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

[2019-02-18: added note in red below on 1st publication]
     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: [2019-02-18: this essay apparently was prepared at Concordia Seminary and a copy is apparently available at their library]

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" (WayBk).)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

      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 letters. OK, 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.]

If "yes", then perhaps now you should add Dr. Robert Kolb to your list of well-known LCMS theologians who are in error on "Inspiration". Dr Kolb, in a 2007 book, openly teaches against using the word "inerrant" when teaching "Inspiration", just like Piepkorn, Schroeder and C.S. Meyer.  Were you not aware of Kolb's position?  Can Dr. Kolb truly honor Walther while explicitly denying the word "Inerrancy" for Holy Scripture?

— Dr. Kolb was your co-author of the "Preface" to the book Soli Deo Gloria: Essays on C.F.W. Walther, In Memory of August R. Suelflow (CPH 2000, Amazon, Abebooks).  The book's back cover calls Walther a "brother in the faith", not "father in the faith" and does not use the words "In Honor Of Walther" in the title. Did you not notice that Dr. Kolb practically patronizes Walther in his numerous veiled criticisms of his teaching?  On pages 51-52, he starts his sentences with "Walther barely mentioned...", "Walther's equivocal assessment...", "Walther's view oversimplified...", etc.. Kolb casts aspersions (p. 60) on Walther's historical scholarship by essentially calling his account of "Brenz was fed by a hen" a fanciful story.
— Dr. Kolb's joint 2008 book with Prof. Charles Arand, The Genius of Luther, offers nothing of Luther's teaching on Scripture that Walther cites as part of Luther's "genius". Kolb speaks much of "flesh" and "enfleshed", but does not mention "inspiration" nor "inerrancy". 

• Prof. Manteufel – is there really any difference between Kolb's teaching and Schroeder's teaching that you defended against?  Is Dr. Kolb truly honoring Luther's Reformation?  
• Prof. Manteufel – are you a "Missouri Synod" Lutheran or are you an "LCMS" Lutheran?  Maybe you might call yourself a LCMS/CHI Lutheran? — 
• Prof. Manteufel – since you defend "Universal Justification", how is it that the 1974 CTCR report "A Review of the 1965 Mission Affirmations" (adopted at 1975 Synod, p 472 ff, Archive) makes no attempt to properly defend the teaching of "a universal redemption" in the Mission Affirmations II (p. 5)?  The major thrust of this report is to defend against "universalism" (the same as Larry Darby's book) without defending either "Universal Justification" or "universal redemption". Maybe your LC-MS does not consider "Universal Justification/Redemption" to be a defensible doctrine?... that "universalism" was the only error of the "moderates"? (Who wrote that report?)

Prof. Manteufel!  I am going to repeat my warning that I gave you 20+ years ago, but this time I want to use a writing of yours that touched on fellowship when there are differences in doctrine. In your 2002 book review (Concordia Journal, 2002, pp. 64-71), you quote clear testimony from the old (German) Missouri Synod regarding this issue (p. 69, emphasis mine)

“In 1881 the Thirteen Theses on Election were adopted as the synod’s position, though six voted against it. ... The point could have even been made even more forcefully by quoting another part of the minutes: ‘By this (voting) it will also be exposed whether those who reject the doctrine presented in our publications are a small number, who then as a result would have to leave our household, or whether we, who confess the correct doctrine of the election of grace, find ourselves in the minority, as a result of which we then would have to move out of what has been our synodical household up to this time’” (Synodal-Bericht, 32 [German text]).

Prof. Manteufel – Are you a "Waltherian" or are you "LC-MS"?  As you quoted this passage, I believe it was Walther's own words that stated that he would "move out" of "our synodical household".  

Let the reader judge! ... whether a church body, that not only tolerates unLutheran teaching but publicly teaches false doctrine, is truly the "Missouri Synod"... or not.  
In the next Part 13...