Search This Blog

Friday, December 2, 2016

Justification: Objective vs Subjective — Walther in America; Count Erbach (Pieper's Dogmatik)

      Continuing my project of presenting the full text of Franz Pieper's original Christliche Dogmatik.... (adding cross-references for all pages to English edition pages; adding Hebrew text ...)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      As I was polishing Volume 2, I ran across one of Pieper's many instances where he stressed the teaching of Universal, Objective Justification, or what some abbreviate as "UOJ".  But this one associates this teaching to one man in particular in the history of the Lutheran Church.  I want to present both versions – from the later English edition and my translation of the original German and Latin.  There are only minor differences:
Christian Dogmatics II (1951),  pp. 321
Translated English edition
Christliche Dogmatik, vol. 1 (1917), pp 380
(my translation from German and Latin)
Underlining in original; highlighting is mine.
Now, then, if the Father raised Christ from the dead, He, by this glorious resurrection act, declared that the sins of the whole world are fully expiated, or atoned for, and that all mankind is now regarded as righteous before His divine tribunal. This gracious reconciliation and justification is clearly taught in Rom. 4:25: “Who was delivered for our offenses and was raised again for our justification.” The term δικαίωσις here means the act of divine justification executed through God's act of raising Christ from the dead, and it is for this reason called the objective justification of all mankind. This truth Dr. Wal­ther stressed anew in America. He taught that the resurrection of Christ from the dead is the actual absolution pronounced upon all sinners.55  To refer the words: “Who was raised again for our justifica­tion,” to the so-called subjective justification, which takes place by faith, not only weakens the force of the words, but also violates the context. Calov, following Gerhard, rightly points out the relation of Christ's resurrection to our justification as follows: “Christ's resur­rection took place as an actual absolution from sin. As God punished our sins in Christ, upon whom He laid them and to whom He imputed them, as our Bondsman, so He also, by the very act of raising Him from the dead, absolved Him from our sins imputed to Him, and so He absolved also us in Him.55)
For this reason Scripture also says that justifying and saving faith has that God for its object who raised Christ from the dead. Rom. 4:24: “... if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus, our Lord, from the dead.”  
——————
If then God raised up Christ from the dead, He declared that through the act of resurrection, that by the death of Christ, the sins of man were completely expiated, and that now all mankind is regarded as justified before the divine forum. This situation is sharply expressed in Rom. 4:25: ὃς παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν καὶ ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν. Δικαίωοις referred to the act of divine justification, which took place through the act of Christ's resurrection from the dead, so the so-called objective justification of the whole sinful world. This is the truth to which particularly Walther strongly reminded of again in this country, namely the truth that the resurrection of Christ from the dead is an actual absolution of the whole sinful world. 893) Therefore the Scripture also says that the object of justifying and saving faith has that God who raised up Christ from the dead, Rom. 4:24: τὸν ἐγείραντα Ἰησοῦν τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν ἐκ νεκρῶν.
——————
893) Evangelienpostille [Gospel Sermons I, p. 226-235, especially p. 236], Easter Day, p. 160 ff. There is a contextual weakening of the words ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν [“Who was raised again for our justifica­tion”] if one wishes to refer these to the subjective justification which is effected by faith. Calov, after Gerhard, says the right thing about the relation of the resurrection of Christ to our justification: Christ's resurrection is done “with respect to the actual absolution from sin. As God punished our sins in Christ, that is that he was given to us as the surety for this charge, so too He by this very act of raising Him from the dead absolved Him from our sins that were imputed to Him, and hence also in Him we are absolved.”


2 points stand out:
  1. Romans 4:25 is about objective justification, not subjective, and 
  2. It was C.F.W. Walther who was responsible for uncovering the Gospel again.
Pieper identifies Walther as particularly the one man who restored the Gospel again in the world.  And where did he do it?  In America.
      A German nobleman Count Erbach traveled to America in 1869.  (Ernst, Graf zu Erbach-Erbach,  – Travel Letters from America. or Reisebriefe aus Amerika, p. 211 ff.; quoted in E.A.W. Krauß book Lebensbilder aus der Geschichte der christlichen Kirche, pg 727.)  When the Count became acquainted with Walther and with Walther’s theological manner, he wrote:
“This is the man,
God has chosen him for this country”
“Many years of fierce struggle for the truth, ceaseless labor and effort for the extension of the Gospel have developed in this man so adamantine a certainty and such luminous clearness in all matters of faith that I was lost in amazement and finally concluded: This is the man; God has chosen him for this country; He could not have found a better one. And in truth, He has, midst storms and tempests, employed this tool in rebuilding, on the rock of our Confession, His Church in the New World. Through him He founded a new home for the Lutheran Church. . . . America is now the hope of Lutheranism. While elsewhere throughout the world there is heard the crash of the wreck and ruin of things, here the seed of truth undefiled is quietly and unwearyingly sown, cultivated, and watered by men who are undisturbed by the discordant noise of the world, armed with weapons of battle, ready at a moment’s notice to rush to the defense. And the seed visibly brings forth fruit a hundred-fold. ... Not a grain of revealed truth is to be surrendered; rather let everything else perish! Such conditions are a source of comfort to all who are concerned about the future of the Church. With such armament the great, decisive battles may be fought without fear of the issue.” [Requoted by Franz Pieper in Conversion and Election (Zur Einigung) pg 91-92, bolding mine]
Count Erbach spoke many other words about the Lutheran Church in Germany and America which I hope to translate and publish.  Yes, indeed, God did bless America!... and indeed the whole world!… until …
… until the LC-MS allowed the Gospel to be questioned again through especially the unionistic writings of Prof. Theodore Graebner of Concordia Seminary, 70 years later in the American Lutheran magazine in December 1939.

Friday, November 25, 2016

Vom Schem Hamphoras omissions (Pieper’s Dogmatik, Luther's mighty words on “Jehovah”)

      I return now to my project of providing the full text of Franz Pieper's magnum opus, his 3-volume Christliche Dogmatik.  In comparing the English edition to the original German edition, I came across areas where the English translators omitted significant portions, as I have previously shown concerning the subjects of Usury and Life Insurance.  Thankfully these omissions are few and far between – the English edition is largely a faithful work.
      On the subject of "Luther and the Jews", the coming year of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation will see Luther's name raked over the coals incessantly.  To counter this, I want to publish the portions of Luther's Vom Schem Hamphoras that were omitted by the English edition of Pieper's Dogmatik.  This was rather easy for me to do since I had already translated much of this work of Luther in a rather popular series of blog posts. Below I present both published versions – on the left is the text from the English edition, on the right is my translation of Pieper's original German and Luther's words:
Christian Dogmatics I (1950),  pp. 385-386
Translated English edition
(my translation of Luther from this blog)
All text with green shading omitted from English edition.  All bolding is mine.
Treatise on Shem Hamphoras, St. L. XX :2057 ff. This treatise deserves to be read again and again.
Luther's mighty words about the name "Jehovah" deserve to be read again and again. He writes in St. L. XX, 2057 f., In his work of vom Schem Hamphoras [paragraphs # 75b-78]:
(This direct reference to “the devils and the Jews” was omitted by English edition.  Too inflammatory?)
    75b.  But now we want to deal with the name Jehovah, with which the devils and Jews carry on much magic and all kinds of abuse and idolatry.










". . . Now, as to the pretense of Jews that His name [Jehovah] is unutterable, they do not know what they are babbling. If they refer to the letters, it cannot be true, for it is pronounced Jehovah.



But if they do it to honor this name, then they ought to do it also in the case of all other names [of God] and let them also be too sacred to utter.

    76.  This name Jehovah, according to grammar comes from the word Haja, or Hava, that is in Latin fuit, in praeterito, esse; in German: essential, or to be; and the J can be nota nominis verbalis, as Josaphat Jesias, Jeremiah and many other names, and is as much as the Latin ens, the Greek on. We need to speak German: "he is it"; and thus is in Latin Trigrammaton, in Greek Dygrammaton, Hexagrammaton in German, or if we incorrectly just take "is" so it is also a Trigrammaton. That they now claim the name Jehovah was to be inexpressible, they do not know what they babble; if they mean the letters, so it cannot be true since he is called Jehovah. And he that can write with pen and ink, why should he not call with the mouth which is much better than pen and ink? Or why do they not call him unwritable, unreadable, unthinkable? In short, it is a foul thing.  If they therefore do it out of honor, they should do it for all other names, and let them also be unspeakable. For he says: "Thou shalt not take God's name in vain", so this is also foul. Nowhere does the Scripture say that any of God's names should be inexpressible [or ineffable], otherwise everyone would be innocently misusing God's name, therefore they would want to say they cannot call on his name, and keep silent rather than misuse it.
Scripture indeed says that God's essence, power, wisdom, benevolence, is unspeakable, immeasurable, infinite, incomprehensible, etc., not as though the letters or syllables were unutterable, but what those letters and syllables mean is beyond utterance....


God has no beginning or end, but is from eternity, in and of Himself, His name can never be `has been' or `will be,' but it must always be `Is,' `Being,' `Jehovah.'.







    77.  There they well speak that God's nature, power, wisdom, goodness, and whatever one can say more of God, is inexpressible, measureless, infinite, incomprehensible etc.; that not the letters or syllables, but these are what it means to be inexpressible. Yes, so must one speak of the inexpressible name of God.  For he has his essence from no one, also has no beginning or end, but is from all eternity, in and of himself, that his being cannot be said "was" or "will be", because he has never started, is not able also to become, has also never ended, also cannot stop being; but it is said of him always is or "being", that is Jehovah (Exodus 3:14). Because the creature was created, there his being is inherently, and what he is yet to become, there he is ready with his being.  In this manner Christ speaks of his divinity, John 8:58: "Before Abraham was, I am"; he does not say: There I was as if he was not anymore afterwards; but: "I am"; that is, my nature is everlasting, not will be, will not become, but is an everlasting "Is".
Hence, as His `Is,' `Am,' and `Being' is incomprehensible, so it is also inexpressible, for no creature can comprehend that which is eternal....










In the Divine Being there is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, three Persons in one eternal, incom­prehensible being, or essence.

Who will undertake to name, to fathom, fully to express, fully to describe such a marvelous being, or essence? ...

God is from eternity and is called three Persons."

    78.  Therefore, as his "Is", Being or nature is incomprehensible, it is also inexpressible since no creature can understand that which is so eternal. Hence, the angels are forever blessed, because they cannot see and be pleased enough of the everlasting being of God, nor understand; and where it could be understood, it could not be eternal, and must also have a beginning or end to itself, and no one could give or preserve such a nature because its nature would be uncertain. Further, his wisdom, power, goodness, etc. is also everlasting and is incomprehensible because it must be nothing other than his divine nature itself. Thirdly, one which is more important, that in the divine nature is God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three persons are in one, everlasting, incomprehensible essence. Yes, such all of this says of God which would make an incomprehensible, inexpressible name.  Who wants such a wonderful nature to name, devise, speak of, write about?  In that way the ancients perhaps have called inexpressible the name of Jehovah, because they meant God's Nature, according to grammar, (as heard) an always Is, from eternity, and of three persons is named.

As I pondered possible reasons why the English editors omitted the missing material, it seemed there were 2 plausible ones: (1) they wanted to accommodate limited space available for the English edition or (2) they considered that Luther's harsh reference to the Jews was too inflammatory in 1950, the dated of volume 1 of Christian Dogmatics, due the the effects of the aftermath of World War II and the publicity of the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany.  Whatever the reason, I consider that neither was sufficient.  And so I would say to the reader (like me!) what Pieper did:
Luther's mighty words about the name "Jehovah" deserve to be read again and again.”
— including the omitted wording: “the devils and Jews carry on much magic and all kinds of abuse and idolatry”.

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Walther's Works: Church Fellowship, Pastoral Theology; new cross-reference, new availability

Walther's Works: Church Fellowship
Walther's Works: Church Fellowship

      I have blogged previously in 2014 about one of the releases of Concordia Publishing House's Walther's Works series – Church Fellowship.  That included a cross reference to the original German language source material.  However I want to present a more complete cross-reference which includes the already existing English translations that were used for this publication.   This is for anyone who already owns the previous publications (like me) or who is contemplating purchasing the 2 older works still available – Selected Writings and At Home in the House.   As publisher Paul McCain put it to me:
…a new set of Walther's works, pulling together all the previously different formats, shapes, sizes, into a consistent set of books. "Essays for the Church" will be included in this new series. 
So this publication is largely only a re-ordering, a new "pulling together" of previous publications, not presenting original material.  (Matthew Harrison did present some new translations for his book…)  Here are the books partially used as sources for this newer publication:






Contents
1. Subscribing to the Whole Book of Concord, 1857     p. 1
[Editorials p. 39]
2. Taking the Confessions Seriously, 1858     p. 5
[Editorials p. 43]
3. Answer to the Question “Why Should Our Pastors, Teachers, and Professors Subscribe Unconditionally to the Symbolical Writings of Our Church?,” 1858     p. 11
4. On Doctrinal Development, 1859      p. 29
[Editorials p. 49]
5. On Church Language, 1859 [LuW vol. 5, pp. 65-71]     p. 43
[Editorials p. 62]
6. Do We Draw the Lines of Fellowship Too Narrowly?, 1860     p. 55
[Editorials p. 74]
7. The Missouri Synod’s Adherence to the Lutheran Confessions, 1866     p. 75
[Editorials p. 115; Opening Address at the Convention of the 1866 General Synod, LuW 1867 pp. 1-8]
8. On Syncretism, 1868     p. 81
[reprinted in Concordia Journal June 1975]
9. The False Arguments for the Modern Theory of Open Questions, 1868     p. 95
10. Theses on the Modern Theory of Open Questions, 1868     p. 141
[Original  – translated by Benjamin T. G. Mayes from LuW 14, p. 318-9]
11. Communion Fellowship, 1870     p. 145
12. Summary of Christian Doctrine, Sixteen Theses, 1872     p. 193
13. On the Three Hundredth Anniversary of the Formula of Concord, 1877     p. 217
[Editorials p. 143]
14. Duties of an Evangelical Lutheran Synod, 1879     p. 237
[Iowa District Convention 1879; Essays For The Church, vol. 2, pgs 6-63; available in pamphlet format from CPH HERE]
15. The Only Source of Doctrine, 1882     p. 337
[Editorials p. 164]
16. Church Fathers and Doctrine, 1884     p. 351
Scripture Index     p. 413
——————————

      The introductions to the essays taken from Essays For The Church (from 1992) are repeated verbatim, presumably all having been written by Prof. Charles Arand. But Charles Arand seems not to be contributing anything involved with C.F.W. Walther’s writings in recent times.  —  One of the benefits of purchasing this book is the Scripture Index, something that was not available before in previous publications.
      There is one minor exception in this book – it is by Benjamin T. G. Mayes and his two page original translation of item # 10.  I don't think there is any newly translated material in this year's book All Glory to God.  I also hope to publish a cross reference for it soon.  At least these 2 books bring back some of those essays that became extinct when CPH quit selling the 2 volume Essays for the Church books.  —  One can hope the next release of Walther's Works will have more value in original translation work, not just re-publication of previously translated works.  There still is a large amount of Walther's writings that remain untranslated.
Walther's Works: Pastoral Theology

      The next release of Walther's Works from CPH, Walther's Pastoral Theology, is now available for pre-release purchase ("Estimated 01/31/2017. Subject to change").   This was delayed 1 year — the confusion caused by this delay is even evident in WorldCat which today lists a 2016 version as being available at the Library of Congress!  This book was apparently prematurely announced and then delayed.  But the long delay would seem to be nearly over as CPH is even offering a $10 discount so that the book is sale priced for only $29.99.  This is an eagerly awaited translation – I have had several correspondences about it – and it is well worth a purchase for not only pastors and teachers, but also all Christians.