L09–III. 2., 3. Law shows our sin, even for true Christians

      This continues from Part L08 (Table of Contents in Part L01) in a series on the instruction of the Law by C. F. W. Walther and Martin Luther. — In this segment, Walther addresses two more reasons why the Law must be preached. — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 7 (Dec. 1861), p. 364 ff.:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

III. Why must the Law also be proclaimed in the New Testament and also to Christians?

      2. The second reason why the Law must also be preached in the New Testament is that only those who recognize their sins can come to faith in Christ and to knowledge of his reconciling and redeeming work and suffering; but knowledge of sin comes through the Law alone.

What Luther says on the preaching of the Law to show our sins:

• “If a person is to become spiritual and come to faith, he must first be under the Law; therefore, without the Law no one recognizes himself for what he lacks; but he who does not know himself does not seek grace. But when the Law comes, it demands so much that man feels and must confess that he is not able to fulfill it; he must then despair of himself and, humbled, sigh for God's grace.”
• “For who can know what Christ suffered for us and why, if no one knows what sin or Law is? Therefore the Law must be preached where Christ is to be preached.”

Walther continues:

      3. Finally, the Law must also be preached to those who have already become true Christians, for the reason that even the believing, enlightened, born-again Christian, who is of course willing to do all good, is not yet completely enlightened and renewed, but has the old Adam, that is, flesh and blood, and therefore still needs the teaching of the Law, even terror and compulsion; as we see then that the law is also preached to Christians through the whole of Holy Scripture.

What Luther says about preaching the law to true Christians:

• “But the matter itself and experience testify that even the righteous or faithful are subjected and delivered to death daily. Therefore, as far as they are under death, they must also be under the Law and sin. It is especially coarse and inexperienced people and harmful deceivers of consciences who want to take the Law away from the church.”
• “Therefore the Law (as well as the gospel) must be preached without distinction, both to the righteous, or believers, and to the ungodly; … to the godly, that they may be reminded thereby to crucify and mortify their flesh, together with lusts and vices, so that they may not be secure, Gal. 5:24, for security takes away both faith and the fear of God, and makes the latter worse than the former was.”
• “But outwardly the flesh does not yet want to do so; all kinds of filth and evil lust, anxiety for food, fear of death, avarice, anger and hatred still cling to it: the filth always remains next to the faith that it may beat and fight with it.”
• “So divide a Christian into two parts: That he is both righteous and unrighteous. The Holy Spirit dwells in the heart, but not in the flesh, where the devil dwells with his seed”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In the next Part L10, Walther addresses the point that makes him and Luther the perfect teachers to follow on the preaching of the Law. But first, in the next Part L09a, we call out past LCMS theologians who crassly criticized Walther… on his Pietism?

L08–III. 1. Law, the unchangeable will of God, indelibly written in the heart of every man

      This continues from Part L07 (Table of Contents in Part L01) in a series on the instruction of the Law by C. F. W. Walther and Martin Luther. — In this segment, Walther addresses the first of three reasons on why the preaching of the Law is also important in the New Testament. — Lehre und Wehre, vol. 7 (Dec. 1861), p. 362 ff.:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

III. Why must the Law also be proclaimed in the New Testament and also to Christians?

      1. Because the law contains the unchangeable will of God, indelibly written in the heart of every human being, as the eternal, irrevocable and unchanging guideline for all beings created for the knowledge and fellowship of God, as Christ expressly says: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matt. 5:17-19.

What Luther says about the law "as the eternal, irrevocable and unchanging guideline":

• “Whoever does away with the Law must also do away with sin. If he wants to let sin stand, he must rather let the Law stand. For (Romans 5:13) where there is no law, there is no sin: if there is no sin, Christ is nothing. For why, if there is neither law nor sin, does he die for it?”
• “But he [the devil] proceeds to make people secure, and teaches them to have no regard for either the law or sin, so that if they should suddenly be overtaken with death or an evil conscience, having previously been accustomed to sweet assurance, they might sink to hell without any counsel, as if they had been taught nothing but sweet assurance in Christ”

Walther comments: 

• “With the latter words Luther obviously wants to say that whoever knows what the law is and that it still proves its power will not despair even in the felt terror of conscience, for he will turn from the law to the Gospel, where he will find what the law demands. But if one thinks that the law has been taken away and yet is assailed by the terror of conscience, there is no help, counsel or consolation available.”

Furthermore, Luther says:

• “Whoever does away with the Law must also do away with sin.”
• “For Christ has freed us from the curse, not from the obedience of the law. … Therefore see to it that you rightly distinguish between the two words and do not give more to the law than is due to it; otherwise you will deny the gospel.”
• “Therefore the law will never be abolished in eternity, but remains either to be fulfilled in the damned or fulfilled in the saved.”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

These lessons on the Law were quite instructive for me, not only as a review of my past training, but also on what aspects still surprised me. — In the next Part L09…

L07–II. 3. Love is the master of all commandments

      This continues from Part L06 (Table of Contents in Part L01) in a series on the instruction of the Law by C. F. W. Walther and Martin Luther. — In this segment, Walther addresses the second of two misconceptions of the "Golden Rule": "love your neighbor as yourself". — Lehre und Wehre, vol. 7 (Dec. 1861), p. 357 ff.:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

II. What is the proper understanding of these words: You shall love God above all things and your neighbor as yourself?

      3. Finally, to the proper understanding of the word "love your neighbor as yourself," which is rare even in our day, belongs this, that the commandment to love one's neighbor is the greatest and noblest next to the commandment to love God, and therefore love is the master of all commandments and the standard of their fulfillment, as Scripture (Rom. 13:8-10) expressly calls love the law, and indeed according to Gal. 5:14, the fulfillment of all laws.

What Luther says on love as the master of all commandments:

• “So that they must all give way and never be law, nor be valid where love is concerned. We read many examples of this in Scripture, and especially Christ himself shows Matt. 12:3-5, how David ate the holy shewbread with his companions. For although there was a law that no one should eat such holy bread except the priests alone, yet here love was a free empress over the same law”
• “All kinds of laws should therefore be given, ordained, and kept, not for their own sake, nor for the sake of works, but only for the exercise of love”
• “Christ also confirms this in Matt. 12:7, where he prefers mercy to all commandments and laws”
• “If the law is contrary to love, it ceases and should no longer be a law. But where there is no hindrance, the keeping of the law is an indication of the love that lies hidden in the heart. For this is why laws are needed, so that love may be demonstrated by them; but if they cannot be kept without harming one's neighbor, God wants them to be abolished and taken away”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In the next Part L08…

L06–II. 2. The Golden Rule: misconception #2; Communism?

      This continues from Part L05 (Table of Contents in Part L01) in a series on the instruction of the Law by C. F. W. Walther and Martin Luther. — In this segment, Walther addresses the second of two misconceptions of the "Golden Rule": "love your neighbor as yourself".  — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 7 (Nov. 1861), p. 339 ff.:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

II. What is the proper understanding of these words: You shall love God above all things and your neighbor as yourself?

      2. Another misconception… is that one believes one must draw the conclusion from it that it is therefore against the love of one's neighbor that I am rich or a master and let my neighbor remain poor or a servant. 

• “But this principle is just as troublesome and confusing to the conscience as it would, if it were carried out, overthrow all orders in the world. … absolute Communism would be the only right relation among men in regard to their goods. But the words: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself’, have a completely different meaning.”
• “If, for example, my neighbor is poor and I am rich, I should act towards him as I would think fair, that he should act towards me if I myself were poor and my neighbor rich.”

What Luther says about this, that one should not harm oneself when loving one's neighbor:

• “Therefore, no one can tell you better than you yourself what to do, what not to do, what to say or what to wish for your neighbor.”
• “I understand the commandment to mean that it does not command us to love ourselves, but only to love our neighbor. First of all, because the love of self is first in all men and reigns supreme. Secondly, if God had wanted this order, he would have said thus: Love yourself, and then your neighbor as yourself. But now he says: Love your neighbor as yourself, that is, love him as you already love yourself without any commandment.”
• “Therefore you do not need a book to teach you how to love your neighbor. For you have in your heart the finest and best book, in which you will find described everything that all kinds of laws may teach you, and you need neither a doctor nor a teacher: just ask your own heart, and it will tell you that you should love your neighbor as yourself.”
• “Whatever you would have others do to you, do also; this is the law and all the prophets; indeed, all natural law also says this. Now it is certain that I would like people to give to me, to lend to me, to help me in my need. Again, it is certain that no one should give, lend, or help me where I have no need of it, am lazy, am a rogue, want to splurge, do not want to work…”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In the next Part L07…

L05–II. 1. The Golden Rule: misconception #1

      This continues from Part L04 (Table of Contents in Part L01) in a series on the instruction of the Law by C. F. W. Walther and Martin Luther. — Rather than spend time on the first part, to love God above all things, Walther focuses on love for neighbor. In this segment, he addresses the first of two misconceptions on the "Golden Rule" (Matt. 7:12) — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 7 (Nov. 1861), p. 335 ff.:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

 

II. What is the proper understanding of these words: You shall love God above all things and your neighbor as yourself?

      1. “Love your neighbor as yourself” means: “Whatever you want men to do to you, do to them.”

• “There are two main misconceptions about this commandment”
• “First of all,… it is customary in common life to say: Every man is his own neighbor, which some of the Church Fathers (and even some Lutheran theologians have followed them in this…) express thus: …love begins with oneself.”
• “Our self-love should therefore be the pattern for our love for our neighbor; just as we love ourselves, so sincerely, so fervently, so actively and so constantly, we should also love our neighbor”

What Luther says on the true contents of the Ten Commandments and Christian freedom:

• “Therefore, no one can tell you better than you yourself what to do, what not to do, what to say or what to wish for your neighbor.”
• “I understand the commandment to mean that it does not command us to love ourselves, but only to love our neighbor. First of all, because the love of self is first in all men and reigns supreme. Secondly, if God had wanted this order, he would have said thus: Love yourself, and then your neighbor as yourself. But now he says: Love your neighbor as yourself, that is, love him as you already love yourself without any commandment.”
• “Therefore you do not need a book to teach you how to love your neighbor. For you have in your heart the finest and best book, in which you will find described everything that all kinds of laws may teach you, and you need neither a doctor nor a teacher: just ask your own heart, and it will tell you that you should love your neighbor as yourself.”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Many years ago, when I was under treatment by psychiatrists/psychologists and counselors for my mental state, much of the counsel was to avoid a lack of "self-esteem", that was the heart of mental and emotional problems. When I was brought back to my Christian faith, I saw all that worldly counsel for what it was, "hogwash". I already loved myself, as everyone does. — In the next Part L06, Walther addresses the second misconception of this teaching. 

L04–I:5, 6. Core of Ten Commandments, & Christian freedom: "because they want to"

      This continues from Part L03 (Table of Contents in Part L01) in a series on the instruction of the Law by C. F. W. Walther and Martin Luther. — Now Walther lays out what is left of the Law when the Ten Commandments, as given to the Jews alone, are voided for Christians. — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 7 (Nov. 1861), p. 322 ff.:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

I. What part of the Law now binds everyone in the New Testament?

      5. What belongs to the natural law in the holy Ten Commandments? To love God and neighbor… and "whatever you want men to do to you, do that to them".

      6. True, believing Christians, … are no longer under the Law, …but …have become a law to themselves through faith and the new birth, and therefore keep and fulfill the law not as a law, but out of the impulse of their new nature in free love, not because they ought to, but because they want to.

What Luther says on the true contents of the Ten Commandments and Christian freedom:

• “Christ Himself also summarizes all the prophets and laws in this natural law, Matt. 7:12: Do to others as you would have them do to you.”
• “…if it were not naturally written in the heart, one would have to teach and preach the law for a long time before the conscience would accept it: it must also find and feel it in itself, otherwise no one would have a conscience.”
• “…it is more important to keep the day holy than to celebrate it.” (On the Third Commandment)
• “…thus Christ has also delivered us spiritually from the Law; not breaking and doing away with the Law, but transforming our heart, which before was unwillingly under it, doing it so much good, and making the law so sweet that it has no greater pleasure nor joy than in the law”
• A Christian “gladly helps and benefits everyone where he can, out of a free heart, before he even thinks of the law”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In the next Part L05, Walther digs deeper into what it means, and does not mean, to love your neighbor.

L03–I:3, 4. New Testament vs. Reformed on the Law (Why Reformed don't use Luther's Catechism)

      This continues from Part L02a (Table of Contents in Part L01) in a series on the instruction of the Law by C. F. W. Walther and Martin Luther. — In the following statements # 3 and #4, Walther introduces us to "the New Testament way" of presenting the Ten Commandments. This is an eye-opener on where the power of the Ten Commandments lies and it sheds light on the Old Testament (OT) ceremonial and ecclesiastical laws. This answered my own questions on why Luther changed the OT wording on some of the Ten Commandments! Now I have a renewed desire to learn from Luther's Small Catechism! — Why do the Reformed not use Luther's Small Catechism? Find out in this segment. — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 7 (Nov. 1861), p. 321 ff.:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

I. What part of the Law now binds everyone in the New Testament?

      3. Not only everything else [apart from the natural law] in the Old Testament, but also everything in the holy Ten Commandments that relates solely to the Old Testament covenant people and to their particular constitution and household, namely to their particular ceremonial or ecclesiastical [i.e. Sabbath keeping, circumcision, etc.] laws, as well as to their police or civil laws, has lost its power to bind the consciences in the New Testament and has been abolished by Christ; therefore we do not find the Ten Commandments quoted anywhere in the New Testament in the Old Testament form, but in a New Testament form. … The only reason why the Reformed insist that the holy Ten Commandments should also be included in the Christian catechism entirely in the form in which Moses received them from God and gave them to the Jews [in Exodus 20], is therefore lack of a proper understanding of the Law; while the New Testament way in which the Lutheran Catechism presents the holy Ten Commandments is a glorious testimony to the pure knowledge and deep understanding of Luther and the Lutheran Church regarding this matter.

      4. Neither the holy Ten Commandments nor any Old Testament law binds Christians because they were revealed by God through Moses, for as a written law they were imposed only on the separated people of the old covenant, the Jews.

What Luther says about Moses's Ten Commandments, and the Old Testament:

• “…but we will not have him [Moses] for our lawgiver. For we have law enough in the New Testament. Therefore we will not have him in our conscience, but will keep it pure in Christ alone.”
• “…the Ten Commandments are given to the Jews alone, and not to the Gentiles.”
• “With this passage [Acts 15:10] (as Paul with his) St. Peter also lifts the whole of Moses with all its laws from the Christians.” 
• “For Moses is a teacher of the Jewish people; therefore his words are all directed to the Jews alone.”
• “Dear Christians, you have heard that when they [i.e. Reformed] come in with their Moses and want to bind your consciences with his laws, say to them: Dear Lord, put your glasses on your noses and look at the text correctly.”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Franz Pieper, although not mentioning Walther's 1861 essay, taught what Walther and Luther taught, Christian Dogmatics I, 532 [EN]:

“Not even the Ten Commandments in the form in which they were given to the Jews (Exodus 20) are binding on all men, but only the Ten Commandments as set down in the New Testament, as we have them, e. g., in Luther’s Catechism.”

Pieper's footnote references the same writing of Luther, “Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments”, that Walther had on pages 331-334 ([StL 20, 146-153; Am. Ed. 40, p. 92-98]). — In the next Part L04…

L02a: Luther on Slavery: "revolting"; "inequality"?

      This continues from Part L02 (Table of Contents in Part L01) in a series on the instruction of the Law by C. F. W. Walther and Martin Luther. — Although the subject of Slavery has been dealt with previously at some length, I was struck by the following comment in my recent reading on "Natural Law". It came from Prof. Roland Ziegler's essay on “Natural Law in the Lutheran Confessions” in the 2011 CPH book Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal (Internet Archive copy) and it caused me to stop and research it.  He stated, footnote #27, p. 78:

“As  revolting  as  it is to  our  modern  sensibilities,  for  the  reformers  the  right  to  individual  freedom  grounded  in  the  fact  of self-possession  (as opposed  to  forms  of slavery  of serfdom)  was  not  part  of natural  law. Thus,  Luther's  critique  of the  demands  of the  peasants  in the  Peasants’  Revolt  in  1525.”

"Revolting"? Ziegler used a strong word to describe modernists' mindset on slavery. He even seemingly included himself, stating "our modern sensibilities". With a statement like this, I wanted to find out exactly what Luther said on the institution of Slavery, The background to this is the peasants' Third Article which one may be tempted to think of as exhibiting a Christian attitude in their pleas, referencing several Bible verses (see p. 12). Then came Luther's answer and oh!… did I get the definitive Luther, and Christian, response to "our modern sensibilities":

“You [peasants] assert that no one is to be the serf of anyone else, because Christ has made us all free. That is making Christian freedom a completely physical matter. Did not Abraham [Gen. 17:23] and other patriarchs and prophets have slaves? Read what St. Paul teaches about servants, who, at that time, were all slaves. This article [of the peasants], therefore, absolutely contradicts the gospel. It proposes robbery, for it suggests that every man should take his body away from his lord, even though his body is the lord’s property. A slave can be a Christian, and have Christian freedom, in the same way that a prisoner or a sick man is a Christian, and yet not free. This article would make all men equal, and turn the spiritual kingdom of Christ into a worldly, external kingdom; and that is impossible. A worldly kingdom cannot exist without an inequality of persons, some being free, some imprisoned, some lords, some subjects, etc.; and St. Paul says in Galatians 5 that in Christ the lord and the servant are equal.” (AE 46, 39; StL 16, 66; WA  18:326.14–327.10)

Did Luther really say that?… beyond declaring that the peasants' demand to be a contradiction to the gospel, he went a step further and spoke of the worldly kingdom:

"A worldly kingdom cannot exist without an inequality of persons"

Inequality is necessary in the world? I was struck when reading Luther's forceful Biblical teaching that refutes all modernist theologians of today who would teach that Slavery, as an institution, was sinful. There is perhaps no more direct writing of Luther on this subject than when he addressed the peasant demands against their rulers. 

      If there was ever a statement of Luther against Communism and Socialism, this is it. All Christians would do well to study this to overcome the rhetoric of the world, the wisdom of the world today. Walther, in his writing against Communism and Socialism reported on the above statement of Luther where he "tells the peasants the truth, and shows by name that they have no right to call themselves Christians if they want to overcome violence by force and take the sword that God has not given them." — The series on Walther's teaching of the Law continues in Part L03.

L02–I:1, 2. What part of the Law now binds everyone? Natural law.

      This continues from Part L01 (Table of Contents in Part L01) in a series on the instruction of the Law by C. F. W. Walther and Martin Luther. — Walther organizes his essay into a question and answer format. There are four questions, the following is his first Thesis I question: 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

I. What part of the Law now binds everyone in the New Testament?

      1. The law that binds everyone, even in the New Testament, is solely the natural law originally written in the hearts of all people.

      2. Therefore the holy Ten Commandments, which God once revealed through Moses from Mount Sinai, as well as all other laws contained in the Old Testament, insofar as they contain the natural law, are binding on everyone.

What Luther says about the Natural Law, and the Ten Commandments and their relationship to Natural Law: 

• “So it is not only the law of Moses: Thou shalt not murder, commit adultery, steal [i.e. the Ten Commandments], etc., but also the natural law written in everyone's heart, as St. Paul teaches in Romans 2:1.”
• “Now where the law of Moses and the natural law are one, the law remains and is not abolished externally, but becomes spiritual through faith, which is nothing other than fulfilling the law, Rom. 3:28.”
• “For this reason, the image and the Sabbath, and all that Moses set more and above the natural law, because it has no natural law, is free, void and abolished, and is given only to the Jewish people in particular.”
• “Now where the law of Moses and the natural law are one, the law remains and is not abolished externally, but becomes spiritual through faith, which is nothing other than fulfilling the law, Rom. 3:28. For this reason, the image and the Sabbath, and all that Moses set more and above the natural law, because it has no natural law, is free, void and abolished, and is given only to the Jewish people in particular: no different than if an emperor or king made special laws and ordinances in his country, such as the Sachsenspiegel in Saxony, and yet the common natural laws prevail and remain throughout all countries, such as honoring parents, not murdering, not committing adultery, serving God, etc.”
• “Why then do we keep and teach the Ten Commandments? Answer: Because the natural laws are nowhere so finely and neatly written as in Moses.”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 

This last statement was such an eye-opener for me as I struggled with the way Luther's Small Catechism treated the Ten Commandments. Why did Luther reword the commandments? Why not leave them the way they were written in Exodus 20? Do Luther's explanations follow the meaning of the Ten Commandments or do they alter them? These questions filled my mind, so much so that I wondered "Why study the Small Catechism? Why not just read the Ten Commandments?" But then Luther explains that the Ten Commandments do speak to the Natural Law. We will learn further about this aspect in the next blog Part L03 on "the New Testament way", not the Reformed way. But before that, an Excursus Part L02a presents a particularly controversial human practice that brought one of Luther's more striking responses.

L01: Walther (and Luther) on the Law; everyone bound by "natural law"

      It has been universally acknowledged that the lectures of C. F. W. Walther that were assembled into the book The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel (or Law & Gospel) were an American masterpiece on the subject. Even Dr. Robert Kolb acknowledged this (p. 54) while at the same time being critical. So when I ran across a brief essay without an author's name in the 1861 Western District convention report (text DE, EN) on the subject of "the Law", I wondered that it was Walther who authored this piece. Why? Because the old Missouri Synod recognized that it was highly favored to have such a spiritual leader as Walther. (I am identifying the author as Walther until someone can provide evidence to the contrary.) And he was the obvious choice to handle this subject. What better teacher can there be to teach "the Law" than one who, since the days of Martin Luther, best distinguished it from the Gospel? (One can certainly rule out Artificial Intelligence to do the job!) — 

      Because of its importance, I have uploaded the original German text of this Western District essay to the Internet Archive here. After researching this short essay, it was discovered that a much expanded version was published later that same year (1861) in Lehre und Wehre, in 2 parts (November and December). The expanded portion was filled entirely with quotations from Luther's writings. There are 26 references to Luther.

      Upon reading this essay, one is immediately introduced to the subject of "natural Law". This was also the subject of a book of essays compiled and published by CPH in 2011 with the title Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal (Internet Archive copy). These were authored by an eclectic group that amazingly included ELCA and NALC (Marianne?) writers, ones who cannot teach a "Lutheran Reappraisal" because of their deviation from Lutheran doctrine in critical areas (e.g. Forde). There may be informative essays by some authors, such as Prof. Roland Ziegler on “Natural Law in the Lutheran Confessions” (p. 65 ff.), and Dr. Korey Maas, who stated (p. 226):

"A culture hostile to Christianity was, and is, incredibly unlikely to assent to any truth claim predicated on peculiarly Christian presuppositions".

But one can better avoid spiritual confusion when one rather learns first from the father of the Missouri Synod, and the Reformer, Martin Luther. — We begin our learning in the next Part L02. (The full text file will be available at the end of this series.) 

- - - - - - - - - - - -  TABLE OF CONTENTS  - - - - - - - - - - - - -

L01—This introduction: Walther and Luther on the Law

L02—Part I: 1., 2. What part of the Law now binds everyone? Natural law.

   L02a Excursus: Luther on Slavery: "revolting"; "inequality"?

L03—Part I: 3., 4. Reformed vs. New Testament on the Law (Why Reformed don't use Luther's Catechism)

L04—Part I: 5., 6. Core of Ten Commandments & Christian freedom: "because they want to"

L05—Part II: 1.  The Golden Rule: misconception #1

L06—Part II: 2.  The Golden Rule: misconception #2; Communism?

L07—Part II: 3. Love is the master of all commandments

L08—Part III: 1. Law, the unchangeable will of God, indelibly written in the heart of every man

L09—Part III: 2., 3. Law shows our sin, even for true Christians

   L09a Excursus: False charges by LCMS: Walther a Pietist? (Eggold–Piepkorn–Pelikan; Wohlrabe,  McCain)

L10—Part IV: 1. Preaching of repentance from the law precedes that of Justification; Eggold's 2nd criticism 

L11—Part IV: 2., 3. Proper distinction of Law from Gospel

Franzpieper.com is going away after 25 years; here's a copy

      Due to rising costs, I have decided to end the publication of franzpieper.com. That publication was a cry to the world of modern Lutheranism, especially today's LC–MS, that when they turned away from Dr. Pieper, they went away not only from his teaching, but away from Lutheranism and, in some cases, away from the Christian faith. I have noticed that at least one Wikipedia page referenced that old website that I produced and paid for 25 years ago… I recollect that I wanted to end the 20th Century with a tribute to, and defense of, this great Lutheran teacher, so the original date would be in the timeframe of late 1999, about 25 years ago. I notice that the page was first archived by the Wayback Machine on June 8, 2003. It has since been captured 79 times and should be available for as long as they keep going. —  Another notable tribute to Dr. Pieper was to publish what I called his "Last Words for his Missouri Synod" on my blog.

      When the webpage goes dark on or about September 13, it will probably be taken up by some casino or some nefarious outfit, as is the common practice by Internet hounds trying to get clickers who land there to click on some scam. Be careful! — Also the email address that I originally used for reader correspondence will be deactivated:  "postmaster@franzpieper.com". Correspondents should only use the Gmail account in the future: "BackToLuther@gmail.com". 

      The following is an exact copy of that webpage as it was when it first appeared in 1999. This blog post will be uploaded to the Internet Archive for safe-keeping:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Franz August Otto Pieper-

The 20th Century Luther

 

Martin Chemnitz has been called the Second Martin, referring to his defense of the doctrines brought to light by the reformer, Martin Luther. C.F.W. Walther has been called the American Luther, clearing away again all hindrance to the glory of the pure Gospel. Now there stands one who cannot be passed over in the lineage of great Lutheran teachers. The place was St. Louis, Missouri, America but more importantly, the doctrine was Lutheran.…. Christian.

The President of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis from the time of C.F.W. Walther’s death in 1887 to the time of his death in 1931, Pieper held the most visible position among orthodox Lutherans during this period. He also held the position of Synod President during a portion of this time. But it was his teaching that makes him stand out. As the 20th Century draws to a close, a survey of all those who were in teaching and leadership positions within the Lutheran Church in American and the world, shows one who stands out - Dr. Franz August Otto Pieper. He taught as the overriding doctrine of Scripture to be the universal/objective reconciliation/redemption/justification of the world. Now it remains for Dr. Pieper to take his place. The Lord knows this epithet will remain.  I confess - no one has pressed the kingdom of heaven into my lap more firmly than Dr. Pieper.

After his death, there began considerable controversies over the doctrines as written in the Brief Statement of 1932. In discussions with other American Lutheran church bodies, it was notably the doctrine of the universal will of grace and universal justification that brought contention and actual scorn.

The Norwegian Merger of 1917: A False Charge

This is perhaps the saddest part of this essay. It involves St. Louis professors and also a later Missouri Synod President. It involves the Synod that requested the essay on Justification at the first meeting of the Synodical Conference - the Norwegian Synod (now known as the Evangelical Lutheran Synod).

Rev. Theodore A. Aaberg of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (Norwegian Synod) in his 1968 book A City Set on a Hill offered an evaluation of the question regarding the advice given by the Missouri Synod professors F. Pieper, W.H.T. Dau, and T. Graebner (pgs 274-282). There would be no question in this matter except the leaders of the Minority then joined the Majority in union with the United and Hauge Synods in 1917 and further said one thing and those who gave the advice said another. The leading spokesman for the Missouri professors was Franz Pieper.

C.K. Preus was the son of the first president of the Norwegian Synod and president of the Synod’s seminary at Decorah, Iowa. I.B. Torrison was a Synod pastor. During a meeting of the Minority pastors of January 17-18, 1917 at the West Hotel, Minneapolis, they said "the letter meant that the ‘Minority’ should not separate itself from the Norwegian Synod but stay and bear witness to the truth and continue so to do as the Synod merged with the other bodies" (J.C.K. Preus, The Union Movement.., p. 9) In this same publication, J.C.K. Preus stated: "One deplorable result was the charge made by a few ‘Minority’ men to the effect that Preus and Torrison had not reported correctly the advice given by the St. Louis professors". C.K. Preus (and J.C.K. Preus, his son) in effect charges Dr. Pieper with giving conflicting advice, between the December 28, 1916 personal meeting and the January 9, 1917 letter. The following is the letter:

Letter of Jan. 9, 1917:

St. Louis, Mo.,
Jan. 9, 1917.

Dear Prof. C.K. Preus
Pastor I.B. Torrison
Decorah, Iowa

Dear Brothers:

                We send you, according to your request, the written record of the decision which we arrived at on Dec. 28th during the conversations you asked for.

Concerning the matter which you laid before us, the question is not whether the Minority should enter into the situation as it now is developing in the Norwegian Synod- something we could not advise anyone to do. But the question is whether or not the Minority is compelled for conscience’ sake to step out of the Norwegian Synod, or whether circumstances are still such that further witness for the truth is your duty. Our opinion is:

                1. Since it is admitted by the Union Committee that the insistence of the Minority that thesis I of "Opgjor" be eliminated is in agreement with the Scriptures and the Confessions,

                2. Since the Union Committee has openly declared that the expression in Thesis IV of "Opgjor" ("the sense of responsibility in regard to the acceptance or rejection of grace") is to be thus understood, that God alone is the cause of acceptance, man alone the cause of rejection,

                3. Since silence is not imposed on the Minority, but rather freedom of speech is expressly conceded in regard to "Opgjor",

                we believe that the time for the Minority to sever its connection with the Norwegian Synod has not yet come, but that it is much more your duty through your witness to the truth in the Norwegian Synod, if God wills, to bring about its complete recognition.

Respectfully,
[Signed] W.H.T. Dau
F. Pieper
Th. Graebner

This charge is false.

Graebner letter of 1938:

the charge was again made in later years after Pieper’s death by one of the St. Louis professors, Theodore Graebner. The charge is made in a letter by Professor Graebner to Dr. Nils Ylvisaker on November 12, 1938, which follows:

                                                                                                                November 12, 1938

Dr. Nils Ylvisaker

425 South Fourth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota

Dear friend Ylvisaker: