Schriftprinzip 5: Myths of Luther: "hay, straw, stubble", "epistle of straw"

[2019-02-18: added missing underlining; 2018-12-20: added Becker's name in 2nd paragraph in red]
      This continues from Part 4 (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. — In this segment, Walther concludes one issue (antilegomenon), then tackles another difficult issue of an "insufficient argument", requiring some careful reading.  —
      Other more recent defenders of Inspiration, such as Profs. Eugene Klug, Robert Preus, Theodore Engelder, Wallace McLaughlin, and Siegbert Becker (and Pastor Philip Hale) have typically quoted Martin Luther, but Walther was 75-100 years before them. Walther is the greatest defender and provided the impetus for Franz Pieper's exhaustive treatment of Holy Scripture in his Christian Dogmatics.  Later defenders should be seen as followers of ... C.F.W. Walther.  — Now let us listen to the best "mythbuster" for Luther... C.F.W. Walther:

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

Translation by BackToLuther; all highlighted text, text in square brackets [] and in red font are my additions. Underlining follows Walther.
(continued from Part 4)

Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32, January 1886, p. 11-12: "Foreword" by C.F.W. Walther

If it is an irresponsible sin to the dear man of God Luther to attribute to him, for lack of hindsight, an opinion in which, if one compares a hundred other sayings from him, he would stand as the most confused head of the world, yes, an opinion, which he would curse in the abyss of hell, yet it is a still more terrible sinfulness to thousands who have recognized Luther as the greatest witness of the truth after the apostles and prophets, and who, contrary to all truth, are misled by Luther's authority in their faith made. 1)

———————

1) Incidentally, it is a great misfortune of many recent theologians that when they quote Luther's words they do not state exactly where they are to be found so that they can be seen in their connection. Unfortunately, this often happens with the words of Luther discussed above. The meaning of these is propagated from book to book like a fixed tradition, and therefore provides that it is unnecessary to say where the words stand. Also Pastor von Nolcken [see p. 2-3] seems to have learned this, but it would not have led him astray in his faith. He therefore writes in the epilogue to his protest: “Luther's well-known judgment on the 'strawy' James and many ‘straws’ in the prophets has been held up to me. As far as Luther's judgment of James is concerned, it is essentially conditioned by his attitude to it as an antilegomenon, about which he places himself all the more firmly on homologoumena [universally recognized]. I do not know where the judgment in question is about many things in the prophets, but he will probably (as well as about James) only want to express a comparison. So much is certain of Luther, that although not of James and other ones – so he stood after all others and therefore just on the Scriptures.” (p. III.)  Of course his suspicion of Luther as a forerunner of the modern-faith theology did not harm him by the grace of God, but how many are there who, without opportunity to compare Luther's words in context, are not then in consternation and at last wavering?

As regards, on the other hand, Professor Cremer's reference to the fact that Luther also spoke “from insufficient argument of the Apostle Paul Gal. 4:21. ff. (‘Too weak to stick’) and others”, so it almost seems as if the person named [Cremer] did not compare the passage in question in its context! In the words of Cremer, every reader must conclude that Luther reproached Paul for having given unsubstantiated evidence.  From the context, however, the exact opposite results. Rather Luther praises Paul, that after he had most gloriously proved the doctrine of bondage under the Law and of freedom under the Gospel, Gal. 4:21 ff., by means of a lovely allegory, although an allegory in itself contains no proof. Luther writes on Gen.18:2-5: (Page 12)  “So far as this text is concerned, we are satisfied that the historical understanding does not argue against the Jews, but this exchange [Latin: catachreses] applies at times also,  that one, so one in the first place has seriously proved from a proper basis, thereafter also acts with other approving words and expressions, so in this case something seems weaker. Then so does Paul in Gal. 4:22. ff., after having masterfully proved the doctrine of faith, he brings forth the allegory of Sarah and Hagar, which, though it is too weak, 1)  for it departed from the historical understanding, nevertheless it maketh the handling of faith bright and adorns it.” (W1. I, 1731 § 61 [StL 1, 1150, § 61; LW 3, 192; full Latin text]). It is inconceivable, in fact, that Cremer wants to deduce from this a rebuke of Paul by Luther, while Luther with these words of his rather justifies Paul against the Jews. Or is it against the perfection of a writing, when in a representation of it, which is no proof at all, will rather put the already proven thing only in it's light, not to prove it, but be useful in placing the matter “in the light”? —

Now to prove that Luther, far from sharing the modern concept of inspiration, has rather adhered strictly to the inspiration concept of the old church and herein was the predecessor and the model of all of our recognized orthodox dogmatists, we reserve the right for the next issue.                

(Continuation follows.)

————————

1) In the Latin original the text stands is: “Addit postea de Sara et Hagar allegoriam, quae, etsi in acie minus valet (nam descedit ab historico sensu), tamen lumen addit causae et ornat eam." (Opp. exeget. Lat. curavit Elsperger. Erlangae 1829. Tom. III [sic, IV], 189.) The words of the translator: “whether it (the allegory) is too weak to stick”, should therefore have been more precise: “Whether it is arguing (with the Jews) has less evidential value.” Which at the same time clearly shows that Luther did not come to deny that for Christians who recognized Paul's authority as an inspired writer, they acknowledge that Paul's teaching, by allegorical interpretation of a story, is just as conclusive as any others directly submitted by him; according to the established hermeneutic principle: "Sensus allegoricus non est argumentativus, nisi a Spiritu Sancto ipso traditus,, that is, the allegorical sense is not conclusive except when it is taught by the Holy Spirit Himself..

= = = = = = = = = =   continued in Part 6  = = = = = = = = = = =

      This segment is dedicated to James Swan's blog Beggars All Reformation & Apologetics – putting an end to myths of Luther.  Surprisingly, Mr. Swan is not a Lutheran.  Contrast that with the report in my Part 3 pointing out that Dr. David W. Preus (a Lutheran) of the ELCA (and old ALC) repeated the “epistle of straw” argument in his book Two Trajectories, p. 56. But in a way similar to that of James Swan's blog, Walther demonstrates that the fraudulent assertions of Germany's famous theologians, the neo-Lutherans, are false and misleading. In one particular post of Mr. Swan, on A. C. Piepkorn, I may be allowed to quote him:

"one defender of Rome ...thinks simply doing a scholarly head count ... is the means of determining Luther's view. This isn't my way of determining truth."

This comes from one who claims the Reformed persuasion but actually demonstrates that "All Reformed sects... were first Lutheran". May the work of James Swan continue where he exposes the myths against Luther! 

In the next Part 6, Walther introduces his extensive quotes of Luther with a few "short bursts" of Luther to get the quick overview of the Reformer. Luther is not hard to figure out, except for unbelieving scholars...