:12): creates us in Christ Jesus
for good works (Eph. 2:10): and makes us new creatures (II Cor.
5:17: Gal. 6:15). In short, every good gift comes from God ‘James
1:17). No one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him | John
6:44). “No one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom
the Son chooses to reveal him” (Matt. 11:27). ‘‘No one can say, Jesus
is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit” (I Cor. 12:3). ‘Apart from me,”
says Christ, “you can do nothing” (John 15:5). “All our sufficiency is
from God" (II Cor. 3:6). “What have you that you did not receive? If
then you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?”
(I Cor. 4:7). (FC SD, II, 25-26)

The conclusions that they reached on the basis of God’s
Word apply also to the questions faced today:
Therefore men teach wrongly when they pretend that unregenerated
man still has enough powers to want to accept the Gospel and to
comfort himself with it, and that thus the human will cooperates in
conversion, Such erroneous views are contrary to the Holy Scriptures
of God, the Christian Augsburg Confession, its Apology, the Smalcald
Articles, the Large and Small Catechisms of Luther, and other
writings of this eminent and enlightened theologian. (FC SD, II, 45)

In view of the foregoing it is evident that an individual
would have no desire to speak a commitment prayer prior to
conversion and that any attempt to lead him to feel that this is
possible would be synergistic, since it would make him think he
was cooperating with God in his conversion. To use a commit-
ment prayer for this purpose would be in opposition to the clear
teachings of Scripture.

However, a prayer recognizing the presence of faith and
asking for growth therein does have a valid purpose. As such
it becomes an act of sanctification rather than conversion. It
can be used to give assurance to the individual that conversion
indeed has taken place, that he is now a Christian, and that
the gift of eternal life is now his possession, for ‘because ... if
you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your
heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved”
(Rom. 10:9). The desire that makes the prayer possible is evi-
dence that the Holy Spirit has been active. The prayer is then
a step on the path of continued spiritual growth.

Since use of the commitment prayer as presently practiced
in confrontation evangelism may lead to synergism, the CTCR
recommends that the Board for Evangelism review all evange-
lism materials presently being used in the Synod with a view
to:

1) eliminating the commitment prayer, which implies that an
individual cooperates in his conversion:

2) replacing the commitment prayer with a prayer that recog-
nizes that conversion has already taken place and that makes
a spiritual commitment in requesting spiritual growth as an act
of sanctification:

3) recognizing other unscriptural emphases and tendencies
not addressed in this opinion that may also be present:

4) correcting all materials that are in error or may be mis-
leading, so that they may be brought into conformity with the
teachings of Holy Scripture:

5) publicizing these corrections throughout the Synod.
Adopted by the CTCR. January 1975

App. 3-01C

OPINION ON ASIA
THEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION (ATA)

On March 15, 1974, Rev. Paul H. Strege, Board for Missions
Secretary for East Asia, relayed a request from Dr. Manfred
Berndt, president of Concordia Seminary, Hong Kong, for a
CTCR opinion regarding membership in the Asia Theological
Association. Since that time, in a communication dated Dec. 3,
1974, Dr. Berndt reports that Concordia Seminary has become
a charter member of the ATA. In this same letter, however, he
repeats the request for an opinion from the CTCR and states
that the seminary’s membership is “subject to retraction if our
church in the USA so requested it.”’

The ATA is an association of Asian and South Pacific theo-
logical institutions, organizations which coordinate “Theological
Education by Extension” (TEE), organizations involved in the
development of theology and research, individuals who con-
tribute at least one theological article a year approved as suit-
able for publication, and individuals who make an outstanding
contribution to theological education.