2 judgments of Walther: Mayes faults Walther, again (on Gerhard's terminology)

      This post is an excursus to Hochstetter's History Chapter 12 (Part 16) dealing with the so-called Predestinarian Controversy, and Walther's pivotal role in it.

Pastor Eissfeldt's 1931 testimony for Walther

      To add to Pastor Hochstetter's testimony of Walther's theological skills in discussions with the opposing members of the Iowa and Ohio Synods, I would add a quote from a 1931 writing published in CHIQ (CTS-FW Media) from a pastor who knew Walther intimately, Pastor Carl Eissfeldt [lutheranmuseum.com; Find-A-Grave; DL30 (1880), p. 52-53]. Much more will be said about this short essay in a future blog, but for now, let us hear his judgment of Walther's theological ability (emphasis mine):

"Already in my younger years I had occasion to admire Dr. Walther’s patience in dealing with his opponents. His firmness and tenacity in clinging to the clear doctrine of the Word of God was matched by his remarkable patience with such as were still caught in the meshes of false doctrine. This trait of Walther’s struck me already in the days of my childhood on the occasion of the Iowa Colloquium in November of the year 1867.… To the memories of Walther indelibly impressed on my mind belong also the days when, after the controversy on Predestination had broken out, a conference took place in the seminary of the Wisconsin Synod between representatives of the Synodical Conference and those charging us with Calvinism. Walther and Professor Craemer were guests in my parents’ home on this occasion. Never have I seen Walther so downcast, so depressed in spirit, as in those days. Usually Walther took an active part in the conversation whenever he returned from any synodical meeting. This time he came to our home from every meeting silent, utterly saddened; he took almost no part in the conversation, ate only what my mother urged upon him, and retired early to the solitude of his bed-chamber, where, without doubt, he wrestled in fervent prayer with his God."

Prof. Mayes 2018 judgment against Walther

      Walther's understanding of the Ohio and Iowa Synods, the dogmatists of Lutheran Orthodoxy, and the Formula of Concord in relation to the Doctrine of the Election of Grace is historic.  Much has been written about this, both by Old Missouri and also by the LC-MS.  The two points at issue are firstly that Scripture alone is the norm and rule of theology, and secondly that theological terminology should avoid confusion wherever possible.  Walther masterfully demonstrated his Scriptural theology and his language usage, i.e. the meaning of "instrumental cause", especially in the Predestinarian Controversy — see Hochstetter's footnotes to pages 365-366. So it is with sadness that Prof. Benjamin T. G. Mayes continues his misjudging of Walther's theology in his understanding of the great dogmatist John Gerhard in his "General Editor's Introduction"  to the English translation of Gerhard's writing On Justification Through Faith, (CPH, 2018). Mayes enjoys some support of a conservative LCMS Pastor Joshua Scheer (WB) regarding Mayes' "great work in the name of Lutheran Orthodoxy". But Prof. Mayes says (p. xvi-xvii, emphasis mine):

• Walther "failed to define the terms and imported a different meaning of “instrumental cause” than what was used by Gerhard." [Really? Walther misunderstood theological Latin usage of "instrumental cause"? Did he also "fail" in his judgment of Musaeus on this same term, Hochstetter p. 366?]
• Walther "is wrong on what the Lutheran Orthodox meant by faith as a causa instrumentalis… of justification and why they used this terminology." [Or could it be that Editor Mayes is himself weak on the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification, as he is on a hierarchical doctrine of the Ministry, like Loehe and Grabau?]
• "Walther rejected the idea that faith is a ‘nonprincipal impulsive cause of justification and salvation.’ Gerhard rejected the same idea." [As if Walther was not also aware of this!]

Gottfried Fritschel:
Walther is "a disgrace";
Mayes mentor?

Mayes is overly defensive of Gerhard on this point.  His judgment, while not as harsh, is similar to that of Prof. Gottfried Fritschel of the old Iowa Synod as he, against Walther's judgment of Gerhard's weak terminology, "exclaimed under the mask of pious horror":

“What a gross insult against the Lutheran Church, what a disgrace!” (Hochstetter's History p. 365)

Mayes admits that Gerhard and Walther agree on the chief point at issue.  But Mayes incredibly thinks he understands theological Latin usage better than Walther, and so feels compelled to fault Walther for being over cautious on terminology against Gerhard.  But Walther is the greater theologian than Gerhard on this point for he guards not only the pure doctrine of Justification, he zealously guards the proper terminology that allows no misinterpretation.  And that is exactly how Walther exposed the issue on the usage of the Latin term "intuitu fidei", or "in view of faith" by the Ohio and Iowa Synods. This judgment of Prof. Mayes is like his judgment against Walther in his 2011 CTQ essay. (Sadly Mayes also criticizes the theological judgment of Robert Preus on this same issue.)  Prof. Mayes would do better to just continue getting more translations published, and then just sit at the feet of Walther. No theologian has understood the dogmaticians, the Lutheran Confessions, and proper theological terminology, better than… C.F.W. Walther.

>>>>>>    Luther, Chemnitz,… Walther! (not Gerhard in the Big 3)    <<<<<<< 

===>>> Could it be that CPH luminary Prof. Benjamin T. G. Mayes is in part responsible for the non-publication of Dr. Fred Kramer's English translation of Hochstetter's History by Concordia Publishing House? — In the next post, Part 17, Chapter 13 of Hochstetter's History.