- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Translation by BackToLuther; all highlighted text, text in square brackets and in red font are my additions. Underlining follows Walther.
(continued from Part 12)
(continued from Part 12)
Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32, March, p. 67-69 "Foreword" by C.F.W. Walther
VII. The simplistic presentation peculiar to Scripture, and the description therein of minor things, God himself has the Holy Spirit as author.
“I beg and faithfully warn every pious Christian not to stumble at the simplicity of the language and the stories that will often meet him there. He should not doubt that however simple they may seem, these are the very words, works, judgments, and deeds of the high majesty, power, and wisdom of God; for this is Scripture, and it makes fools of all the wise and prudent, and stands open to the small and foolish, as Christ says, in Matthew 11:25. Therefore let your own thoughts and feelings go, and think of the Scriptures as the loftiest and noblest of holy things, as the richest of mines, which can never be worked out, so that you may find the wisdom of God that He lays before you in such foolish and simple guise, in order that he may quench all pride. Here you will find the swaddling-clothes and the manger in which Christ lies, and to which the angel points the shepherds, Luke 2:12. Simple and little are the swaddling-clothes, but dear is the treasure, Christ, that lies in them.” (Preface to the Old Testament, 1523. XIV, 3, § 3 [sic p. 2; StL 14, 3-4, § 3; LW 35, p. 236]) [McLaughlin’s translation from his essay on Inspiration is used.]
“Genesis 24:22: ‘And it came to pass, as the camels had done drinking, that the man took a golden earring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her hands of ten shekels weight of gold.’ What is related in this passage seems completely carnal and worldly to reason, and I myself wonder why Moses has so much to say about such unimportant matters when above he has been very concise in the case of matters that are far more sublime. There is no doubt, however, that the Holy Spirit wanted these things to be written and to stand out for our instruction; for in Holy Scripture nothing unimportant is put before us, and nothing unprofitable. But “whatever was written … was written for our instruction” (Rom. 15:4). God wants to be acknowledged in all things…. Therefore let us hear the nuptial song as an example for young people, in order that they may learn to have honorable sentiments about marriage and both sexes, matters that are disparaged among the heathen, as can be observed in the Greek and Latin poets; for young people consider solely the flesh and thus insult God the Creator. We should put the text of Holy Scripture before their eyes.… Here the Holy Spirit adorns the bride in a wonderful way, as though nothing else were left for Him to concern Himself about or to teach.” (Genesis, 1536 ff., I, 2563 f. § 215-216, 217 . 1568 § 215, 2567 § 223 [StL 1, 1711 f., 1714 § 215-216, 223 f., LW 4, p. 274, 276)
“Genesis 44:1-2: ‘And he commanded the steward of his house, saying, Fill the men's sacks with food, as much as they can carry, and (page 68) put every man's money in his sack's mouth. And put my cup, the silver cup, in the sack's mouth of the youngest, and his corn money. And he did according to the word that Joseph had spoken.' I have often pointed out, and it must always be inculcated, that the Holy Spirit records humorous and inconsequential matters about such great patriarchs, whereas He could choose very weighty and sacred subjects like those He surely sprinkles at times into the accounts of the saintly fathers. An ignorant and carnal reader, who thinks that those matters are of no importance, is easily offended and is surprised that they are read in the church of God and that the Holy Spirit wastes time and effort in relating such nonsense. Why does He not set forth the wonderful stories of monastic fastings and the stoical and Spartan austerity of iron men, as the Carthusians want to be regarded? As though there could be important doctrine in ludicrous and worthless things! They also dispute whether this game which Joseph plays is pleasing to God or what impelled and inspired him to do so. Whereupon I reply that this is done by Joseph and recorded by the Holy Spirit in order that we might learn the right way to live before God, etc.” (A.a.O. II, 2386-88,§ 1-2 [StL 2, 1624-1625 § 1-2, LW 7, p 354).
VIII. Even where the Scriptures report on sexual matters which are offensive to the natural sentiment, the Holy Spirit himself is the correspondent.
Referring to the story of Judah's incest with Tamar, Luther writes: “The care with which the Holy Spirit describes such a shameful and repulsive account is wonderful. … Why did the completely clean mouth of the Holy Spirit lower itself to the basest and most ignoble matters, yes, to matters that are even repulsive, filthy, and subject to damnation, as though these things were particularly profitable for the instruction of the church of God? What has the church to do with this? I reply as before. These things are mentioned for the sake of Christ, who is described throughout all Holy Scripture as our blood relative, our brother, etc. … . … And here the Holy Spirit descends with His completely pure mouth and speaks even about that filth of sin and horrible incest.” (A.A.O. II, 1759 § 96. 1761, § 100 [StL 2, 1200 § 96, 1201-2 § 100, LW 7 p 35-36 – on Gen. 38:19])
About the narrative of the birth of Perez and Zerah in Gen. 38:27-30, (page 69) Luther writes: “I have said before: we must make our own preface and gloss before any chapter; because we are so delicate that we do not suffer to mention nor yet to hear of human birth, and yet have driven along with this, that is horrible to say. It is true that this is a roughly crude chapter; now it is yet written in the Holy Scriptures and written by the Holy Spirit who has so much more pure a tongue and mouth than we do, that I can not therefore then illuminate it more. Has anyone a clearer mouth and ears than He, there one may stand; if He did not shy away nor write shamelessly, let us not be ashamed to read and hear. Would to God, we should have kept discipline and shame, as we should hold to them, and avoided fornication, wherever one should!, but we turned it into only an appearance. Where we needed to say something, we have remained silent, but much aggravated, over and over again. The Holy Ghost knows well what He has done, so He also speaks of his creature as it is. … Now this history of Moses is described lucidly and coarsely, so open your eyes and consider, that it has taken place for us for doctrine by the Holy Ghost, etc. "(Sermons on the Book of Genesis, 1527. III, 842 ff., § 1-3 [sic – not 342, but 842] [StL 3, 559-560 §1-3; not in LW)
= = = = = = = = = = continued in Part 14 = = = = = = = = = = = |
| Edward H. Schroeder |
Prof. Ed. Schroeder is rather well-known as one of the defenders against the charge of so-called "Gospel reductionism" of the St. Louis faculty majority (or "Moderates") in the 1960s and 1970s. In his well-publicized 1972 CTM essay "Law-Gospel Reductionism in the History of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod" he attempted to use Walther's teaching of "Law-Gospel" against a high view of Holy Scripture (see Manteufel's essay, note #46). Six years earlier, the same Prof. Schroeder published an essay in which he defended the new teaching of the majority of teachers at Concordia Seminary, the so-called "moderates". In the 1966 CPH book The Lively Function of the Gospel; essays in honor of Richard R. Caemmerer, Schroeder's essay “Is there a Lutheran Hermeneutics?” in the same way attempted this time to use Martin Luther in his defense (p. 86, emphases mine):
“1. Sola Scriptura: Although this expression is surely one which Luther would have accepted, it achieved greatest prominence among the second-generation Lutherans in their conflicts with the Roman assertion (publicized at Trent) about Scripture and tradition. What did the Lutherans mean with sola scriptura? Did they want to say that this is the only valid source of doctrine because it is the only inspired source? For Luther at least that was surely not the case. It is not the special inspiration of the Scriptures but the necessity of preaching solus Christus which makes him say sola scriptura.”Schroeder's reference to "second-generation Lutherans" has the same object as Walther's references to Calov and Quenstedt (see Part 4). One may note Schroeder's use of the word "surely" in his assertion about Luther. It is as if to say that one should accept Schroeder's assertion because of his great knowledge of Luther and Lutheranism.
 |
| "Still All About JESUS"?… but not sola scriptura. |
===>>> May the reader judge!... from Walther's citations from Martin Luther's own words whether Prof. Schroeder's assertion (and that of almost all of today's LCMS seminary teachers) about Luther's position is "surely" correct... or whether it is fiction.
In the next Part 14...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.