Search This Blog

Saturday, December 14, 2019

Orthodox Lutheran Conference vs LC-MS: in court under oath

      The LC-MS Christian Cyclopedia surprisingly gives a report by Rev. Wallace McLaughlin (WHM) on the Orthodox Lutheran Conference (OLC, see also here) which had separated from LC-MS.  It represented the case that there were actual changes in the doctrine of the Synod, and especially on foundational matters for the Christian faith. The following is a public record of a 1954 civil court case in connection with a congregation attempting to change their affiliation from the erring LC-MS to the OLC. It exposes a controversy that was created by the LC-MS's willingness to compromise its own confession with erring Lutherans.
Prof. Paul Edward Kretzmann, former professor of the LCMS, now OLC      The court record was later published by Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly which admitted that the "statements were made in court under oath" and therefore are a matter of public record.  So there can be no copyright claim on these statements and I am therefore publishing them to the world, for the benefit of the Church. Because there are several pages of testimony, much of it between lawyers and the judge, I am embedding it so that it does not take up so much screen space.  To aid the reader who wants to skim through for the most important testimony, I have highlighted the most important sections of the testimony given by Professor Paul Kretzmann
Prof. Wallace McLaughlin, Orthodox Lutheran Seminary, formerly LC-MS
      What were the issues?  Kretzmann testified on Romans 16:17, the Common Confession (see also here), and also the added issue of "engagement" for marriage.  Towards the end, there is testimony by Wallace McLaughlin on other points of differences but he was not allowed the time to elaborate, which is a shame.
      For those who are familiar with the manner of lawyers and court proceedings, this can be interesting reading, although it can be somewhat confusing – the tactics of the lawyers are not always clear.  What does seem clear is that the LC-MS did not want to allow the notion that its doctrine had changed, at least not publicly, so that the laity could judge their erring spiritual leaders. 
      The following is a scrolling window of the 14-page article:

      The follow is an excerpt of the chief points of Prof. Kretzmann's testimony that were the basis of the OLC's defense against the mediating LC-MS:
"We believe, in opposition to the Common Confession,
(1) that the entire Bible, word for word, is inspired by the Holy Ghost. That is on inspiration.
(2) We believe with respect to the salvation of mankind that that salvation was complete on Calvary and that all mankind is included in that plan of redemption by our blessed Savior.
(3) We believe with regard to the conversion of man that it is solely and entirely the work of the Holy Ghost without any effort whatsoever on the part of man. We believe with respect to the … the election unto eternal life that God from eternity in his own gracious will selected certain men out of the total of redeemed humanity for eternal life.
(4) We believe with respect to the church that in its essence the church is invisible. The Holy Christian Church, the Communion of Saints, and that there is no visibility to the church whatsoever although there are certain attributes of the church which are visible and those are the Word and the Sacraments.
(5) We believe with respect to church fellowship that there can be no church fellowship in the Biblical sense unless there is full agreement in all the doctrines of the Bible, both fundamental and non-fundamental."
      The external Synodical Conference brethren were also heavily involved at this same time in warning the erring LC-MS, but the testimony above was not from outside brethren but from those who had been inside the LC-MS… and then separated from it. — May this confession of the Orthodox Lutheran Conference, recorded in a public civil court, stand as a testimony against the LC-MS that desperately wanted to avoid having it on public record.  This is not the property of Concordia Historical Institute, it is public testimony.

Thursday, December 12, 2019

Fundament 18: Means 9: Luther’s summary and proof; erring LC-MS

      This continues from Part 17 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a translation of Franz Pieper's essay on the foundation of the Christian faith ("Das Fundament des christlichen Glaubens"). —  This segment concludes Pieper's treatment of the Lutheran Doctrine of the Means of Grace and draws heavily on Luther.  It is powerful teaching for all of Christianity.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Text preparation and translation by BackToLuther using DeepL, Google Translate, Microsoft Translate, Yandex Translate. All bold text is Pieper's emphasis. All highlightingred text, and most text in square brackets [ ] is mine.

The Foundation of the Christian Faith.
[by President Franz Pieper, Concordia Seminary; continued from Part 17 - page 261]

We place here a few words in which Luther summarizes and proves that the Christian faith has the means of grace as its necessary foundation. After Luther had shown that Christ, as the Lamb of God who bears the sin of the world, is our righteousness before God, he continued: (St. L. XI, 1735 ff. [Not in old series Am. Ed.; Lenker 14, p. 223-225, § 28-32]
“How and by what means we may appropriate such righteousness, so that we may bring home the treasure acquired by Christ. Here also we need to give heed that we take the right way, and not make the mistake, which certain heretics have made in times past, and many erroneous minds still set forth, who think that God ought to do something special with them. These imagine that God will deal separately with each one by some special internal light and mysterious revelation, and give him the Holy Ghost, as though there was no need of the written Word or the external sermon. Consequently we are to know that God has ordained that no one shall come to the knowledge of Christ, nor obtain the forgiveness acquired by him, nor receive the Holy Ghost, without the use of external and public means; but God has embraced this treasure in the oral word or public ministry, and will not perform his work in a corner or mysteriously in the heart, but will have it heralded and distributed openly among the people, even as Christ commands, Mark 16:15: ‘Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature,’ etc.. He does this in order that we may know how and where to seek and expect his grace, so that in all Christendom there may be the same custom and order, and not every man follow his own mind and act according to his own notions, and so deceive himself and others, which would certainly happen. As we cannot look into the heart of any man, each one might boast of having the Holy Ghost and set forth his own thoughts as divine revelation which God had inspired and taught him in a special manner; as a result, no one would know whom or what to believe. Therefore this part also, namely the external word or preaching, belongs to Christianity as a channel or means through which we attain unto the forgiveness of sins, or the righteousness of Christ, with which Christ reveals and offers us his [page 262grace or lays it into our bosom, and without which no one would ever come to a knowledge of this treasure. For whence should any man know, or in what man's heart would it ever come, that Christ, the Son of God, came from heaven for our sake, died for us, and rose from the dead, acquired the forgiveness of sins and eternal life, and offers the same to us, without publicly having it announced and preached? And although he acquired this treasure for us through his suffering and death, no one could obtain or receive it, if Christ did not have it offered, presented, and applied. And all that he had done and suffered would be to no purpose, but would be like some great and precious treasure buried in the earth, which no one could find or make use of. Therefore I have always taught that the oral word must precede every thing else, must be comprehended with the ears, if the Holy Ghost is to enter the heart, who through the Word enlightens it and works faith. Consequently faith does not come except through the hearing and oral preaching of the Gospel, in which it has its beginning, growth and strength. For this reason the Word must not be despised, but held in honor. We must familiarize and acquaint ourselves with it, and constantly practice it, so that it never ceases to bear fruit; for it can never be understood and learned too well. Let every man beware of the shameless fellows who have no more respect for the Word than if it were unnecessary for faith; or of those who think they know it all, become tired of it, eventually fall from it, and retain nothing of faith or of Christ. Behold, here you have all that belongs to this article of the righteousness of Christ. It consists in the forgiveness of sins, offered to us through Christ, and received by faith in and through the Word, purely and simply without any works on our part. Yet I do not mean that Christians should not and must not do good works, but that they are not to be mingled and entwined in the doctrine of faith, and decorated with the shameless delusion that they avail before God as righteousness, whereby both the doctrine of works and of faith are besmirched and destroyed.”
We heard under the previous section, in the subdivision [April, p. 100 ff (Part 7)] where we were dealing with the relationship of synergism to the foundation of faith, that Luther was talking about a “sorrowful, secret trick” that makes us last of the first. This tiresome, secret treachery occurs when we do not simply coordinate ourselves with publicans and sinners, but attribute to ourselves, in comparison with them, a privilege before God, a lesser guilt or a “different behaviour”, and thus slip away from the foundation of the Christian faith, the sola gratia. 

We [page 263] also heard that Luther held this up as a warning to himself with the words: “Therefore it is also necessary that this Gospel [on Sunday Septuagesimä] should be preached at our times to those who now know the Gospel, to me and my kind, who imagine they can teach and govern the whole world, and therefore imagine they are the nearest to God and have devoured the Holy Spirit, feathers and bones.” So we can also speak of a “sorrowful, secret trick” that easily creeps into our personal practice with regard to the means of grace. We do not lack the right knowledge. Also we in our times can teach all the world the divine truth that the Holy Spirit comes to us only through the means of grace. But despite this knowledge, we practice enthusiastically, that is, we act as if the Holy Spirit does not need a vehicle when we are not diligent with God's Word and the means of grace. We lament and moan because of our low confidence in God's grace and because of the low status of our spiritual life in general. What is the deficiency? 

A self-examination shows that we are careless in our handling of the means of grace, that is, we actually expect the Holy Spirit to enlighten us immediately, to preserve us in faith and to fill us with spiritual joy. And this actual abandonment of the divine order can always only result in spiritual trouble. As in relation to this point also Luther confesses of himself, and at the same time refers to the only means by which the inner spiritual drought is lifted again and again:
“If I am without the Word, if I do not think of it, if I do not deal with it, there is no Christ at home, yes, there is no desire or spirit; but as soon as I take a psalm or a passage of the Scriptures before me, it shines and burns in my heart that I may gain other courage and meaning. I also know that every one of us should experience it daily by ourselves.”    F. P.     
= = = = = = = = = = =  continued in Part 19  = = = = = = = = =
      The LC-MS makes a great show of its "sacramental theology" yet teaches that “The gospel has a power … independent of the Scriptures”.  Now compare that statement to the last quote from Luther above and judge for yourself who you must believe.  The LC-MS is losing not only the Word, it is thereby also losing the Gospel.  How is it that Pieper is so much more powerful than today's LC-MS in his teaching and defense of the "Means of Grace"?  As he said elsewhere (Justification-General):
All praise of Christ, of grace, and of the means of grace
without the right doctrine of justification
is nothing.
Pieper (and Walther and Luther) had the right Lutheran Doctrine of Justification, so we can be certain that his basis for teaching the "Means of Grace" is solid, Scriptural. —  In the next Part 19, Pieper moves on to the last, but not the least, of his "Fundament", the foundations of the Christian faith – the Inspiration of Holy Scripture.

Monday, December 9, 2019

Gerhard Forde: instructor to today's LCMS (2 of 2)

Gerhard O. Forde (ALC, ELCA professor; † 2005)
     In Part 1, it was shown that the theologian Gerhard O. Forde questioned the foundational Christian doctrine of the vicarious satisfaction.  Forde's theology is thereby anti-Christian and unLutheran.  One would think that a synod claiming to be truly Lutheran would completely avoid Forde's theology because of this but that is not the case with the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.  Their new seminary textbook, to update Pieper's Christian Dogmatics, quotes him approvingly in many places, offering only minor warnings, e.g. on his Third Use of Law.

Forde in Samuel Nafzger's/LC-MS textbook Confessing the Gospel
      The following is my tabulation of the references to the works of Gerhard O. Forde, an ELCA theologian, in the new (2018) LC-MS textbook Confessing the Gospel:
Samuel H. Nafzger
General Editor
Chapter title
Primary Contributor(s)
#  Forde references
David A. Lumpp
Jerrold A. Eickmann, Jerald C. Joersz, Thomas E. Manteufel, Daniel L. Mattson, Joel P. Okamoto
Work of Christ
Henry A. Hamann
Christian Life
Milton L. Rudnick, Martim C. Warth
Robert Kolb
Total: 26
There are approximately 26 references to Forde's writings in this 2-volume textbook for seminarians.  Most references offer no warning against his theology but rather quote him with approval.  All of these contributors are either ignorant of Forde's error on the fundamental article of the Christian faith, or what is more likely, they are, to borrow Siegbert Becker's words, "deliberately and culpably blind" to it – they are willing to overlook Forde's teaching that the Vicarious Satisfaction "creates more problems than it solves".
Walther's Works: Predestination (CPH 2018): includes 1880 & 1881 Missouri Synod pastoral conferences on controversy on "Election of Grace"
      But the ultimate tragedy of the praise of Forde's theology comes particularly in the last chapter "Election" by primary contributor Dr. Robert Kolb.  In the 2018 CPH book Walther's Works: Predestination, it is repeatedly pointed out that one cannot hold the proper doctrine of Election of Grace without holding to the Lutheran doctrine of Universal, Objective Justification, or what is the same, the Vicarious Satisfaction.  While the author of Nafzger's textbook chapter (Kolb or Nafzger?) quotes both C.F.W. Walther and Franz Pieper in his attempt to set forth the Lutheran doctrine of "Predestination" or "Election", he then amazingly immediately follows these quotes with the following (p. 1255-1256):
"The most important North American Lutheran to articulate the doctrine of election in the late 20th century was Gerhard O. Forde (1927-2005).… Forde thereby seeks to drive home for troubled consciences the comfort that comes from knowing that before the world began God chose those to whom he has delivered his promise in Jesus Christ, and those in whom he has created faith through that same promise."
Forde demonstrates his "smokescreen" vocabulary by supposedly offering "comfort for troubled consciences" while questioning the Vicarious Satisfaction, an impossibility – as the CPH Walther's Works book demonstrates.  For Drs. Robert Kolb and/or editor Samuel Nafzger to hold up Gerhard O. Forde in the face of Walther and Pieper (and Stoeckhardt) is to join in Forde's duplicity, and thereby sadly exposes the author/editor's mixed, confusing theology.
"The Election of Grace in the Last Chapter of Confessing the Gospel and Dr. Walther’s Teaching" by Thomas Manteufel (CHIQ Summer 2019)Thomas Manteufel (CSL emeritus faculty listing 2018)
      It is even sadder that Prof. (emeritus) Thomas Manteufel, in a recent article for Summer 2019 CHIQ, attempts to justify the Nafzger-Kolb textbook by highlighting its references to Walther and Pieper, while ignoring the travesty of its reference to Gerhard O. Forde in the same writing! – I am truly sorry for the seminarians that now are taught with Nafzger's textbook, and more sorry for the Lutheran congregations who will have their future pastors taught under its "Lutheran approach", instead of Walther and Pieper. — For the reader interested in a in-depth debate on "Predestination" that clearly distinguishes truth from error, the 2018 CPH book Walther's Works: Predestination is the best there is.

Saturday, December 7, 2019

Fundament 17: Means 8: 2 religions, only 2; Stahl, not Drucker or Warren

      This continues from Part 16 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a translation of Franz Pieper's essay on the foundation of the Christian faith ("Das Fundament des christlichen Glaubens"). — Pieper now speaks to the Church about the "Two Religions" in the world, the religions of the Law and that of the Gospel. He then again draws on Luther as be begins to finalize his segment on the Means of Grace as a "Fundament", a foundation of Christianity.  In the process, Pieper once again praises a German Lutheran statesman against Reformed attackers…
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Text preparation and translation by BackToLuther using DeepL, Google Translate, Microsoft Translate, Yandex Translate. All bold text is Pieper's emphasis. All highlightingred text, and most text in square brackets [ ] is mine.

The Foundation of the Christian Faith.
[by President Franz Pieper, Concordia Seminary; continued from Part 16 - page 258]

The religion inborn in us is the religion of the Law, the opinio legis. According to this religion, which is ingrained in us, we consider God gracious when we see good works or what we consider to be good works in us. But because we still sin a great deal daily, and our conscience, together with the divine law, condemns us, we think that God does not want “to have our grace any more”, as Luther puts it. But against the natural religion which is inherent in us, it must be stated that the Christian religion is not a religion of the Law, but of the Gospel, according to which God has mercy on us men solely for the sake of Christ's perfect merit, regardless of our constitution and works
In other words: We have our righteousness, with which to be able to stand before God and obey God's will, not to be sought within ourselves but outside ourselves. [Objective!] As we also confess in the Formula of Concord, 92) “all our righteousness is to be sought outside the merits, works, virtues, and worthiness of ourselves and of all men”, totam justitiam nostram extra nos et extra omnium hominum merita, opera, virtutes atque dignitatem quaerendam. It consists in the righteousness of Christ or, what is the same in substance, in the forgiveness of our sins, which Christ has brought about for us and which He promises and bestows upon us in the means of grace ordered by Him. We therefore base our faith on the right foundation only when we, as Luther tends to say, “go out of ourselves” and “over us,” that is, when we believe God's grace on the basis of the objective means of grace which lie outside of us. The means of grace are the safe place determined by God, where poor sinners, a thief and a public sinner no less than Paul, Peter and John can and should find grace and salvation at all times and under all circumstances. Admittedly, the "poured in grace", in the proper Christian sense of the
91) St. L. XI, 453. [Lenker, v. 2, p. 43, § 28]
92) M. 622, 55. [Trigl. 934-935, § 55; BoC here]

holiness and Christian righteousness of life (justitia inhaerens) worked by the Holy Spirit, is also to be understood the determination of the “sign and witness” of our state of grace, 1 John 3:14: “We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren”. But this righteousness of life always remains imperfect and therefore does not serve as the foundation of our confidence in the grace of God at the time of the temptation and in the agony of death. Luther points us to the true Christian practice of faith in the words: “Finally no counsel is to be had, unless you give yourself, outside your own and all human comfort, to the Word alone.” 93) By “Word” Luther understands the outer Word of the Gospel and its seal, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. 
In the question of the foundation of Christian faith, the special question also surfaced as to how stands the foundation of faith of those Reformed Christians who base their faith in the forgiveness acquired by Christ on the outer word of the Gospel, but know nothing about the sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper, as means of forgiving sins. Such Reformed Christians exist because they grew up among teachers who especially fight Baptism and the Lord's Supper as means of grace. Do such Christians now have the whole or only a partial forgiveness of sins? The question then came to a head as to whether the sacraments belong at all to the foundation of faith. The question has already been answered. As certainly as both sacraments are ordained by God for the forgiveness of sins (εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν) [Matt. 26:28], so certainly should Christians base their faith in the forgiveness of their sins on baptism and the Lord's Supper. In other words: Baptism and the Lord's Supper belong to the foundation of the Christian faith according to divine order. Quenstedt: Ad fundamentum pertinent. 94) But the Christians who, out of weakness in knowledge, do not know how to use the sacraments as a means of grace, but at the same time base their faith in God's graciousness on the Word of the Gospel heard or read, do not have only a partial one, but the whole forgiveness of sins, because it is not so that by the mere Word of the Gospel only one third, by Baptism the second third, by the Lord's Supper the third third of sins are forgiven, but it is so that by every species of the means of grace all sins are forgiven. Our Lutheran Confession expresses this, as we have already seen: “The effect of the Word and of the rite is the same [irrespectively, in the heart],” idem est effectus Verbi et ritus. [Apology, XIII (VII) § 5  – BoC here] This is explained in more detail in the preceding passage: “For the outward signs have been set up for this purpose, so that thereby 
93) St. L. XI,455 [§ 31; not in old series Am. Ed.; Lenker 11, p. 45]
94) Systema (1715) I, 355. 

the hearts may be moved, even by the Word and outward signs at the same time, that when we are baptized, when we receive the body of the LORD, they may believe that God truly will have mercy on us through Christ,” [after the German text, here in section [4], § 479 here] Would thus the sacraments be superfluous as means of grace, because already the Word of the Gospel promises and appropriates all the forgiveness of sins? So argued Zwingli and his comrades, however, against Luther in order to persuade him to let Baptism and the Lord's Supper go as a means of grace, at least not to argue hard about this point. 
In contrast to this, Luther pointed to a twofold point: 95) 1. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are not a human, but a divine order. Whoever declares them unnecessary or useless rises above God. “For whoever asks,” says Luther, “why is it necessary for what God speaks and does, he wants to pass over God, be wiser and better than God.” 2. That God offers and promises one and the same forgiveness of sins acquired by Christ not only through the word of the Gospel, but also through visible signs (verbum visibile) determined by Him, so that He, the gracious God, meets a need of souls. Scripture and experience teach that faith in the forgiveness of sins becomes very difficult for all those who are in living knowledge of their sins. To accommodate this weakness, 
God has added Baptism and the Lord's Supper to the Word of the Gospel. Holy Baptism is a private absolution in the name of the baptized person. Likewise, the Holy Supper is no less than an individual acquittal of sin in the name of the communicant, confirmed by the presentation of the body and blood of Christ. Luther's words in the Smalcald articles very emphatically point to this: 96) “The gospel does not give counsel and help against sin in only one way; for God is exceedingly rich in his grace. First of all through the oral Word, in which the forgiveness of sins is preached in all the world, which is the actual office of the Gospel. On the other hand, through Baptism. Third, through the Holy Sacrament of the Altar. Fourth by the power of the Keys and also per mutuum colloquium et consolationem fratrum. Matt.18:20: “Ubi duo fuerint congregati” [Matt. 18:20: “where two (or three) are gathered together”] With regard to such Reformed Christians who, out of weakness in knowledge, do not know how to use the sacraments as a medium of justification (εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν), two things can be said: 
1. By believing in the Word of the Gospel, they have the forgiveness of all their sins and thus life and happiness. 2. but by not knowing how to use Baptism and the Lord's Supper as a means of justification, they have less support for their faith in the forgiveness 
96) M., p. 319. IV. The Gospel. [Trigl. 490-491, BoC here]

Dr. Friedrich Julius Stahl, Jewish convert to Christianity, to Lutheranism
Stahl, former Jew, now
a Lutheran for the
means of grace.

of sins, as God, in His exceedingly rich grace, has intended for them. It follows from this that the Lutheran Church would act against God's will and order and would commit a robbery of the Christian if, at the insistence of the Reformed and in the interest of an external unification, it wanted to surrender the means of grace character of the sacraments. The “dilettante” [Friedrich Julius] Stahl is right [see Fundament 15] that he finds Luther just as great in Marburg [against Zwingli and Reformed] as in Worms [against the Pope and papists]. Rudolf Kögel, who rebukes Stahl, 97) thus reveals a lesser spiritual and theological knowledge
97) RE.2 XIV, 589. The article by Kögel on Stahl has passed also into RE.3
= = = = = = = = = =  continued in Part 18  = = = = = = = = = =
Two Religions, only two
Prof. William. Danker, Concordia Seminary, "Walkout" professor      Pieper's "Two Religions" teaching upset modernist "missions" theologians in the LC-MS, e.g. "Walkout" Prof. William Danker. who wanted to claim that Buddhism also teaches a religion of Grace. Of course Danker was deceiving himself, as others who fully understood Buddhism knew that it actually teaches "salvation by works". Pieper was only following Martin Luther who preached on this in his sermons (my emphasis):
“Therefore he who has comprehended this revelation and testimony of the Holy Spirit can judge all such doctrine well and correctly and differentiate as follows: There are two types of life and work. The one is my life and work which must be carried out in accordance with the Ten Commandments; the other is that of Christ my Lord, which is recorded in my Creed. My salvation and happiness and all consolation for my conscience depend on the latter.…” — Martin Luther, Am. Ed. 24, Sermons on Gospel of St John Chapters 14-16, p. 296
Pieper never stopped teaching this.  He taught it in his textbook Christian Dogmatics, and also taught in one of his "Luther Hour Lectures" that was published posthumously in 1933 in CTM here, here, here, and here. On page 658 he stated "There are only two religions in the world. ... (1) the forgiveness of sins is based upon God’s grace in Christ, ... (2) the other ... entirely or partially obtained by the deed of men." — No, there are not three or three hundred religions in the world, there are only two.

Friedrich Julius Stahl (not Drucker or Warren)
      Pieper did not mention Stahl  in his Christian Dogmatics, but he certainly gave Stahl high praise in his Das Fundament series.  Historians have a hard time trying to figure out Stahl.  Encyclopedia Judaica says that "he grew up in an Orthodox Jewish family, but converted to Lutheranism in 1819, seemingly more out of inner conviction than in order to obtain a government post in a Catholic country." Apparently the Jews acknowledge that Stahl was no longer a Jew after his conversion to "inner conviction" Christianity, although they may claim him for their "Jewish race".
Peter Drucker; Pastor Rick Warren
      I mentioned in an earlier segment that the noted Peter Drucker, who was born into a Jewish family that had converted to a "'liberal' Lutheran Protestant household", considered himself a follower of Stahl.  However Drucker did not appear to defend his "liberal Lutheranism" like the great Friedrich Julius Stahl did.  Instead one finds that the noted Pastor Rick Warren gained his erroneous theology and methods from him. (see here for summary history)
The more recent well-known Peter Drucker was not like Stahl in spiritual matters for Stahl upheld the Lutheran doctrine in a surprising way, as Franz Pieper praises. Friedrich Julius Stahl upheld the Lutheran doctrine in a surprising way that "wannabe" Drucker ("management by objectives") and Warren ("Purpose Driven Life") do not.  

And I suspect that Stahl never criticized Martin Luther for his writings… against the Jews. — In the next Part 18