Search This Blog

Thursday, January 17, 2019

Schrift 14: #9: Lack of proper order?; Reu's reticence; Boehme's defense

      This continues from Part 13 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C.F.W. Walther's major essay on  the Inspiration of Holy Scripture in the Missouri Synod's chief theological journal, Lehre und Wehre. — This segment highlights Luther's great spiritual understanding of Holy Scripture, of the "method of the prophets".  Walther brings choice passages from Luther so that we may learn to love... God's Word, the Bible.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Translation by BackToLuther; all highlighted text, text in square brackets and in red font are my additions. Underlining follows Walther.
(continued from Part 13)
Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32, March, p. 69-71 "Foreword" by C.F.W. Walther

IX. Also the lack of proper order, which seems to be found here and there in the Scriptures, has its reason in the wisdom of God the Holy Spirit.
“To the first question (Matthew 24:3) he answers, when Jerusalem is to be destroyed, it says, ‘When ye shall see the abomination of desolation,’ saying that for the sake of the elect, the days shall be shortened.…  But the words are a little obscure, and Matthew and Mark conclude the tribulation for the world, and say that Jerusalem should be destroyed, and at times they also point to the  destruction of the world, so that they mix and mingle the two into each other; and it is the Holy Spirit's way in the Holy Scriptures, that he speaks. For, as Adam was created and Eva was yet to be created, the Scripture says: God took a rib and built a woman out of it.
There he uses the word ‘building’, as he could have said: he created or made a woman out of it. Then he uses the word 'building' as the carpenters build a house, and the Holy Spirit,  with this Word in the same history, indulges, and indicates something peculiar, that with the word 'building' not only is Eve described as Adam's bride, but that at the same time the Christian church is also indicated, which is also God's dwelling and temple, so God has built it and is still building it to the end of the world; for that is the spiritual Eve, so it taken from the side of Christ. For since the side has been opened, she is taken from His flesh and (Page 70)  blood. Adam rib has been with flesh and blood; So we, the Christian Church, are also being built out of the side of the right Adam, Christ. That must be the meaning of the word in the beginning of the world. Thus the Holy Spirit often sets forth, and from the history states that as Eve is the true woman, made of the rib of man, therefore is the Bride of the LORD Christ, the true Eve, the Christian Church, taken also of Christ, just as Eve was born and built out of Adam's flesh; because this is what is meant. So here Matthew also used several words that illuminate the last disaster in the world, which is meant as a result of the crash [Unfall] and destruction of Jerusalem. For then will be also tribulation of the churches, saying, ‘Unless the days were shortened, no man would be saved.’ This is what Matthew does. [Matt. 24:22] Now we want to apportion each in its own time.” (Sermons on the Several Chapters of the Evangelist Matthew, dated 1537-1540, Erlangen Volume XLV, page 119. f., [StL ??; NOT in LW] )
“But why does Moses mix up his laws in such a disordered way? Why does he not put the temporal laws together in one group and the spiritual laws in another and the laws of faith and love in still another? Moreover he sometimes repeats a law so often and reiterates the same words so many times that it becomes tedious to read it or listen to it. The answer is that Moses writes as the situation demands, so that his book is a picture and illustration of governing and of living. For this is the way it happens in a dynamic situation: now this work has to be done and now that. No man can so arrange his life (if he is to act in a godly way) that on this day he uses only spiritual laws and on that day only temporal. Rather God governs all the laws mixed together—like the stars in the heavens and the flowers in the fields—in such a way that at every hour a man must be ready for anything, and do whatever the situation requires. In like manner the writing of Moses represents a heterogeneous mixture. That Moses is so insistent and often repeats the same thing shows also the nature of his office. For one who is to rule a people-with-laws [Gesetzvolck] must constantly admonish, constantly drive, and knock himself out struggling with the people as [he would] with asses. For no work of law is done gladly and willingly; it is all forced and compelled. Now since Moses is a lawgiver, he has to show by his insistence that the work of the law is a forced work. He has to wear the people down, until this insistence makes them not only recognize their illness and their dislike for God’s law, but also long for grace.” (Prefaces to the Old Testament, 1523). XIV, 8 f. § 17-18 [StL 14, 8-9 § 17-18; LW 35 p 241)
“But before beginning with the text, I must pave the way with a general introductory remark. This is necessary and useful for a better understanding not only of this prophet but also of most of the others. For it has been most confusing in the past to hear the prophets speak (page 71) of the Jewish kingdom and then to break off so abruptly and intersperse remarks about Christ. Everybody who is not familiar with their method regards that as an odd way of doing things, and he supposes that they observe no order but ramble along from one subject to another. This seems incomprehensible to all; people cannot get used to it. It is indeed very irritating to read a book that observes no order, in which statements are so disconnected that they do not fit together and therefore lack proper coherence. All of that may reasonably be expected of correct and proper speech. Thus the Holy Spirit was accused of an inability to express Himself properly, of talking like a drunkard or a fool, of mixing everything together and of delivering Himself of wild and odd words and statements. But it is we who were at fault; we did not understand the speech, and we were not acquainted with the method of the prophets. For it cannot be otherwise: the Holy Spirit is wise, and He also makes His prophets wise. Now, a wise man must necessarily be able to speak well; this can never fail. But to him who does not hear well or is not sufficiently conversant with a language, to him a speech may seem faulty because he hears or understands hardly half of the words.” (Exposition on the prophet Habakkuk, 1526. VI, 3093. f. § 3-4. [StL 14, 1418 § 3-4; LW 19, p 152])
= = = = = = = = = =   continued in Part 15  = = = = = = = = = = =

J. Michael Reu, a well-known theologian of the old Am. Lutheran Church, wrote a scholarly book in English, Luther and the Scriptures (Columbus: Wartburg Press, 1944); reprinted in The Springfielder. Vol. XXIV, No. 2 (August, 1960). Chapters 5 and 6 are titled
  • "Luther Never Admitted Any Error In Scripture." 
  • "Even Those Parts of Scripture That Do Not Concern Our Salvation Were Considered Errorless By Luther."  
Even though he reported Luther's teaching accurately, it is sad that Prof. Reu did not come to fully confess with Luther on these points.  He could not fully confess with the Brief Statement, which teaches as Luther did.  — 
For those who want to believe their LCMS is still "orthodox", see Dr. Armand Boehme's 1977 essay "The Smokescreen Vocabulary", (CTQ) for a scholarly defense against those who use word-play sophistry to deny the divine Inspiration of all Holy Scripture.
      To finish this post with a quote:
“To fight for the doctrine of justification and for Holy Scripture and the Christian religion amounts to one and the same thing.” — Franz Pieper, "C.F.W. Walther as Theologian." here.
      In the next Part 15...

Sunday, January 13, 2019

Schrift 13: #7: simple, minor things; #8: sexual matters; Schroeder/"Moderates" vs sola scriptura

      This continues from Part 12 (or Manteufel "Excursus"; Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C.F.W. Walther's major 1886 essay on  the Inspiration of Holy Scripture in the Missouri Synod's chief theological journal, Lehre und Wehre. — Simple or peculiar or minor matters in Scripture are sometimes used for denying its divinity, but Luther clearly defends them.  Sexual matters were addressed by not only Luther and Walther, but also by Franz Pieper in a "Church News" item in 1917.  In that piece, Pieper also addressed Luther's "coarse talk" that touched on sexual matters. (All quotes are selections made by Walther from Martin Luther's writings.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Translation by BackToLuther; all highlighted text, text in square brackets and in red font are my additions. Underlining follows Walther.
(continued from Part 12)
Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32, March, p. 67-69 "Foreword" by C.F.W. Walther

VII. The simplistic presentation peculiar to Scripture, and the description therein of minor things, God himself has the Holy Spirit as author.
“I beg and faithfully warn every pious Christian not to stumble at the simplicity of the language and the stories that will often meet him there. He should not doubt that however simple they may seem, these are the very words, works, judgments, and deeds of the high majesty, power, and wisdom of God; for this is Scripture, and it makes fools of all the wise and prudent, and stands open to the small and foolish, as Christ says, in Matthew 11:25. Therefore let your own thoughts and feelings go, and think of the Scriptures as the loftiest and noblest of holy things, as the richest of mines, which can never be worked out, so that you may find the wisdom of God that He lays before you in such foolish and simple guise, in order that he may quench all pride. Here you will find the swaddling-clothes and the manger in which Christ lies, and to which the angel points the shepherds, Luke 2:12. Simple and little are the swaddling-clothes, but dear is the treasure, Christ, that lies in them.” (Preface to the Old Testament, 1523. XIV, 3,  § 3 [sic  p. 2; StL 14, 3-4, § 3; LW 35, p. 236]) [McLaughlin’s translation from his essay on Inspiration is used.]
“Genesis 24:22: ‘And it came to pass, as the camels had done drinking, that the man took a golden earring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her hands of ten shekels weight of gold.’  What is related in this passage seems completely carnal and worldly to reason, and I myself wonder why Moses has so much to say about such unimportant matters when above he has been very concise in the case of matters that are far more sublime. There is no doubt, however, that the Holy Spirit wanted these things to be written and to stand out for our instruction; for in Holy Scripture nothing unimportant is put before us, and nothing unprofitable. But “whatever was written … was written for our instruction” (Rom. 15:4). God wants to be acknowledged in all things….  Therefore let us hear the nuptial song as an example for young people, in order that they may learn to have honorable sentiments about marriage and both sexes, matters that are disparaged among the heathen, as can be observed in the Greek and Latin poets; for young people consider solely the flesh and thus insult God the Creator. We should put the text of Holy Scripture before their eyes.… Here the Holy Spirit adorns the bride in a wonderful way, as though nothing else were left for Him to concern Himself about or to teach.” (Genesis, 1536 ff., I, 2563 f. § 215-216, 217 . 1568 § 215, 2567 § 223   [StL 1, 1711 f., 1714 § 215-216, 223 f., LW 4, p. 274, 276)
“Genesis 44:1-2: ‘And he commanded the steward of his house, saying, Fill the men's sacks with food, as much as they can carry, and (page 68) put every man's money in his sack's mouth. And put my cup, the silver cup, in the sack's mouth of the youngest, and his corn money. And he did according to the word that Joseph had spoken.'  I have often pointed out, and it must always be inculcated, that the Holy Spirit records humorous and inconsequential matters about such great patriarchs, whereas He could choose very weighty and sacred subjects like those He surely sprinkles at times into the accounts of the saintly fathers. An ignorant and carnal reader, who thinks that those matters are of no importance, is easily offended and is surprised that they are read in the church of God and that the Holy Spirit wastes time and effort in relating such nonsense. Why does He not set forth the wonderful stories of monastic fastings and the stoical and Spartan austerity of iron men, as the Carthusians want to be regarded? As though there could be important doctrine in ludicrous and worthless things! They also dispute whether this game which Joseph plays is pleasing to God or what impelled and inspired him to do so. Whereupon I reply that this is done by Joseph and recorded by the Holy Spirit in order that we might learn the right way to live before God,  etc.” (A.a.O. II, 2386-88,§ 1-2 [StL 2, 1624-1625 § 1-2, LW 7, p 354).

VIII. Even where the Scriptures report on sexual matters which are offensive to the natural sentiment, the Holy Spirit himself is the correspondent.
Referring to the story of Judah's incest with Tamar, Luther writes: “The care with which the Holy Spirit describes such a shameful and repulsive account is wonderful. …  Why did the completely clean mouth of the Holy Spirit lower itself to the basest and most ignoble matters, yes, to matters that are even repulsive, filthy, and subject to damnation, as though these things were particularly profitable for the instruction of the church of God? What has the church to do with this?  I reply as before. These things are mentioned for the sake of Christ, who is described throughout all Holy Scripture as our blood relative, our brother, etc. … . … And here the Holy Spirit descends with His completely pure mouth and speaks even about that filth of sin and horrible incest.”  (A.A.O. II, 1759 § 96. 1761, § 100 [StL 2, 1200 § 96, 1201-2 § 100, LW 7 p 35-36 – on Gen. 38:19])
About the narrative of the birth of Perez and Zerah in Gen. 38:27-30, (page 69) Luther writes: “I have said before: we must make our own preface and gloss before any chapter; because we are so delicate that we do not suffer to mention nor yet to hear of human birth, and yet have driven along with this, that is horrible to say. It is true that this is a roughly crude chapter; now it is yet written in the Holy Scriptures and written by the Holy Spirit who has so much more pure a tongue and mouth than we do, that I can not therefore then illuminate it more. Has anyone a clearer mouth and ears than He, there one may stand; if He did not shy away nor write shamelessly, let us not be ashamed to read and hear. Would to God, we should have kept discipline and shame, as we should hold to them, and avoided fornication, wherever one should!, but we turned it into only an appearance.  Where we needed to say something, we have remained silent, but much aggravated, over and over again. The Holy Ghost knows well what He has done, so He also speaks of his creature as it is. … Now this history of Moses is described lucidly and coarsely, so open your eyes and consider, that it has taken place for us for doctrine by the Holy Ghost, etc. "(Sermons on the Book of Genesis, 1527. III, 842 ff., § 1-3 [sic  – not 342, but 842] [StL 3, 559-560 §1-3; not in LW)
= = = = = = = = = =   continued in Part 14  = = = = = = = = = = =

image from Valparaiso Univ. 1970 Yearbook, vol. 2, page 37 (collections.valpo.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/yearbooks/id/28272/rec/1)
Edward H. Schroeder
LCMS “Moderates” vs. sola scriptura (and Luther)
      Prof. Ed. Schroeder is rather well-known as one of the defenders against the charge of so-called "Gospel reductionism" of the St. Louis faculty majority (or "Moderates") in the 1960s and 1970s. In his well-publicized 1972 CTM essay "Law-Gospel Reductionism in the History of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod" he attempted to use Walther's teaching of "Law-Gospel" against a high view of Holy Scripture (see Manteufel's essay, note #46).  Six years earlier, the same Prof. Schroeder published an essay in which he defended the new teaching of the majority of teachers at Concordia Seminary, the so-called "moderates".  In the 1966 CPH book The Lively Function of the Gospel; essays in honor of Richard R. Caemmerer, Schroeder's essay “Is there a Lutheran Hermeneutics?” in the same way attempted this time to use Martin Luther in his defense (p. 86, emphases mine):
“1. Sola Scriptura: Although this expression is surely one which Luther would have accepted, it achieved greatest prominence among the second-generation Lutherans in their conflicts with the Roman assertion (publicized at Trent) about Scripture and tradition. What did the Lutherans mean with sola scriptura? Did they want to say that this is the only valid source of doctrine because it is the only inspired source? For Luther at least that was surely not the case. It is not the special inspiration of the Scriptures but the necessity of preaching solus Christus which makes him say sola scriptura.
Schroeder's reference to "second-generation Lutherans" has the same object as Walther's references to Calov and Quenstedt (see Part 4).  One may note Schroeder's use of the word "surely" in his assertion about Luther.  It is as if to say that one should accept Schroeder's assertion because of his great knowledge of Luther and Lutheranism.
"Still All About JESUS"?…
but not sola scriptura.
But is Schroeder's assertion true?  One searches in vain in Walther's citations of Luther's writings to find anything to support it. Rather Luther plainly teaches… the opposite ("surely").

===>>>  May the reader judge!... from Walther's citations from Martin Luther's own words whether Prof. Schroeder's assertion (and that of almost all of today's LCMS seminary teachers) about Luther's position is "surely" correct... or whether it is fiction.

In the next Part 14...

Tuesday, January 8, 2019

Manteufel: UOJ-1998; Walther on Scripture-2004 (unauthorized); "move out"… or not?


      This post is an "excursus" from my series presenting an English translation of Walther's "Foreword" to the 1886 Lehre und Wehre (after Part 12, Table of Contents in Part 1).  While preparing this series, I came across Prof. Thomas Manteufel's extensive historical survey of many of Walther's writings on inspiration entitled “C. F. W. Walther and the Doctrine of Scripture in the Early History of the Missouri Synod”.  This essay is included in the "The Pieper Lectures" vol. 9 (2004 ©2005).  Unfortunately it is not available online as is his translation of “Walther's Evening Lectures on Inspiration” from 1885-1886 (see #1 in "Walther's Inspiration Trilogy" above). It is languishing in only a few select libraries.  And so..... hmmm… I think I will do something about that. —  
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      But before I proceed with the main part of this post, a review and "repristination" of an old post from 2011 is in order.  Although I corresponded with Dr. Manteufel 20 years ago, and he responded to me by return letter, he probably does not remember me.  But I remember him, for he dared to defend the Doctrine of Universal, Objective Justification (UOJ) against a strong attack by Mr. Larry Darby. He was the only LCMS seminary professor who openly defended against the public attacks of this doctrine by Darby.  Even Profs. Kurt Marquart and Eugene Klug were weak or missing in this struggle.  Although I provided a link to Manteufel's essay printed in the January 12, 1998 issue of Christian News, I want to give that essay more exposure today than just a link.  I have since produced a text file of that essay and am presenting it below in a more accessible format so that it may be more easily searched, copied, and printed:

This document may be directly accessed >>>  here  <<<.  PDF file (7 pages) here. (A good supplement to this is George Stoeckhardt's 1888 essay "General Justification".)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

      The following is an entirely unauthorized publication of Prof. Manteufel's work.  I did not consult with either Concordia Historical Institute or Luther Academy, the copyright holders who sponsored the (now defunct?) "Pieper Lectures".  Neither of these entities show an online availability to purchase any of the "Pieper Lectures" series books. – I also did not consult Dr. Manteufel for permission to publish his essay.
===>>> I am publishing Prof. Manteufel's essay because the Church is desperate to know the true "Doctrine of Scripture" and Walther's lead in the defense of it!
So if both the copyright holders contact me to stop publishing this important essay,  I will disable the following window and will publish their instructions in large, bold red lettersOK, so to honor Prof. Manteufel's assertion that his "LCMS" = "the Missouri Synod", I want to publish proof that at least one teacher in the last 20 years at least sounded a little like C.F.W. Walther on the Doctrine of Holy Scripture. 

This document may be directly accessed >>>  here  <<<.

One will notice in Appendix 2 that Manteufel translated Walther's "Thirteen Theses on Luther's Doctrine of Holy Scripture" (my term) from the 1886 Lehre und Wehre "Foreword".  It was my wish that Prof. Manteufel would have come forward on my multiple requests to have Walther's essay translated since he did such a marvelous job on Walther's Lectures for CHI... but alas, no one did.  I was certainly happy that Andrew Boomhower came forward on my request for a translation of the 1886 Synodical Conference essay.  —
      Manteufel's essay is a masterful work of scholarship!  It is very helpful in bringing out the manifold writings of Walther on Scripture.  I find little to quibble with it... except that I am now (again) left with questions for him:

Questions for Prof. (em.) Manteufel: 
      You would be rather naive if you believed you were not an anomaly in the LC-MS. You speak in your essay as if your "LCMS" is Walther's church.  Do you really believe this when your prominent seminary teachers teach as Prof. Dr. James Voelz (& here), and Prof. Dr. David Scaer (& here) at least publicly question it.  — 
You yourself defended against prominent LCMS theologians Ed. Schroeder (fn 46) and Carl S. Meyer (fn 21) in your essay, theologians who clearly misstate and misuse Walther (and Luther).  Do you really believe now that the "LCMS" is Walther's church?  Do you think Walther would say your "LCMS" is his church?  Yes? ... No?   — If "yes", then perhaps now you should add Dr. Robert Kolb to your list of erring theologians... [Continued in the "Read more »" section below; Walther series continues with Part 13.]

Monday, January 7, 2019

Schrift 12: #5: No contradictions; 6. Bound to every letter; Arndt falters; Voelz ‘doubts’

[2019-01-08: correct sentence below with red text.]
      This continues from Part 11 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C.F.W. Walther's major essay on  the Inspiration of Holy Scripture in the Missouri Synod's chief theological journal, Lehre und Wehre. —  Walther delineates practically all the various objections to Inspiration.  Another favorite one is that the Bible contradicts itself', but we find Luther calling out a former fellow, and very intelligent, reformer on this sometimes subtle error. Then the importance of even the letter and "tittle" of Scripture are given their due – "it all matters". (All quotes are selections made by Walther from Martin Luther's writings. If quotes available in Am. Ed. of Luther's Works, they were used – see notes in [ ].)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Translation by BackToLuther; all highlighted text, text in square brackets and in red font are my additions. Underlining follows Walther.
(continued from Part 11)
Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32, March, p. 65-66 "Foreword" by C.F.W. Walther

V. The Scripture is nowhere in contradiction with itself.

“What deceived the good Oecolampadius is the fact that scriptural texts which are contradictory must be reconciled, and one passage must receive an interpretation which will accord with another; for it is certain that the Scriptures cannot be at variance with themselves. But he did not notice and consider that he would be the one who alleged this variance in the Scriptures and who ought to prove it. He simply asserted it and proclaimed it as if it were already sealed and delivered. This is where he stumbled and fell. If they would stop and think, however, and take care to speak nothing but God’s words, as St. Peter teaches [1 Pet. 4:11], and it they would leave their own assertions and assumptions at home, they would not create so much misfortune. This saying, ‘The Scriptures are not self-contradictory,’ would not have misled Oecolampadius, for it is grounded in God’s Word that God does not lie nor does his Word deceive.” (“That These Words of Christ, 'This is My Body' Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics,". XX, 994. f., § 82-83 [StL 20, 798 § 82-83; LW 37, 50-51]) [see also: 1) McLaughlin’s Inspiration essay "good man Oecolampadius"; 2) Confessional Lutheran 1960 p 56-7] (page 66)
You may scream antagonistically all you want, that the Scripture is contrary to itself, that righteousness is attributed to faith in one place, and to works in the other. Albeit it is impossible that Scripture should be against itself; it is only, however, that the ignorant, coarse, and stubborn hypocrites see it so.” (Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians., 1535. VIII, 2140, § 285 [StL 9, 356 § 285 ; LW 26, but alternate text by Jaroslav Pelikan!; BTL translation, on Gal. 3:10])  [see also Confessional Lutheran 1960 p 57]  
“I myself have a hearty dislike of myself and hate myself because I know that everything that the Scripture says is true, except that there can be nothing greater, nothing more important, nothing more pleasurable, nothing joyous, and that should make me drunk in the highest joy; because I see that Holy Scripture agrees in all parts and throughout and in this way speaks one and the same thing so that one cannot doubt in the least as to the truth and certainty of so great a matter, etc.” (Short Exposition on the Prophet Isaiah,  1532. VI , 268, § 188 [StL 6, 177,§ 188; NOT in LW 16, different text]) [see also Confessional Lutheran 1960 p 57, partial translation]
“There are many passages in Holy Scripture that are contradictory according to the letters; but when that which motivates them is pointed out, everything is all right.”, 1539. XVI, 2668, § 75 [StL 16, 2185, § 75; LW 41, 54) [see also: 1) McLaughlin’s Inspiration essay "in conflict with each other"; 2) Confessional Lutheran 1960 p 56-7]
“We  have sufficiently founded the article of our faith in Scripture — hold on to it, and let not yourself be turned from it with glosses and interpretations according to reason, whether it rhymes or not, but if one wants to smear it with something different, from reason and your thoughts, so say: Here I have the bare Word of God and my faith, there will I remain, and not any further think, ask, or hear, nor brainstorm how this or that is to rhyme, nor hear you, whether you are similarly to bring forth another contrary text or sayings out of your head, and slobber on it with your drool, for it will not be against itself in some article of faith, whether it is against itself in your head and does not rhyme.” (Sermon on the Christian Armor and Weapons, 1532. IX, 452, § 34 [StL 9, 828 § 34; NOT in LW; not in Lenker v. III])

VI. Infinitely much depends on each letter and tittle of Scripture, and the whole Church is bound to all of them.

By one letter, yes, by a tittle of Scripture, there is worth more than heaven and earth. Therefore we cannot suffer that one wants to depart from them also in this, even in the least thing.” (Detailed Exposition of Galatians, dated 1535. VIII, 2661, § 126 [StL 9, 650, § 126; LW 27, 41 - slightly different text.)
God forbid that there should be one jot or tittle in all of Paul which the whole church universal is not bound to follow and keep!1)  (The Babylonian Captivity of the  Church, 1520. XIX, 22 § 22, [StL 19, 20; LW 36, 25])
--------------
1) Far be it, far be it, that any dot in the whole of Paul that the entire universal Church is not bound to follow and keep. (Opp. lat. varii argumenti etc. Francofurti ad M. 1868. Vol. 5, 27.) [Latin text]
= = = = = = = = = =   continued in Part 13   = = = = = = = = = = =

From a changing LC-MS (Arndt 1926)...
      A well known book by Prof. William Arndt († 1957) addressed the "no contradictions" teaching.  In 1926 he authored Does the Bible Contradict Itself?: A Discussion of Alleged Contradictions in the Bible (HathiTrust full viewCPH latest edition).  I remember this book well as I was coming back to my Christian faith in the 1990s.  It helped me to believe the Bible.  However since that time, I discovered where Arndt later became willing to compromise his own earlier stand by joining with other Lutherans who were not firm in defending all aspects of Inspiration.  And a closer reading of Arndt's book reveals some weakness. On page VI (Hathi), after quoting 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, John 10:35,  Prof. Arndt adds:
"These declarations must be true, the Christian says to himself, because they are contained in the life-giving revelation of GodHe that sent His only Son to die for us surely is not leading us astray ...."
While these are pious sounding statements, yet they go beyond just resting on "Thus saith the Lord", or "It is written".   They weaken the authority of Scripture itself as they begin to rely on reasoning.  Christ rebuffed Satan with his statement "It is written..." (Matt. 4:10). On the road to Emmaus, Christ taught about Himself from "Moses and the prophets", from "all the Scriptures" (Luke 24:27) Several of Arndt's students referred to him as their justification for denials of various aspects of Inspiration. Now my weak faith cannot stand equivocation on this doctrine and I must stay with Luther, Walther and Pieper – teachers who never wavered in the least. 

... to a dying LC-MS (Dr. Voelz 2019).
      Today, the most prominent teacher of "exegesis" in the LC-MS, Prof. Dr. James Voelz of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, writes (What Does This Mean?p. 243, emphases mine)
“...we must affirm that ‘problems of historical accuracy, inner consistency of stories/pericopes, compatibility of parallel accounts, etc., are not easily resolved, though the narratives, stories, and accounts are the very word of a perfect God.’ Real difficulties exist and those who have doubts and uncertainties are not simply being obstinate or godless.”
Prof. Voelz may call doubters “not simply being obstinate or godless", but Luther, above, calls them "ignorant, coarse, and stubborn hypocrites”.  Isn't Prof. Voelz saying that he has "doubts and uncertainties"?... that he neither believes nor teaches nor confesses "Inerrancy" as Martin Luther clearly taught?
- - - - - - - - - - - - -


      Walther's "Foreword" to the 1886 Lehre und Wehre has not gone unnoticed by other theologians.  Franz Pieper quoted it in his Christian DogmaticsRobert Preus quoted from it.  The titles of the theses of this essay were translated by Prof. Thomas Manteufel (em.) and published in an essay he presented in 2004.  Manteufel's essay is much too important to continue without a wider availability.  So I am about to do something (perhaps recklessly) about that in a related "excursus" ... in the next post. —  Then this series will continue with Part 13.