This continues from Part 10 (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. — One of the most hotly contested doctrines in the last 150 years is the inerrancy of Holy Scripture. But just listen to Luther...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Translation by BackToLuther; all highlighted text, text in square brackets and in red font are my additions. Underlining follows Walther.
(continued from Part 10)
(continued from Part 10)
IV. The Scripture is free of error.
“I have stated, that one does not ask how the saints have lived and written, but how the Scriptures indicate that we ought to live. The question is not about what has been done, but about how it is supposed to be done. The saints could err in their writings and sin in their lives, but the Scriptures cannot err.” (“Scripture on the Misuse of the Mass”, 1522. XIX, 1309 § 6 [StL 19, 1072-1073, § 6, LW 36, p 137) [Confessional Lutheran 1960 p. 56 quotes this same passage, Paul Burgdorf- editor]
“This is my answer to those also who accuse me of rejecting all the holy teachers of the church. I do not reject them. But everyone, indeed, knows that at times they have erred, as men will; therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they give me evidence for their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred. This St. Paul bids me to do in 1 Thess. 5:21, where he says, “Test everything; hold fast what is good.” St. Augustine writes to St. Jerome to the same effect, “I have learned to do only those books that are called the holy Scriptures the honor of believing firmly that none of their writers has ever erred. All others I so read as not to hold what they say to be the truth unless they prove it to me by holy Scripture or clear reason.” (“Reason and Cause of all Articles, So Unlawfully Condemned by the Roman Bull”, 1520. XV, 1758 § 16 [StL 15, 1481, § 6, LW 32, p. 11 – NOTE: McLaughlin also quotes this passage in his “Inspiration” essay: “I do not reject them…”]. For the latter saying confessed by Augustine that Luther repeats is in his book “On the Councils and the Church”, 1539. XVI, 2635. f. § 21 [StL 16, 2159 f. § 21, LW 41, 47] (page 43)
In regard to Muhammad's alleged own confession, that what is to be read of him in the Koran is partially in error, Luther writes: “For it will be for me (oh well, for no rational man) that no one will ever persuade me that a man (except that he is an irrational man) should be able to believe with earnestness a book or a writing of which he would be certain that a part (let alone three parts) would be lies; as well he would not know which part would be either true or not true, and so would have to buy it in a bag.” (“Faithful Warning of Mahomet's or the Turk’s Horrible Doctrine and Faith, etc.”, 1542. XX, 2830 f. §2; StL 20, 2274-5 §2; NOT IN LW; [2019-09-22: quoted in Engelder, The Scripture Cannot Be Broken, p. 77.] ) (page 65)
“This is my answer to those also who accuse me of rejecting all the holy teachers of the church. I do not reject them. But everyone, indeed, knows that at times they have erred, as men will; therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they give me evidence for their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred. This St. Paul bids me to do in 1 Thess. 5:21, where he says, “Test everything; hold fast what is good.” St. Augustine writes to St. Jerome to the same effect, “I have learned to do only those books that are called the holy Scriptures the honor of believing firmly that none of their writers has ever erred.” (Defense and Explanation of All Articles, so damned by the Roman Bull, 1520. XV, 1758, §16; [StL 15, 1481,.§16; LW 32, 11]) [Confessional Lutheran 1960, p. 56, quotes this same passage of Luther]
= = = = = = = = = = continued in Part 12 = = = = = = = = = = =
 |
| LCMS Bible? |
Indeed, Luther explicitly taught the "never erred" doctrine (Inerrancy)... over and over again. I had to laugh at his joke that if one really believed that the Bible contained errors (i.e. denied Inerrancy), as with liquor, one would "have to buy it in a bag"! That is a good Luther joke to tell the LCMS teachers who want their members to "believe" the Bible while they explicitly deny or question its inerrancy (e.g. David Scaer here & here).
In Part 7, Walther stated:
 |
| Luther's building blocks, Lutheran builders: Gerhard, Calov, Quenstedt |
“It is true, however, that Luther did not formulate a theory about the doctrine of inspiration anywhere in his writings, and that he never professionally dealt with this doctrine and systematically developed it.”
Walther did not, as Marquart and Preus did, rely on the one explicit expression in the Lutheran Confessions, in Luther's Large Catechism, where Luther stated “all men, may err and deceive, but the Word of God cannot err”. No, Walther admitted that indeed, Luther did not "systematically develop" the doctrine of Inspiration. Now I am certain that Walther was aware of Luther's statement in the Large Catechism. But he did not use that single citation, but rather relied on the preponderance in all of Luther's writings of this teaching. —
Walther is far from finished in developing this thesis. He is going to address several aspects of this doctrine that Scripture is "free from error". In the next Part 12... Walther cites Luther on "no contradictions".
Walther is far from finished in developing this thesis. He is going to address several aspects of this doctrine that Scripture is "free from error". In the next Part 12... Walther cites Luther on "no contradictions".
A Recent German Defender of Inspiration?... or not?
One might wonder that there are no noted teachers in Germany in recent times who even remotely uphold the teaching of Inspiration. But then one discovers books by Gerhard Maier which begin to be a defense. Prof. Eugene Klug praised Maier's earlier book, The End of the Historical-Critical Method (1977, CPH; German original 1974) in which the author clearly seems to defend against this "method". Unfortunately in a later book... (continued in "Read more »" section below)
... one reads in Maier's Biblical Hermeneutics (1994, German original 1990) that the author clearly distanced himself from "orthodox" Lutheranism, even from Luther himself on Inspiration and inerrancy. Some quotes, all emphases are mine:
Maier, with his fine distinctions, essentially denies the Inerrancy of Holy Scripture, and attempts to appear as the Bible's defender by other means. How sad it was for me, and probably Prof. Klug († 2003), that Gerhard Maier was not the great light in modern Germany that he had hoped he was. —- “Luther, on the one hand, reckoned with ‘errors’ in Scripture.” p. 140.
- “We decline to issue a deductive [!] answer to the questions raised. It is not permissible to argue: Because the Bible is God’s word, and because God does not lie, the Bible is without error. We must rather base our answer on what revelation itself states.” p. 143 [2019-03-14: Maier has plenty of support in his position with today's LCMS: (1) CTCR 1963 p. 9 charged the Brief Statement §1 with "deductive procedure"; (2) Dr. Fred Kramer in 1964 (p. 1) stated "inerrancy… a necessary deduction"; (3) Robert Kolb in his Preface to Latvian translation of Mueller-Pieper Christian Dogmatics, p. 8, charged old Missouri with the "Aristotelian method" (deductive method); (4) Samuel Nafzger in his "Holy Scripture" locus in Confessing the Gospel., vol. 2, p. 712, states "It must be conceded that some of them do in fact deduce the inerrancy of Scripture from its divine authorship" [2019-04-27:] (5) Peter Nafzger in his These Are Written: Toward a Cruciform Theology of Scripture, p. 24 says "The logic goes something like this: (a) the Scriptures are authoritative because they are inspired by the Holy Spirit; (b) because they are inspired they are historically true; (c) their authority, therefore, stands or falls with their historical truthfulness." Franz Pieper explicitly denies, in the Brief Statement §1, that Inerrancy is a "theological deduction", but rather is Scriptural.]
- “The word of God... is binding. [i.e. not inerrant?] Jesus states that also during the time of the new covenant, “the Scripture cannot be broken [annulled]” (Jn 10:35; cf. Mt 5:17f.).” p. 143-144.
- “Concepts like “inerrancy” or “infallibility” are not used in the Bible. Still less does it reflect on “errors” or the like.” p. 144.
- “It may appear hazardous to appeal to the goal-oriented nature of the Bible. ... For now let just this be said: if revelation itself and its recognizable purpose be observed, then the alleged or presumedly established errors in Scripture dwindle considerably.” p. 145
- “The Bible is without error in the areas of dynamic and ethical understanding. Second, it is likewise without error in the area of cognitive understanding once we grasp the Bible in light of its divinely ordained purpose.” p. 146
In the next Part 12... Walther cites Luther on "no contradictions".
= = = = = = = = = = 2019-01-21: Addendum – Prof. Fred Kramer = = = = = = = = =
Prof. Fred Kramer authored a faculty study essay in 1964 that offered some indication that the the doctrine of "Inerrancy" was not completely dead in the LC-MS. The essay's title was "The Inerrancy of Scripture: How It Has Been Understood, Attacked, and Defended" and is available on Archive.org here, online hyperlinked text here. There is some weakness in Dr. Kramer's phrasing [see above and below], and that weakness almost overtook him in an essay of 1969. Nevertheless, the 1964 essay may be read with benefit. Kramer concludes:“The Church of today, so it seems to us, must continue to fight the battle in behalf of the Scripture…”[2019-03-15: Dr. Kramer's weakness shows in his first statement of his 1964 essay: "inerrancy … appears always to have been a necessary deduction" denying Pieper's explicit assertion that it was "not a so-called 'theological deduction'".]
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.