JCWL 8: equivocators, accommodators, naysayers – "let history speak"; Pasche's praise

      This concludes from Part 7 (Table of Contents in Part 1), an 8-part series presenting an English translation of J. C. W. Lindemann's 1873 article "Copernicus and the Lutheran theologians." — This segment was very sad for me as Lindemann documents the weak Lutherans who began to allow the truth of the Bible to be questioned, even discarded, nay, more than that, some gloried in their shame of practically ridiculing Bible truth.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Excerpt from Evangelisch-Lutherisches Schulblatt, vol. 8 (1873) pp. 65-74, 107-116; translation by BackToLuther; all highlighting, red text in [] square brackets, images, and hyperlinks are mine, underlining in original.

Copernicus and the Lutheran theologians.

[by J. C. W. Lindemann, Part 8 of 8, pp. 114-116]

Now, of course, it cannot be denied that other Lutheran theologians have spoken very doubtfully and did not want to spoil it either with Copernicus or with the Bible; but these all belong to the time when people began to remove or at least hide the contradiction between false science and the Bible by twisting and interpreting, by “accommodation” and “proper explanation”. Yes, the closer to our time, the more servants of the Word are found who consider it a shame to contradict anti-God science . The light of the latter, which is of course not seen, but only boldly and brazenly claimed, has blinded them, and they now do not know where to turn, or they throw themselves into the arms of "science", especially because of progress to be part of the time and not to get into discredit with the “educated”.

Starke: equivocator

The uncertainties include e.g. Christoph Starke, who in his Synopsis puts both opinions next to one another without explicitly deciding on one. — The publishers of the Hirschberger Bible (1756 [1765 SLUB online; 1926, Fuerbringer Foreword], Ehrenfried Liebich and Dr. Joh. Fried. Burg) are very similar [German text with comments, see note (g)]. — Daniel Schneider [?; pic; DNB] appears in his Biblical Lexicon (1728) as a determined Copernican.

The newer generation of theologians has already largely absorbed the Copernican worldview as mother’s milk; and there are very few who have become so familiar with the matter in question that they can have an independent judgment. Oh, many, without their wanting or intending to, betray the sanctuary to their enemies and invite them to devastate their way into the open gate of the church.

Luthardt:
"Copernican system is Truth"

Also Prof. C. E. Luthardt says in his “Apologetic Lectures” (5th ed. 1867, p. 65) [6th edition 1868 here] [page 114-115]: 

“The Copernican system is Truth and a triumph of the spirit!”

And he does so after having recently put the words into the mouth of the enemies of Christianity: 

“Astronomy is the refutation of Christianity. The Copernican system has made the Christian worldview absolutely impossible, and the more recent discoveries have only completed this judgment.” 

Every Christian should weep when he reads what Luthardt sees in this completely baseless accusation, and when he finally has to see that this Lutheran theologian is giving up his Word of God, his Bible, in order to make a system as “truth” and as a “triumph of the Spirit” whose expert defenders have not yet provided any proof of the unmistakable correctness of it! What good does it do to defend the walls of the Church if you leave the gate open through which all of the newer anti-Biblical worldview has crept in!

Prof. Dr. v. Zezschwitz is also a Copernican; but he pretty much avoids the popular theory, feeling that it cannot be held against the Bible. However, in his Apology of Christianity (Leipzig 1866, p. 175), he says: “This honorary position of man stands and falls, it seems, with the privileged position of the small Earth over all other countless and immeasurably larger world bodies.” He too has lost the firm ground in this. While the Copernican astronomers only claim, with an appearance of truth, that the Sun and a number of planets are larger than the Earth, but that they know nothing about the size of all fixed stars; yet a doctor of sacred theology admits that the “immeasurably larger world bodies” are “countless”! How terrifying is this respect for completely unproven but boldly claimed astronomical hypotheses! [While us moderns may smile at this section, yet Lindemann is entirely correct in his point in that at his point in time of astronomical knowledge… the claim was indeed “completely unproven”! … yet a theologian would go beyond scientific knowledge in his statement… to please the scientists?]

If that can happen in the Lutheran Church, in the Church that only wants to stand on the rock of the Word that came from God's mouth, then you can’t be surprised if it doesn’t look any better for the United [United Church; “Prussion Union”, so called "Evangelical"]. [Otto von] Gerlach is a determined Copernican in his Bible work! [see his annotated Die Heilige Schrift, v. , p 17, translated text here; Gerlach also attacked Luther’s translation of Genesis 4:1 here, translated footnote 1 here] 

Dr. [Johann Heinrich] Kurtz (🔗) strives to bring Bible and Astronomy in line. [1853; English 1857 translation here (🔗); Cornell University, Andrew Dickson White’s institution, helped sponsor an online version here] For this purpose he wrote his own work, from which one can see quite clearly how futile his work is, how eternally incompatible the two are. But the willing reader rightly understands: It is about the astronomy of Copernicus, not about the real one based on observation.

In closing this essay, how imperfectly it has turned out, and how little it sufficiently serves its purpose. [Dear Lindemann, how wrong you are!!] But it was necessary to let history speak about this matter because the opinion is [page 116] widespread, as if the Lutheran theologians had before long gathered themselves together and turned to the modern worldview. As far as we know, there is no similar older work that we could have used. The present is, therefore, only a first attempt, the inadequacy of which the reader would kindly excuse, due to the limited time and resources at hand.

= = = = = = = = =  End of essay  = = = = = = = = = =

      Dear Lindemann, how wrong you are!!  Your essay is far from imperfect, it is a masterpiece in true Church History, and Walther's praise of your pamphlet in the same year, 1873, confirms how highly your name is to be held in the true Lutheran Church for today... as you weep for your Church that strayed from the Reformer and the Reformation, a Reformation that based its whole theology on the absolute truth of Holy Scripture.  – Yes, dear Lindemann, I weep with you for our dear Lutheran Church that is abandoning its heritage as the Church of the Bible. —

Lindemann and Pasche
2 great lights in OLD Missouri

      Pastor F. E. Pasche, in his book Die Bibel und Astronomie, p 116 fn 1, credits Lindemann's essay for his own listing of Lutherans (translated):

"We owe most of the above quotations to this quite excellent article by the highly gifted man of God who is strong in faith."

      I must add one more post to this series, as I have largely refrained from polemics against today's LC-MS so as to not disturb Lindemann's great essay.  I must laugh at today's teachers of the LC-MS who essentially repudiate the true Lutherans of "Lindemann's List"… in the following Postscript.