This continues from Part 9 (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. — From a defense against von Hofmann's theology, Walther then proceeds with These II and III. The first of these explains exactly what a true "prophet" is that is named in Ephesians 2:20: "the foundation of the apostles and prophets"? Then we see Luther refuting those who would practically ridicule Holy Scripture on its seemingly insignificant matters. It is not to forget that all of these quotes are from Luther, and were hand-picked by Walther.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Translation by BackToLuther; all highlighted text, text in square brackets [] and in red font are my additions. Underlining follows Walther.
(continued from Part 9)
Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32, February, p. 39-42: "Foreword" by C.F.W. Walther
(continued from Part 9)
Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32, February, p. 39-42: "Foreword" by C.F.W. Walther
II. There is a specific difference between a prophet in the true sense and a worldly and indirectly enlightened pure teacher.
“The wise heathen Plato boasts highly of the heathen poet Homer’s verse and sayings, wherein he calls him Minos (who gave to Crete their rights and laws) and is called ‘a listener of the idol of Jupiter’. But we do not give such a high name to the Holy Prophets (page 40) and with truth. For they do not bring what they well conceived and breathed, but what they heard of God Himself, who, having created all things, had shown and revealed to them through either dreams or visions, and they reveal it to us, Numbers 12:6. . . So are therefore proper listeners of God. For the eternal almighty God, the Spirit of God governs their hearts and tongues.” (Second Exposition of the Prophet Joel, 1545. VI, 2169. f. § 2 [StL 6, 1492?; NOT IN LW 18, p. 79 f. or LW 35, 318-319; WA 13, 88?]) (page 41)
“One is called a prophet because his understanding of God comes from the Holy Spirit who has without means put in his mouth the Word. For He is the source, and they have no other master than God, 1 Cor. 14:1-2. No one can make a prophet through man’s preaching and doctrine, 2 Peter 1:21, and whether it is identical to the Word of God, and whether I preach the Word of God in the purest sense, so I yet can make no prophet; I can make a wise and understanding man. So in Matthew 23:34 they are called ‘wise men’, who drew doctrine from the prophets, for God speaks through people and not without means; but they are not ‘prophets’, the ones who have the doctrine of God without any means. So it is here [Ex. 7:1] said that: ‘Aaron shall be thy prophet’; just as I, God, also make prophets without any means when I speak to them; therefore you are god and Aaron is the prophet, because he should learn from you without means, as you have learned from me.” (Exposition of several Chapters of Exodus, Preached at Wittenberg, 1524 -1526 III, 1172, § 21; [StL 3, 785 § 21; NOT in LW])
On the words of David: “The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue” (2 Sam. 23:2), Luther notes : “What a glorious and arrogant arrogance it is for anyone to dare to boast that the Spirit of the Lord speaks through him and that his tongue is voicing the Word of the Holy Spirit! He must obviously be sure of his ground. David, the son of Jesse, born in sin, is not such a man, but it is he who has been called to be a prophet by the promise of God. Should he who has such a Teacher to instruct him and to speak through him not be able to compose “sweet” psalms? “Let him who has ears to hear, hear! My speech is really not mine, but he who hears me hears God, and he who despises me despises God (cf. Luke 10:16). For I foresee that many of my descendants will not give ear to my word, and that will redound to their great detriment.” Neither we nor anyone else who is not a prophet may lay claim to such honor. But we may do this as far as we are holy and possess the Holy Spirit, namely, in that we can boast of being catechumens and pupils of the apostles, in that we repeat and preach what we have heard and learned from the prophets and apostles and are convinced that the prophets taught this. In the Old Testament such people are called “sons of the prophets.” They do not promulgate anything of their own or proclaim anything new, as the prophets do, but they teach what they have received from the prophets.” (“Exposition of Last Words of David” 2 Sam. 23:1-7, III, 2797. f. § 10 [StL 3, 1890, § 10; LW 15, p. 275])
III. In the Holy Scriptures, nothing is in vain.
“Wherever in Scripture you find God speaking about God, as if there were two persons, you may boldly assume that three Persons of the Godhead are there indicated. Thus in the passage under discussion we hear the Lord say that the Lord will build a house for David (1 Chron. 18:10 ff.). [page 42] Likewise we read in Gen. 19:24: ‘Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.’ For the Holy Spirit is no fool or drunkard, who would speak one iota, much less a word, in vain.” (Exposition of Last Words of David 2 Sam. 23:1-7, III, 2804. f. § 19 [StL 3, 1895, § 19; LW 15, p. 280].)
According to the spiritual interpretation of the words: “Let this be enough of our rambling for this time. It has shown us how not a single tittle in Scripture is written for nothing, and how the dear fathers of old with their faith have provided us with examples, and how they, with their works, always pointed out what we are to believe, namely, Christ and his gospel. Hence nothing concerning them is read in vain: rather everything concerning them strengthens and improves our faith.” (Church Postille on the Gospel for the Sunday after Christmas Day, 1521. XI, 373, § 93; [StL 11, 271, § 93; LW 52, p. 138])
“If they [Jews and Turks] now rap on the Scriptures saying there is one God, so let us rap thereon in turn, since the Scriptures indicate just as strongly that in this one God there are more than one. Our scriptural texts are as valid as theirs, because there is not a superfluous letter in the Scriptures.” (The Three Symbols, 1538. X, 1229. § 39 [StL 10, 1018 § 39; LW 34, 227)
= = = = = = = = = = continued in Part 11 = = = = = = = = = = =I spent a large amount of time not only translating, but also compiling the existing English translations of Luther available in the American Edition of Luther's Works (LW). But even more, I determined to provide hyperlinks to all available resources online so that readers may easily see and check for themselves the sources Walther used. Because I do not consider the Weimar Ausgabe (or WA or Weimar edition) of Luther's works so highly, I did not take the time to include links to it except in rare cases to double check a Latin version. Far too much credence is given to the WA at the expense of the St. Louis edition, W2. Too bad for the moderns. If there was any significant difference between the Latin original writing and the German edition translation, then Walther would point this out (W1-Müller edition). But there was only one instance, in Part 5, where Walther did this.
In the next Part 11, Walther covers Luther's statements showing his absolute support of... inerrancy.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Becker and Pelikan's “influenced thinking”
Prof. Matthew Becker (Valparaiso Univ.), in a forthright way, admits in his 2005/2013 "Daystar Journal" essay "Holy Scripture in the Thought of Martin Luther" (Archive) that he was "influenced" in his thinking by several theologians including (footnote #6): Bayer, Bluhm, Bornkamm, Gritsch, Ebeling, Gerrish, Pelikan, and Schroeder. Typical of modern theologians is the practice of finding hidden meaning behind what Luther says. They do not advise their readers to take Luther as he reads. One finds the following phrases as used in Becker's essay: (1) "one must keep in mind... in order to discern more accurately the meaning and implications of any statement he made.", (2) "To understand Luther’s theology properly one must keep the development of his life, his experiences, and his theological and political conflicts in view." – (continued in "Read more »" section below):I invite the reader to form their own opinion of whether Dr. Becker's "influenced thinking" understands Martin Luther... or not. Could it be... that he (and all his sources) uses his erudition to obscure Luther in ever increasingly subtle ways?... hiding behind a misuse of terms as "Heilsgeschichte", "theology of the cross", "cruciform theology of Scripture", etc.?
One of Prof. Becker's sources of wisdom is Prof. Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan († 2006), the General Editor of the American Edition of Luther's Works. In 1952 Pelikan wrote an article for a German theological journal (Archive; German text) in which he stated (p. 251 col. 3, translated into English, emphasis mine)“The reawakening of confessional consciousness in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was so unknown to them [Missouri Synod?] that the Jubilee edition of the Book of Concord of 1930 was not to be found [nicht zu finden] in many theological libraries of Lutheran institutions [Missouri Synod?] that accused German Lutheranism of neglecting the Confessions.” (German text)The 1930 "Jubilee edition" is commonly referred to today as the BSLK – Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch- lutherischen Kirche, the latest and much touted German edition of the Lutheran Confessions. Pelikan's comment intended to make the Missouri Synod Lutherans appear insensitive to what has been termed a Luther Renaissance in Germany. Although I wonder that Franz Pieper would have likely promoted the procurement of the German Jubilee 1930 edition, yet Pelikan's intended criticism of American Lutherans, his "not to be found" comment, may be met with Walther's response that not one noted German Lutheran theologian protested the bold proclamation of "the Bible contains errors".
Some questions...
- Are Becker and Pelikan suggesting that Lutheran "confessional consciousness" means proclaiming "the Bible contains errors"? If so, where would one find that in the Book of Concord?
- Another question regarding Pelikan, the renowned scholar and polyglot, was whether he had actually read Lehre und Wehre where there were monthly reports about church conditions in Germany and Europe and around the world. The scholar that he was, I would find it hard to believe that Pelikan had not done this, making it appear that he was actually promoting a fiction about his own "Missouri Synod"... maybe the same fiction typical of his spiritual (mis)understanding of Martin Luther?
- When Pelikan left Lutheranism, was he being honest with himself and the world that he was never really Lutheran? ... that all the promotion that he was a defender of Lutheranism was in error?
- Since Pelikan finally formally left Lutheranism, why does Prof. Matthew Becker not also leave Lutheranism like his mentor? If he is not inclined to do so, is Becker suggesting that Pelikan was wrong in his decision to leave Lutheranism?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.