= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Text preparation and translation by BackToLuther using DeepL, Google Translate, Microsoft Translate, Yandex Translate. All bold text is Pieper's emphasis. All highlighting, red text, and most text in square brackets [ ] is mine.
The Foundation of the Christian Faith.
Luther is the personified type of the proper “experience theologian”. He advises every Christian and every theologian that “one should think about the letters [of Scripture], how to hold one's fist to a tree or a wall, so that we do not glide or flutter too far, and go astray with one's own thoughts. That is lacking in our enthusiasts, that they think, when they drive into their high spiritual thoughts, they have met it, and do not see how they go the wrong way without the Word, letting vain false wisps seduce them”.
In the same sermon, Luther declares all to be bad psychologists who do not know the erratic and torn nature of the human heart corrupted by sin, if they gain the courage to even think about spiritual things without a word of Scripture. Luther cites as an example what was reported about Saint Bernard.
“This I must speak of as an example, as one reads of St. Bernard, who had tried such and complained for a time to a good friend that he would be angry to pray aright, and could not pray one ‘Our Father’ without strange hazards. The friend took this very much meaning that that would take no art or work at all. St. Bernard bet with him that he should try, and that he would wager a good stallion, only that he should tell him [immediately confess honestly if other thoughts occurred to him while praying]. He figured to do it without any effort and began to pray: 'Our Father' etc.; but before he got beyond the first petition, it occurred to him that if he gained the horse, whether he also had saddle and bridle for it. In short, he comes so far with thoughts that he soon had to let go and give St. Bernard the win. In short, if you can speak the Lord's Prayer without some other thoughts, I will think of you as a master; I cannot; yes, I will be glad if I think of thoughts that they will fall away again as they have come. I say this because one does not chatter over such texts like the raw spirits, but learns why we need such an outward Word and manner, namely that one holds the heart together with it, that it is not scattered.”
“So pitifully torn is the thing about man's heart; it goes, weaves, and wobbles, that no wind nor water is so movable.” In view of this fact, Luther calls it an “insanity” if we ourselves abandon [page 254] the outer Word of Scripture as the only foundation of the Christian faith. (St. L.VIII, 787 ff. [not in old series Am. Ed.]) Luther comments on John 17:8, “For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me” etc. the following:
“Behold how Christ speaks clearly of the outward verbal Word, by the bodily voice, spoken by Christ, and put into the ears, that no one should heed it as little or unnecessary; how many now mad spirits deceive themselves, and think that God must travel with them in a special way, by the secret revelation of the Spirit, etc. [to this belong also the modern theologians who speak of an experience of God and Christ without the means of grace] and thus lead themselves from God and Christ to the devil.”
With regard to the opposite proper method, according to which only “Christ's Word” is allowed to be the foundation of faith, Luther adds:
“Now I know that I have a gracious, kind Father in heaven, who through inexpressible, cordial love and goodness has sent and given me his dear Son, Christ, with all that He has acquired and directed, that I may fear neither sin nor death nor devil. Only, that one should abide by the word, and reject all other thoughts, and hear not other things of God, nor know without what Christ speaketh. For as I have always said, this is the single way to deal with God, that one should not tarnish, and the right step or bridge, on which one should go to heaven, that one should remain here and cling to this flesh and blood [to Christ as Deus incarnatus], yes, to the Words and letters that go from his mouth, whereby He leads us up to the Father in the finest way, that we may find and feel no wrath nor terrible image, but pure comfort, joy, and peace.”
Let us repeat once again: Luther, with his clinging to the outer Word and the means of grace as the foundation of the faith, is the proper, normal “experience theologian” over against all old and modern enthusiasm. May all also listen to the Reformer of the Church sent by God on this matter!
 |
| Rudolf Kögel vs. Friedrich Julius Stahl |
From the different positions on the means of grace we can see the fundamental difference between Luther's Reformation and the Reformation which Zwingli and Calvin set in motion and continued alongside and against Luther. Rudolf Kögel judged harshly in his judgment against the lawyer Dr. [Friedrich Julius] Stahl, 83) because Stahl claimed in his paper “The Lutheran Church and the Union” that there is an irreconcilable contradiction between the Lutheran and the Reformed Church, and also justified this irreconcilable contradiction with the fact “that the Lutheran Church believes in the bestowal of grace by means and tools and draws comfort from it,
--------------
83) RE.2 XIV, 579-590. About [Friedrich Julius] Stahl see also L. u. W. 6, 141 ff. [“The Lutheran Church and the Union”; on Stahl see German Wikipedia; Jewish Encyclopedia]
the Reformed Church denies it.” [see LuW p. 144] On other points, Stahl did not see clearly concerning “church and state” and “church and union”. [see LuW essay; this holds for Stahl’s follower Peter Drucker] But in this point the “theological dilettante”, as Stahl was well known to be, is right against the “theologian” Kögel that the opposite position on the means of grace implies a difference which makes a doctrinal union or confessional union between the Lutheran and the Reformed Church impossible.
 |
| "Holy Spirit needs no 'vehicle'" |
Let us once again look back at the contrast between Zwingli and Calvin, on the one hand, and Luther, on the other, in their position in relation to the means of grace that opposed us. According to Zwingli and Calvin, the Holy Spirit has no necessary “vehicle”, that is, no means of grace. According to Luther, the Holy Spirit comes only through the means of grace. Accordingly, we found in Zwingli and Calvin the explicit admonition not to want to judge from God's gracious attitude toward us men from the external Word or even from the sacraments, from baptism and the Lord's Supper, on the grounds that these external things do not bring grace and spirit (advehunt).
With Luther, on the other hand, we found the opposite instruction, namely the constant admonition to flee to the objective means of grace, on the grounds that the Holy Spirit brings God's grace only through these external means ordered by God and works and maintains faith in grace. Stahl rightly reminds us that not both can be true: the gift of grace without means and the gift of grace only by means: “It can only be either that is truth and that is error or vice versa”.
The Scriptures, as we saw, decide very clearly that the truth is found on Luther's side, while Zwingli and Calvin represent the error. And this Zwinglian-Calvinist error is not located on the periphery, but is of central and far-reaching [radical? Franzmann’s “radical Gospel”? Franzmann resorts to terminology of “enthusiasm”] importance. It means nothing less than an actual reversal of the house rules in God's kingdom of grace here on earth. God wants to offer and appropriate his grace to the sinner through the external means ordered by Him. Zwingli and Calvin together with their appendages to our time reject this method as the majesty of God, are not decent and are harmful to the sinner. This principled rebellion against the divine house rules includes the apostasy from the Christian doctrine of grace, the apostasy from the divine justification by faith without works, and the return to the Papist doctrine of works.
Luther rightly says: 84) “The enthusiasts do not take away the confidence of works, but strengthen the works even more and leave the confidence in them.” Why is Luther's judgment correct? We must not let the real situation be obscured by the fact that the enthusiasts often and much use the word “grace”.
---------------
= = = = = = = = = = continued in Part 16 = = = = = = = = = =
Pieper's praise of the German statesman Julius Stahl reveals a notable man with far-reaching effects even for today. How refreshing to note that a converted Jew became a defender of the Lutheran "Means of Grace". But Pieper also cautions that Stahl "did not see clearly concerning 'church and state' and 'church and union'." The Swedish theologian Bengt Hägglund, in his History of Theology, p. 364 only notes Stahl's "legal basis" for a "new concept of the church", and sadly does not emphasize Stahl's praiseworthy defense of the Lutheran doctrine of the "Means of Grace"… too bad. More will be said of Julius Stahl in the future Part 17. — In the next Part 16…
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.