RH12: Walther’s lament - don’t be another United Church; Iowa-Ohio shamed by German pastor

   This continues from Part 11 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting Pastor's Hochstetter's critique of an 1881 German pamphlet on the Old Missouri Synod. — We saw in the last segment that Pastor Hoffmann was "grabbing at straws" by attempting to quote Walther against Walther. Hochstetter untangles that web of a misquote and uses it for the instruction of his readers. Then the focus turns to the Missouri Synod itself, and its still living teacher, C. F. W. Walther. — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 28 (Feb. 1882), pp. 81-82 [EN]: 

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

How the Missouri Synod is Judged in Germany Today.

[A review of an 1881 pamphlet by Pastor Rudolph Hoffmann of Germany]

By Pastor Ch. Hochstetter, Stonebridge, Canada.

In this sense the tone of lamentation [p. 32-33] in the synodical address [by Walther] at the opening of the 1878 Delegate Synod [German text, English translation (DeepL)] is to be understood, which tone Hoffmann sees as a sign of the threatening decay of our Synod. Such warnings must sound, so that we do not arrive where the United Church has long been! Meanwhile, the Election of Grace controversy that erupted soon after that synodical session and is now drawing to a close has served to show that the Missouri Synod still holds fast to the true church unity described in Article VII of the Augsburg Confession. 

It is also clear from the respect with which Hoffmann writes of Missouri as a whole that the voice of the Missouri Synod has not yet faded away in Christendom. According to his writing, Hoffmann also knew about the present dispute, for he is surprised that we do not swear by the words of John Gerard in regard to the doctrine of the Election of Grace. Finally, however, he thinks that as long as the congregations bow to the Word of God, and "Walther's prudent hand" [p. 29] still holds the reins, the Missouri Synod may well remain, but it is understandable to say that the Missouri Synod sees only through two eyes, and if these close, Missouri will dissolve into general fragmentation. The latter fear is understandable in a man of the State Church, because such a man thinks that with the departure of that man another régime begins, in the manner of a change of ministers.  

On the whole, however, the writer of this, as often as Hoffmann's judgment on Walther confronts him (as it has already been mentioned earlier), thinks that the latest opponents (Ohioans, Iowans), who had just set their sights on Walther, should be somewhat ashamed by the testimony of this [German] foreign stranger [Hoffmann], who after his death still has to speak of the Missourian professor with such recognition.

It seemed as if a Catilinian conspiracy was about to break out in the midst of the Synodical Conference, while younger men [Profs. F. A. Schmidt of Norwegian Synod, F. W. Stellhorn of Ohio Synod], who already hold important chairs, fired their arrows against their old teacher [Walther]; but the arrows did not hit, it seemed as if mountains wanted to give birth, it was said that the command for this dispute was from God, but behold, this work was not from God… what finally became of it? A point of defiance for some malcontent pastors, America will perhaps be enriched by a small synod! — 

As far as Hoffmann's fear is concerned, we well know that the eyes of everyone, even of a dear teacher, will close once in death, until the Day of Resurrection. But the eyes of the Lord are always open and they look at the righteous! [Psalm 34:15] That is, to those who hold on to the pure Word and are not lax in the work of the LORD! The external <page 82> Missouri synodical association can dissolve what is visible, what is passing away; but the church of the Missourians cannot fall, for it is the church of which Luther said that it was founded on the Word of God, and will be renewed by the Word of God; therefore, it will be preserved by the Word of God even in this last time of sorrow. Even the gates of hell will not overpower it. 

“For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: but the word of the Lord endureth for ever.” [1 Peter 1:24-25]

- - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 13  - - - - - - - - - - - -

      Pastor Christian Hochstetter's history may be criticized by today's LC-MS teachers, yet this criticism is evidently from the same point of view as from the German Pastor Rudolph Hoffmann who defended a hierarchical (state-run) church government against a government of "Christocracy". — Hoffmann's reference to Walther's 1878 Synod Address above was also used by a much more well-known German theologian, Georg Buchwald, in a pamphlet of 1886. More on that in a future blog series.

      There are several doctrines brought out by Pastor Hoffmann that Pastor Hochstetter passed over and did not respond to: chiefly the Antichrist. We address those in the next Part 13.

RH11: Irony of Hoffmann's United Church; Repristination theology?; Chiliasm

   This continues from Part 10 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting Pastor's Hochstetter's critique of an 1881 German pamphlet on the Old Missouri Synod. — Hochstetter lays bare the corrupted teaching within the United Church, and so encourages Christians to take their doctrine, what they are to believe, from Holy Scripture itself. When scholars give long-winded narratives with little reference to the Bible, that is a sure sign to beware, and go back to the proof texts to assure oneself of the Truth. — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 28 (Feb. 1882), pp. 79-81 [EN]:

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

How the Missouri Synod is Judged in Germany Today.

[A review of an 1881 pamphlet by Pastor Rudolph Hoffmann of Germany]

By Pastor Ch. Hochstetter, Stonebridge, Canada.

 

In view of the situation that Hoffmann himself complained about in his church [p. 19], that there are often two preachers in one and the same congregation, one of whom preaches the divinity of Christ in the morning and the other one denies the divinity of Christ in his lecture in the afternoon of the same day, Hoffmann should have refrained from the irony with which he enumerates a few things that the Missourians still consider an open question. He could have left such accusations to the Iowans, for from them one is accustomed to hear all the things he otherwise cites against Missouri. The answer has been given so often that we <page 80> mostly limit ourselves to the enumeration. 

The first accusation leveled at Missouri theology is that it is a pure repristination of Old Lutheran dogmatists. This reproach does not apply to us inasmuch as we always take reason and proof of our doctrine from God's Word itself, especially the dicta probantia [proof texts], in which the doctrine is dealt with ex professo, but the Missourians rejoice in the testimonies that are consistent with their doctrine and that delve into the doctrinal writings of the fathers. These testimonies serve to show that we teach nothing new in rebus et phrasibus. This is what we fear, for truth is but one, and the revealed Word of God is simple, not a thousandfold, which is what the Unionists want to make it; the Missourians do not want to make progress which leads to unbelief and apostasy. That is precisely why the serious accusation that the Missourians want to make new doctrine is not true. Many a unanimous testimony for the old scriptural truth, as already follows from the Seventh Commandment when the doctrine of usury comes into consideration [see p. 29], is cited by the Missourians, because we find the truth in God's Word, and this is also the normative norm according to our symbols! We always maintain that God's Word alone should make articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel from heaven [Gal. 1:8]; this word was once held by Luther against the Pope, we must again testify to today's neo-Lutherans, who want to wait until the Church speaks: “The Church cannot set anything new, nor has it ever done so!”

Hoffmann then takes the fact that chiliasm is not tolerated in the Missouri Synod as a reproach! But if he wants to use as evidence the proceedings that were once taken against an old pastor [Schieferdecker] who had long since recognized his error and returned to our midst, this example has been unfortunate. Whoever is not satisfied with the spiritual nature of the Kingdom of God, whoever, moreover, has before his eyes a sad confusion and vain dissension among the teachers (there will hardly be twelve pastors in the state churches who harmonize with one another), will gladly take refuge emotionally in the imagination of a future millennial kingdom! Therefore, if Hoffmann, according to the complaints he himself makes about the German situation, nevertheless thinks that an essential difference between the two sides is that [p. 33] 

“what we can tolerate in the solid structure of a church system that has been ordered for a long time cannot be tolerated by the Missourian Free Church, which is set on the basis of complete arbitrariness”, 

then this is poor consolation for the United Church members if they want to belong to church in another way. 

The Missouri Synod, which has unity of faith and doctrine as its foundation, certainly cannot bear such an internal disruption and doctrinal disunity, as it is privileged among the syncretistic [Prussian] Union! The Uniteds do not have a certain, firm doctrine to which <page 81> they can adhere; where there is no unity of spirit, there is nothing to adhere to as there is according to Ephesus. 4:3; but the Missourians are allowed make this memorial their own, which, according to the Missouri Synod, means: “Hold what you have!” [Rev. 3:11]

- - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 12  - - - - - - - - - - - -

      It is quite sad to read of the condition of the German Union Church, that within the same congregation with two different pastors, one could preach the divinity of Christ, the other deny it. This also sadly mirrors what is going on in today's LC-MS, where the moderate or progressive party are allowed to refrain from or even teach against what the Old Missouri Synod taught and would discipline. But on top of this, they will glory in their shame. — 

      In the next Part 12, Hochstetter unravels another charge by Hoffmann, then summarizes how the Missouri Synod was glorified through its struggles against false doctrines.

RH10: Hoffmann criticizes Walther, “Thank God Missouri also errs”; Hochstetter defends; Yes & No theology

   This continues from Part 9 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting Pastor's Hochstetter's critique of an 1881 German pamphlet on the Old Missouri Synod. — In this segment Hochstetter reveals the way that Hoffman, while he compliments ("Yes") Walther or the Missouri Synod, actually intends to criticize ("No") its core doctrines. And one such criticism gives Hochstetter the opportunity to offer one of the most memorable defenses of Walther that I have ever read. I quoted that at the beginning of my blog series presenting Hochstetter's History of the Missouri Synod. — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 28 (Feb. 1882), pp. 78-79 [EN]:

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

How the Missouri Synod is Judged in Germany Today.

[A review of an 1881 pamphlet by Pastor Rudolph Hoffmann of Germany]

By Pastor Ch. Hochstetter, Stonebridge, Canada.

 

Finally, it must be regretted here that the late Hoffmann, before he wrote this writing, did not familiarize himself with the book of Church and Ministry [EN], in addition to the sources he probably used for his historical account. Dr. Brömel on Walther's Die Stimme der Kirche in der Frage von Kirche und Amt [The Voice of the Church in the Question of Church and Ministry] also says that this book is an important and clearly decisive one through its historical testimonies. Meanwhile, Hoffmann lists Walther's sermon books and Pastoral Theology as “excellent” books, and it is surprising that he nevertheless, despite the fact that he lacks knowledge of the doctrine of the Church, draws the following description from the author of the book of Church and Ministry, which contains a protest against Grabau’s doctrines, indirectly also against all and every bondage of the Church. After Walther is called the creator and spiritual leader of the synod, “he who knows him knows her,” etc., p. 24 further states: 

“Walther is a faithful son of the German Reformation; having emerged from the Saxon Lutheran Church, he recognizes in Lutheranism the genuine continuation and resurrection of pure apostolic Original Christianity. Called from the beginning to lead his brothers in faith in America, he has maintained his outstanding position with honor and with iron diligence has acquired an astonishing wealth of thorough scholarship. He has complete command of his Augustine and <page 79> Luther, and has such an in-depth knowledge of Old Lutheran dogmatics as hardly any theologian of our time. Equipped with the gifts of a sharp dialectic, a skillful presentation and an important eloquence supported by the warmth of conviction, it was easy for him to make the spirits subservient.” — 

Regarding Hoffmann's last expression it must be noted that Walther does not make the spirits subject to himself but to the Word of God; but he knows how to teach it so emphatically and clearly that the truth must prove its irresistible power, that doubt must give way, while that which seemed difficult to some becomes easy and the uncertain finally becomes certain! —

When Hoffmann on the other hand again exclaims p. 29: 

 

“Thank God Missouri also errs and we wish but that she above all becomes more modest in her polemics and humbled by the instruction of 1 Cor. 13:12”, 

it must be noted: Paul offers a consolation there, which the Missourians are also in need of, because we feel and know well that we are not yet walking in the light of glory here, where we are to see God in his presence, that is, where we are also allowed to see through the divine mysteries (a priori). Meanwhile, we are satisfied that we may clearly recognize the way to eternal life in Christ, and whether we recognize the truth here piecemeal, i.e. one thing after another (a posteriori), the mirror of the divine Word, which is also a light, shining in a dark place, is bright enough to fulfill Luther's interpretation of 2 Cor. 3:18: “as the mirror sees an image, so our heart sees the knowledge of Christ!” 

Just at this the weakest side of unionistic mediation theology becomes obvious that it wants to unite Christ and Belial by its Yes and No, especially by its alleged struggle for progress, and thereby falls into a doubtful doctrine that does not make hearts certain and confident in faith, but more and more uncertain!  For only the truth revealed in God's Word clings firmly in the conscience and brings the heart to rest, as Augustine already confessed. Everything that is unmistakably revealed to us in God's Word we therefore respect for the true doctrine of faith, and we do not envy the United Synod for the fact that fundamental articles also become an open question for them. 

- - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 11  - - - - - - - - - - - -

      For all the compliments that Pastor Hoffmann offers Walther, he negates them all with his final statement that "it was easy for him to make the spirits subservient." This statement overturns Walther's scriptural, confessional basis. And Hochstetter's powerful corrective of this surely had to make Walther shed a tear of joy. — In the next Part 11…

RH9: Christocracy, not democracy; State churchmen = servants of state authority, "only a glittering misery"

   This continues from Part 8 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting Pastor's Hochstetter's critique of an 1881 German pamphlet on the Old Missouri Synod. — Hochstetter now digs deep into the aspects of the State Church and how it went from being a guardian to a policeman. And this is what Pastor Hoffmann was defending! — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 28 (Feb. 1882), pp. 76-78 [EN]:

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

How the Missouri Synod is Judged in Germany Today.

[A review of an 1881 pamphlet by Pastor Rudolph Hoffmann of Germany]

By Pastor Ch. Hochstetter, Stonebridge, Canada.

 

This [Prussian] Union does not consist in the power of the spiritual authority given to the saints as such <page 77> by Christ, but in the power of the royal cabinet order, whereby the Church has been treated more and more as a police institution which has religion taken care of on the side. Whoever, as Hoffmann does, wants to separate the congregation of saints as the ideal Church from the real congregation in such a way that the latter (the saints) no longer exercise any activity whatsoever, that is, should no longer profess their faith through church service, turns the ecclesiastical, living organism into a raging state machine, and keeps only a hollow constitutional building in place of the true Church. On the other hand, it sounds very tendentious when Hoffmann says that the Missourians do not give the emperor what is the emperor's, but take the side of the Romans in their consideration of the state, because we want to distinguish between secular and spiritual power, as the Augsburg Confession expressly demands. We reject the teaching of the Jesuits, which the New Lutherans approach in relation to the judgment of civil marriage etc., as if the state, without recognizing a papal sovereignty, was equal to a band of robbers. We know what is written in Rom. 13 and we honor God's order in the secular authority, but we also honor the Word of Christ who confessed to Pilate, the representative of the Roman state power: “My kingdom is not of this world.”

On the other hand, it must still be replied to the reproach of the democratic constitution that we, if in truth the Christocracy belonging to the Church still stands, regard the constitutional form of the visibly represented church as an indifferent thing [or adiaphoron]. The Lutheran Church can bear many different constitutional forms, in Sweden and Norway the episcopal constitution, and in the good old days a consistorial government. In this connection it is only to be taken into account that the consistories were originally only advisory bodies, just as all representative assemblies should never forget that they may only advise and act in the name of others in what concerns all and in what everyone has a stake, and only according to the Word of God. If in former times godly princes in their thoroughly Lutheran country also took part in the church government, we do not reject this activity either, as long as the church leadership is only an Evangelical church government and not a mastering princely government. Luther called this activity of Christian princes an emergency remedy! This alone shows how superficial and null Luther's objection is, to which Hoffmann in his writing p. 31 refers, that the Missourian pastor Hübener from Dresden had sent the “very poor” assertion into the world that the Church was born as a free church, but Luthardt is right to say [p. 31]: whether, because we are born as children, we must also remain children! 

Unfortunately, today's state churchmen are by no means men in Christ, but eager servants of the state authority! St. Paul reminds the Galatians [Gal. 4:31] <page 78> in very serious words that as children of the free they are taken from the Jewish theocracy and the poor statutes, how much more must the modern state [in Germany] without religion, which favors unbelief, be in servitude for Christians loyal to the faith, which despite the fat profits that the royal pastors and professors enjoy, is nevertheless only a glittering misery. Are we therefore to become servants, servants of a state power that is becoming more and more pagan, because we are called to the Christian Church as free children of God? Quite different from Luthardt and comrades, the old teachers saw the service that Christian princes, as long as they remained true to the faith of their fathers, wanted to render to the Church. Hartmann [1640-1680] writes in his Pastorale: 

“So also in our time the godliness of our princes is to be praised, according to which they provided their subjects with skillful and efficient teachers, not so that the congregations were deprived of their rights, but because the people neither understood nor used their rights, and the right judgment of the same was prevented by old madmen, they took the same under their guardianship and represented the place of the church.” 

Hartmann thus calls the state that existed under the territorial system a life under guardianship. Hartmann does not teach that the Christianity of the New Testament, born as a free church, thereby made progress towards manhood; how much more would he deplore the present state of the state church, which is not unjustly called a prince's maid by the Romans [Catholics].

- - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 10  - - - - - - - - - - - -

      I appreciated Hochstetter's instructive narrative to help delineate the issues. Hochstetter was a true Missourian! — In the next Part 10, a transition from an error in Church Government to errors in doctrine.