Some quotes from Chapter 11: (314-353)
315: On Usury: "the question of whether lending money on interest is sin or not had come to the fore within the Synod… This difference in conviction is, however, not insignificant."
315-316: "…to help the erring… they err out of weakness.…we fight against error with all seriousness."
316: "Nor should we use all sorts of casuistic questions as a principle."
318: "the creditor who is a Christian will not act… according to the strictness of the loan contract"
319: "This is, then, about right and wrong, God's grace and wrath, salvation and damnation, heaven and hell; woe to me if I do something that I am not sure is right in all cases.… the whole world submerged in usury."
320: 25th Anniversary: "25 years of our Synod's preservation with the Word of Truth.… at a time of almost general apostasy from the Lutheran faith…, unity among us, far from papal and unionist tendencies."
322: "how can a preacher have a clear conscience if he himself is not in true repentance"
323: "there will still have to be a hard fight… This word was like a prophecy…"
323: Synodical Conf.: "the different synods, although they use the name 'Lutheran', deviate…"
325: Walther: "A disciple of Luther…, I have stammered everything I have ever publicly spoken and written only after this prophet of the last age of the world.” [i.e. Back To Luther!]
326: "Luther's warning against delusion, as if we must and could preserve the Church through our wisdom"
327: Augsburg Conf.: "one who denies the binding nature is not a true… Lutheran"
328: On the General Council: "…the confession is on paper, but by practice it is rendered null and void."
329: "We cannot recognize any such body which calls itself Lutheran as truly Lutheran.… The position of the General Council is more dangerous than the open rejection of confession."
331: Ohio: "Lehmann… used to accompany Oddfellows, Loy… was a staunch opponent of secret societies"
332: The Missouri Synod "would not be present at this Council until a complete unity of faith and doctrine based on the divine Word had been achieved at free conferences"
333: "the Missourian pastors… were soon taking care of the youth and establishing parish schools."
335: “the Missourians own the kingdom!” [i.e. God blessed America]
336: Synodical Conference: "a lasting blessing for the entire Evangelical Lutheran Church."
343: Ohio Synod: "But now it is obvious that they organized this quick separation church politics"
344: "The enmity against Missouri is so bitter that… they must be branded as Calvinizing."
345: "Walther is said to have been deceived many times in his love. But in this… one spirit with Luther."
346: Ohio: "predestination of the elect to eternal life was made in view of faith"
347: Ohio: "convinced that the doctrine of the dogmatists… was in accordance with the Formula of Concord"
348: "God have mercy on a synod [Ohio] which… yet plants such a faith and confession in its members!"
350: "All the more strictly should we adhere to the doctrine of the Formula of Concord!" [Article 11]
351: "the dogmatists… lost the right way to teach about the eternal and saving Election of Grace," [cp p. 347]
Images of some men appearing in Chapter 11: (314-353)
 |
The following is an English translation of C. Hochstetter's
Usury
Today's LC-MS and most Lutheran teachers no longer teach the Scriptural doctrine of Usury as Franz Pieper did in his original Christliche Dogmatik (see this blog post). Although Dr. Samuel Nafzger indicated that his Confessing the Gospel textbooks are only "updating" Pieper, yet he continued the practice of the English translation of Pieper's work, Christian Dogmatics, by omitting this teaching. But to ignore this doctrine, just because it is controversial, is the same as considering it to be either a "tolerable" error or one that the Church must speak on, thereby placing the Church above Holy Scripture (see p. 316).
Synodical Conference addresses, Justification
How wonderful of Hochstetter to repeat Walther's quote of Luther at the first convention of the Synodical Conference, and also Walther's followup address. — If there is a weakness in Hochstetter's History, I would wish that he had also covered the Theses on Justification discussed at the first Synodical Conference convention in 1872 (see p. 324). Walther himself highlighted this doctrinal essay in his Der Lutheraner announcement. Pastor Hermann Fick did not overlook this fundamental doctrine in his history of Luther, but highlighted it. Hochstetter missed an opportunity here.
Election of Grace
Much more will be said about this conroversial doctrine in the next Chapter 12, which is entirely devoted to this matter. — After the break below, the customary fine print version. — In the next Part 16, Chapter 12.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Full text of Chapter 11 (fine print) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The History of the Missouri Synod, 1838-1884, Chapter 11
By Christian Hochstetter
= = = = = = = = =
The Fourteenth Convention of the General Missouri Synod at Fort Wayne in 1869, where the doctrine of usury was discussed (314). [Theses on Usury presented (316)] The Jubilee Synod in St. Louis in 1872 (319). The founding of the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference in the same year. (323) [First of free conferences, 1856 (323); Thesis 6, confession and practice (327); Thesis 8, contradictions in confession & practice (330); Ohio Synod and secret societies (331); Ohio joins Synodical Conference (336); Ohio agrees to 1877 Missouri doctrine of Election of Grace (337); Prof. Schmidt starts Election Controversy (338)] The Separation of the Ohio Synod [Ohio/Loy in 1881 overturn Election (339);] and the latest doctrinal position of that Synod (345). [Walther’s sharp rebuke (347); Scripture Principle alone (350)] ^
Since to this day the opinion prevails among the United-minded [favoring union of Lutherans and Reformed], as if a faithful adherence to the Confessions, insofar as this is meant above all to be a common agreement to all Lutheran doctrines of faith, must be harmful to the growth and existence of an ecclesiastical association, some people were already waiting at the end of the 1860s for the Missouri Synod to split up and dissolve as a result. After the old Buffalo Synod, whose common bond had been primarily the narrow ministerial constitution and the authority of the senior minister, had disintegrated into its various elements, the opponents of the Missouri Synod believed that there would now be at least a crisis for it, since there was no lack of dangerous signs. For in the Eastern District of the synod, especially in the New York congregation formerly served by Pastor Th. Brohm, a contradiction had arisen against the doctrine of usury, which
315 >
some pastors had joined, and it was therefore considered necessary to make this doctrine the main subject of the doctrinal proceedings when the Fourteenth Convention of the General German Evangelical-Lutheran Synod of Missouri was opened in Fort Wayne, Ind. on September 1, 1869.
The sainted Pastor Brohm elaborated the “Theses on the Question of Usury” [German original, English translation] as the subject of the doctrinal proceedings for these sessions, and it was noted at the outset that for some time now the question of whether lending money on interest is sin or not had come to the fore within the Synod. Some consider only the taking of interest from poor people or the taking of interest exceeding the legal interest rate to be sinful. This difference in conviction is, however, not insignificant. — Some claim that all usury is against love and is therefore forbidden; others say that only usury against love is forbidden. After it was observed that this was not an article of faith, it was further stated that the question at issue was not unimportant, since “on the one hand it is very close to Christian life, and on the other it concerns a doctrine which is clearly contained in Sacred Scripture. No question which God has answered us clearly and unambiguously in His Word can be considered unimportant, much less an ‘open’ question. The command of Eph. 4:3-5 makes it our duty, even in such doctrines, if we do not yet agree, to become ever more united by the grace of God. To this end, love makes it our duty to help the erring. — Moreover, since this very question of taking interest and lending money on interest would be burning on the conscience, one would know that the old Adam would be attacked in a very sensitive way by this doctrine.” Some people who want to act conscientiously are disturbed and oppressed by the doctrine of usury. Although those Christians disagree with us
316 >
on the doctrines of usury, we should consider them as our brothers and treat them as such, for we know that they err out of weakness. — — As decidedly we condemn the theory of “open questions”, so decidedly we condemn the tyranny of consciences. When asked how we differ from the United Church people and from those who profess the theory of the “open questions”, the following answer was given: — — The United Church people claim that for the sake of love one must tolerate certain errors, whereas according to the theory of the open questions it is said: There are certain doctrines which, though expressed in clear words in the Scriptures, are not valid until the Church has spoken. We reject this theory because it puts the Church in the place of Holy Scripture. (See the proceedings of the colloquium with the Iowans). — — As for the doctrine of usury, too, we fight against error with all seriousness, but we are aware that we must not proceed in a stormy and unloving manner.
Furthermore it was noted in § 3: Not the prevailing custom sanctioned by a hundred years of use, not pecuniary advantages or disadvantages, not the sayings and authorities of people, neither those of a Luther or Chemnitz, nor those of an Andreae or Gerhard, but only the Holy Scriptures must be the standard by which we measure this doctrine. Nor should we use all sorts of casuistic questions as a principle, but rather these should be judged and answered according to the principle. After that the discussion of the theses themselves proceeded:
Thesis I.
“The guiding principle which orders and governs the Christian's conduct toward his neighbor is the commandment of charity: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The correct interpretation of this commandment is: Whatever you want people to do to you, do that to them.”
317 >
It was noted that this interpretation is completely false: Love thyself, then love thy neighbor. What a false interpretation is given in the statements: “Everyone is his own neighbor” or “Love begins with oneself”. True love of neighbor does not seek its own, but that of the other person. Phil. 3:4. Love does not do evil to the neighbor, Rom. 13:10; it does not seek harm, 1 Cor. 13:5; love lays down its life for the brethren, 1 John 3:16.
Thesis II.
“This commandment binds Christians not to enter into any contract with their neighbor other than a just contract, that is, one that does not favor one contracting party at the expense of the other.”
Thesis III.
“The usual contract of loan on interest is one by which the creditor leaves to himself not only the reimbursement of the capital but also a profit on the same, but leaves solely to the debtor any possible loss or risk. It goes without saying that the creditor and the debtor also share risk and loss in so far as all earthly goods are subject to risk and loss.”
Thesis IV.
“All earthly property, therefore also money, all successes of human work are uncertain since the fall into sin and are subject to various misfortunes. If these misfortunes are not the rule, they are exceptions to the rule and are not entirely uncommon.”
In this respect, it was noted that if the profit on the debtor's side from the borrowed capital were a certainty, a constant profit, the injustice of demanding interest would cease to exist. But this is simply not the case. — The blessing
318 >
of God cannot be foreseen, predicted or forced by men with certainty. There are unfruitful years, losses through rain, drought, hail, fire, war, evil men, etc. — Such misfortunes are not always the result of carelessness, frivolity, ignorance or laziness, but they often happen to the individual without his fault under God's all-wise decree.
Thesis V.
“All these exceptional cases are not covered by the usual loan contract on interest, and the debtor is obliged to pay them in any case. This is what makes it unjust.”
For example, it has been cited: If a farmer who has borrowed money on interest has lost so much through crop failure that he is unable to pay the principal and interest, he is still obliged under the usual contract to pay both. The creditor's claim is unfair to such a person. So whoever wants to guard against such ruthlessness and injustice, simply write in the contract: If you do not gain anything with my money, then I do not want any profit either. That is all we are demanding.
It has been replied that while the commandment of love stands over the contract of loan, the creditor [sic: German has debtor] who is a Christian will not act with the debtor according to the strictness of the loan contract. He may not do so because love forbids him to do so. To this it was responded: it is wrong for the creditor to ask his debtor to rely on his love (inheritance occurs when the creditor dies, and who knows if he [the heir] will still have love at the time of the event mentioned). — The case is very simple: if it is against love to demand interest in the case mentioned if the customer has not had a profit, it is also against love to conclude a contract according to which the debtor must pay interest in this case as well. Because those exceptions
319 >
are not considered in the usual loan contract, therefore it is an unjust one. This is, then, about right and wrong, God's grace and wrath, salvation and damnation, heaven and hell; woe to me if I do something that I am not sure is right in all cases. The contract must therefore in no case make unjust demands on one's neighbor! for the apostle says: “He that doubteth is damned if he eat.” Rom. 14:23. Interest should therefore be demanded only with conditions, because any profit that the future is supposed to bring is uncertain. — The divine law (which, according to the seventh commandment, also obliges us to help our neighbor to improve and protect his goods and food) is much more spiritual than people think; when God will once pass judgement on the Last Day, then He will declare many things to be sin, which all the world, including many Christians, consider to be right.
The acceptance and the preliminary proceedings of these Theses took place in a spirit of love and peace, and the expectations which many opponents of the Synod had of these proceedings were fortunately not fulfilled. Although the Missouri Synod had repeatedly declared that the doctrine of usury was not a test question for church fellowship, Iowa Professor G. Fritschel nevertheless appeared as judge of the above-mentioned doctrine and declared in a pamphlet that it was “quite obviously contrary to God's clear and explicit Word” and was based on a Levitical legalistic standpoint. To this Dr. Walther answered, in Vol. 15 p. 360 of Lehre und Wehre, by referring to the above Theses, "in which it is irrefutably proven that it is precisely this point that proves that Luther's doctrine is not only based on clear passages from the Holy Scriptures, but also necessarily on the simple principles of love and righteousness. “Meanwhile,” Dr. Walther continues, "may the gentlemen of Iowa, for our sake, win over the whole world submerged in usury and call it out under their banners; those who are are of the truth
320 >
will finally fall to this truth, and blow away the dust that Iowa has stirred up to obscure the bright rays in darkness.” —
The 25th Anniversary (Jubilee) Synod.
The following Fifteenth Convention of the General Synod, held in St. Louis in 1872, celebrated the 25th anniversary of the existence of the Missouri Synod. Dr. Walther's Synodical Jubilee sermon, which deals with the 25 years of our Synod's preservation with the Word of Truth as the good reason for our anniversary celebration today, and is based on Psalm 119:43, is printed in From Our Master’s Table, p. 259 (Lutherische Brosamen, p. 553) (also published as a pamphlet). The leading sentences, which the Synod took up as the main subject of the discussion, had as their theme: “What issue do we have to resolve, so that the blessing which God has poured out on us over the last 25 years will not be spoiled by us, but will be inherited by our descendants?” It was first emphasized in seven points what this blessing consists of. Above all, that at a time of almost general apostasy from the Lutheran faith and the greatest division in the Lutheran Church, there is unity among us in purely Lutheran doctrines, far from papal and unionist tendencies. The seventh point that was highlighted: the fraternal harmony and collaboration of four like-minded Lutheran synods. — “Not to us, Lord, not to us, but to Thy name give glory for Thy grace and truth!”
On the other hand there was talk about the dangers of spoiling this blessing, for even the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures teach us partly about the general dangers of all times and partly about the special dangers of recent times. 1 Tim. 4:1-2; 2 Tim. 3:1, 2; 2 Peter 3:3; Matt. 24:11-12; Luke 18:8; 1 Thess. 5:3. — — To this were added two more memorable statements by Luther in his Epistle Sermon on
321 >
Invocavit Sunday, and in the Scriptures to the councillors of German lands. — Thirdly, it was emphasized what our task must be, so that this blessing will not be spoiled but bequeathed to our descendants! On this point, it was not only said in general terms that we must beware of ingratitude for which the well of grace is drying up, of complacent boasting which provokes God to anger, of satiety, stinginess and godless living, but also in particular, a) that pastors not only watch over their congregations but also over themselves and keep the mystery of faith in a clear conscience, prepare carefully for their sermons, practice pastoral care conscientiously and in the evangelical spirit, and b) that the churches and their members receive the Gospel not only in word, but both in power and in the Holy Spirit, establish and promote Christian schools, practice fraternal punishment and discipline in a truly evangelical spirit, not allow secret societies to arise among themselves, and be generous in supporting the institutions and the Synod. In this regard, we also remembered the educational institutions, which should cultivate not only a scholarly endeavour but also a Christian spirit among their pupils. Finally, the theological publications should also faithfully continue to present and defend the purely Lutheran doctrine, and not deny their Christian character even in polemics that become necessary. — The success of such work should be committed in earnest prayer to God, in order that when the Lord comes, today or tomorrow, that we may be found only as faithful servants. —
So that the pastors and congregations do not allow themselves to be made lazy and secure, it was emphasized at the discussion, for example, that it is much more difficult to preserve the treasure of pure doctrine and right faith and godly life than it is to pass over it. It is a deeply moving Word of the Lord: “For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.” [Matt. 14:12] Only then do we really preserve the treasure,
322 >
when we also advance. There must never be a standstill in the clergy. Standstill is relapse. — To the enthusiasts, however, we pastors must emphasize: Man with all his art is not able to do anything; but the Word of God is and remains a power of God, and if, as our old teachers used to say, the devil himself preached it, how can a preacher have a clear conscience if he himself is not in true repentance, otherwise Psalm 50:16-17 applies to him. Every sermon he gives to others must first be a sermon addressed to himself. He should not have to hear in his conscience the voice of God: "Be silent, you hypocrite! The so-called dead orthodoxy is something very terrible. Such people process something in their heads, but they are a sounding brass and a ringing bell. God does not want to know about such pastors. The pastors should not be mere light bearers, but lights; they should not be mere salt vessels, but salt themselves. He who preaches repentance to others is condemned tenfold, when he does not repent himself.
It was also noted that the Jubilee Synod was also right to speak of great dangers. One should not think that serious vigilance is superfluous, because God has given our Synod such wonderful gifts, for apostasy can come suddenly, and the hopes that some have that the Lutheran Church will attract many people from other Churches as well, and that in the end it will be the ruling Church in America, are unfounded. We have to fight not only against the papacy, but also against the union among all sects. And in the Lutheran Church itself there will still have to be a hard fight if the truth is to remain.
This word was like a prophecy, because seven years later the Missouri Synod was involved in a serious battle with several of its own previous members; before some suspected it, the controversy over the Election of Grace broke out in 1879.
323 >
The founding convention of the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference in 1872.
Since the Missouri Synod wants to keep the unity in the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith as an precious gem, and accordingly fights all errors that are in dispute with the Lutheran Confessions, especially in Germany with regard to the Missouri Lutherans the opinion has arisen here and there as if they were to be compared to savages who are always only on the warpath. But it has not only been shown by the ever-increasing growth of the Synod that the congregations and the various districts have been built in peace within its borders; it has also always been complained, especially by the Missouri Synod, that the state of the Lutheran Church in this country is all the sadder because the various Lutheran Synods oppose each other, work against each other and thereby give rise to divisions and separations in congregations. Although there should actually only be one general Lutheran synod in North America, the members of the Missouri Synod well recognized that there can be no talk of a territorial delimitation in synods of the individual states, as long as the different synods, although they use the name "Lutheran", deviate in their doctrine and practice in many ways from the faith and confession of the pure Lutheran Church. In view of this sad state of affairs, the first attempt was made to reach agreement by free conferences in the right understanding of the Lutheran Confessions. In 1856 the first free conference was held in Columbus, Ohio, at which individual pastors from various synods in the country appeared, especially those who were members of the Ohio and Missouri synods, from which the latter had taken as its starting point the suggestion to such a meeting and mutual understanding based on the doctrine of our Augsburg Confession. In the following period
324 >
two more free conferences were held, in Cleveland and in Pittsburgh. Of even greater importance, however, was a meeting of representatives of the synods of Ohio, Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois and Minnesota, as well as the Norwegian Lutheran Synod, which took place in Chicago in January 11-13, 1871, in the congregation of pastor Pastor P. Beyers. The main result of the consultation, which was conducted in brotherly love, was the draft of a “Form of Union of the Synods represented at the Convention”, which draft was to be presented to the various Synods during the course of the year. After this was done, the majority of the members of the previous convention gathered in the St. Paul’s Church of Dr. Sihler at Fort Wayne from Nov. 14-16, 1871, and concluded the deliberations on the constitution of the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference in the hope that it would be a great blessing for the American Lutheran Church. Professor Walther was again appointed chairman of this meeting, and Pastor Herzberger (then a member of the Ohio Synod) was appointed secretary. The members of the Illinois and Minnesota Synods who had recently left the General Council were also recommended to the other synods for participation in the formation of the Synodical Conference.
After the “Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference” had thus been constituted into an ecclesiastical body, the first regular meeting of the same, consisting of the delegates of all the above-mentioned synods, took place July 10-16, 1872 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where Theses on the doctrine of justification were discussed, as well as the question: “What is our duty towards the English people of our country?”
In the address with which Professor Walther opened the sessions as president of the general Missouri Synod in 1869, he began with the following: Having barely recovered from an illness,
325 >
he wanted to send a word from the teacher of us all, Luther, instead of his own address. — “A disciple of Luther and, as I hope to God, a faithful disciple of him, I have stammered everything I have ever publicly spoken and written only after this prophet of the last age of the world.” He would, however, under the present circumstances, make Luther's words all the more dear as his own, “since we are now once again, albeit only in a small way, in the same ecclesiastical situation in which Luther once found himself.”
“In 1539, when the flowering of the Reformation work seemed to be wilting again, Luther wrote the following, among other things:
‘Such was at all times the course of events: when God’s word flourished somewhere and his little flock was gathered, the devil became aware of the light, and he breathed and blew and stormed against it with strong, mighty winds from every nook and corner in an attempt to extinguish this divine light. And even if one or two winds were brought under control and were successfully resisted, he constantly stormed and blew forth from a different hole against the light. There was no letup or end to it, nor will there be until the Last Day. I believe that I alone—not to mention the ancients—have suffered more than twenty blasts and rabbles which the devil has blown up against me. First there was the papacy; … … And then when I had practically stopped fearing such blasts of the devil, he began to blow at me from a different hole by Münzer and the revolt, …. he broke a few panes in the window by means of Karlstadt,… Then came the Anabaptists — — —. Therefore I am also praying for a gracious hour of death; I care no more for this life. I exhort you, our posterity, to pray and to pursue the Word of God with diligence. Keep God’s poor candle burning. Be warned and be on the alert, watching lest at any hour the devil try to break a pane or window or fling open a door or tear the roof off in order to extinguish the light; for he will not die before the Last Day.… It is said: ‘Be watchful,’ for the devil is called a ‘roaring lion’ — he does so to the end of time. Let us be guided by this!
326 >
‘God help us — — For after all, we are not the ones who can preserve the church, nor were our forefathers able to do so. Nor will our successors have this power. No, it was, is, and will be He who says, ‘I am with you always, to the close of the age.’ As it says in Hebrews 13:8, ‘Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever,’ and in Revelation 1:8, ‘He who is and who was and who is to come.’ This is His name and no one else’s; nor may anyone else be called by that name; … He does this so plainly that we could touch and feel it, if we did not want to believe it. We must leave this to Him!’ — — After quoting the passage from Luther (“Against the Antinomians” [AE 47, p. 115 f.]), Professor Walther continued: “May God give us all the grace to heed this reproach of our common teacher also in the present days and in the future; may we recognize that the ever hotter and more dangerous struggle for the jewel of the pure Word of God in which we find ourselves is a struggle which the true Church of Christ has always had to fight, and of which she will not be exalted until she has passed from faith to sight, until she will triumph with Christ. But on the other hand, may we also hear Luther's warning against delusion, as if we must and could preserve the Church through our wisdom, and recognize that we have nothing to do but to remain faithful and obedient to His Word, not as masters but as servants of it, and then leave the preservation of the Church to the One who alone founded it. May others, in good faith, now and then let some of God's truth fade away to make peace and help the church, but may our guiding star be and remain rather the Word of our God: “Obedience is better than sacrifice” [1 Samuel 15:22]. Amen.
Already at the second meeting of the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference [Walther not present], the discussion of a draft on church fellowship began, which consisted of ten theses. As a preliminary remark, it was pointed out that this term is not understood here in the broader sense,
327 >
in so far as it is used to indicate the difference between heathen, Jews and Mohammedans, but rather the church fellowship in the narrower sense, in so far as it refers to the fellowship of the Evangelical Lutheran congregations in relation to the more or less corrupted, false-believing church congregations. Thesis I emphasizes that the only internal bond of fellowship between the individual Lutheran congregations — — is the true, righteous and saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, which with and in Him also grasps and holds fast His most holy and perfect merit. In Thesis II, the only external bond of fellowship between the individual Lutheran congregations in various peoples and languages is the Unaltered Augsburg Confession. A footnote states that, provided it is not denied that the other Lutheran confessional writings are in a legitimate connection with the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, it is not absolutely necessary to accept them. Theses III-V state that the conscience of all Lutherans, whether individual congregations or ecclesiastical bodies, is bound to the Unaltered Augsburg Confession in all articles of faith according to doctrine and its defence [Lehre und Wehre]; a church body which does not accept the doctrinal and defending words of this Confession as they read is therefore not a true Lutheran congregation or Lutheran body; even one who denies the binding nature of the conclusions which logically follow from the words of this confession is not a true member of the Lutheran Church, even if he unjustly retains the Lutheran name.
At the Fourth Convention of the Synodical Conference, which opened in Cleveland, Ohio, on July 14, 1874 [sic, not 1875], the discussion began about the fact that where the orthodox confession was valid, church practice must necessarily be in accordance with the confession. This is stated in the Thesis VI, “for every action of the church must either be a direct expression and actual realization of the confession, or
328 >
(if it belongs to the area of Christian freedom) it must not contradict the confession.” It has been noted here, among other things, that there is nothing easier than subscribing to the symbolic books, especially for one who has no conscience, and at a time when this is part of the good reputation of a Lutheran preacher. — This is not what Article VII of the Augsburg Confession has in mind when it states as a mark of the Church that “the Gospel is rightly taught”. — God is not satisfied with such a life, since one may speak piously from the mouth, but by his life the same lies are being told. James therefore demands: "Shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works” (James 2:18), and David says that he who hates discipline should also not put the Word of God into his mouth. From this it is clear that the true Lutheran Church does not just accept pure doctrine with the mouth, but also testifies to it by deeds. Although the main point of a preacher's teaching is that the doctrine is pure, Paul demands of Titus that the work be in accordance with the professed knowledge of God (Tit. 1:16). Therefore, in the church, not only the pure preaching that is going on in the church, but also the whole action should correspond to it, otherwise the church will be a great hypocrite. This is followed by a serious witness from Luther: — "Many have the word, but those who do not believe in it or do not do it" (“On the Councils and the Church” [AE 41, 3-178]). — Although it is possible that the members of the General Council do not see the necessary connection between confession and practice, so that we do not yet consider them hypocrites, it must nevertheless be called a denial, that there the confession is on paper, but by practice it is rendered null and void. The Synodal Conference recognized it well that it with all those who were with it of one faith and confession should activate this unity by church union, in the other case one would at least give the appearance of separatism; in the other case one would at least give the appearance of separatism; but if in another church body there is a practice that contradicts the church
329 >
confession, — “then it is obvious that such a mouth confession does not come from the heart and that such a body is not serious about its confession. For the one who does not act according to his confession reveals that he either out of church politics or also out of ignorance of the consequences and implications flowing from his confession fails to practice according to his confession. We cannot recognize any such body which calls itself Lutheran as truly Lutheran, but must continually and seriously punish such real hypocrisy and denial of confession.” — As for the General Council in particular, it not only tolerates, but in many cases even protects, false doctrine and practice, pulpit-swapping with false believers, communion with misbelievers, and the godless lodge system, and it destroys faithful congregations. In the New York Ministerium, even in the Michigan Synod, false practices are tolerated, no doctrinal discipline is practiced, no testimony is given against secret societies, and even if some witnesses rise up throughout the entire area of the General Council, they cannot penetrate. Thus, even though this body confesses our symbols on paper, all the representatives of the Synodical Conference declared: We consider the General Council to be not faithful to the Confessions, not truly Lutheran. The confession serves as its figurehead. Its practice gives the confession the lie. Anyone can convince themselves, even those who do not understand the theory, that such oral confession is nothing but fraud. With such false Lutherans we must not maintain church fellowship. and theory, as happened The position of the General Council is more dangerous than the open rejection of confessionin the General Synod, because the General Council still deceives some people with its confessions … … A continuous witness against the Council is necessary, — to also punish the bearers of false doctrines, by naming them, to refute them and to
330 — >
warn against them! *) The following Thesis VIII sets out the multiple ways in which this contradiction between confession and practice can take place. It also emphasizes by name that a body that does not resolutely oppose every form of chiliasm is not yet truly Lutheran, since chiliasm is the favorite doctrine of our time and is also found among the leaders of the General Council. — As a contradiction between confession and practice, Thesis X also rejected the idea that a Lutheran synod tolerates that some of its pastors, who also call themselves Lutheran, serve congregations that are actually “united” [i.e. Reformed and Lutheran]. The last two theses (X and XI) were adopted at the fifth convention of the Synodical Conference in St. Paul, Minnesota. While the representatives of all the Synodical Conference synods agreed on the above theses, it was well known that serious evils still prevailed, especially in the Ohio Synod. Attention was also called to the fact that, e.g. there is not no announcement for Holy Communion in many Ohio congregations. Also, it was an offence to many that as late as 1877, an old Ohio Synod pastor who was known as a member or intimate friend of the Oddfellow Lodge was elected to the presidium of a district. Dr. Walther testified against such still existing abuses at a Missouri District Synod in the same year, and declared that before the plan to divide the present Synodical Conference into State-District Synods in its entirety could be realized, one would first have to be convinced that the members of the
——————
*) Twelve representatives of the Ohio Synod agreed on the above witness against church fellowship with the General Council, — and currently the leaders of the Ohio Synod are seeking a connection with this Council, which has been denying loyalty to the Confessions. The Ohio people did not wish to change the actual state of confession, but only the Constitution, before they would join the General Council. This too was immediately rejected in a noble manner by the leaders of the General Council, yet they hope to see the Ohio Synod joining the General Council in the near future.
331 >
Ohio Synod in particular would be united and faithful to the Confessions also in their practice. This rebuke, which was heard by several Ohio Synod pastors who were present as guests, was received indignantly. But while the Missourians were careful not to in any way infringe upon the Ohio Synod's independence, many were surprised to see that the leaders of the Ohio Synod joined the opposition of Professor Schmidt, who was of the Norwegian Synod, and took part in the erupting doctrinal dispute with such zeal that in 1881 the Ohio Synod, in its great majority, finally separated from the fellowship of the Evangelical-Lutheran Synodal Conference.
This will be the place to look back at the Ohio Synod as it has been since the mid-1850s.
In 1854, at the session of the General Ohio Synod, the question of how to relate to pastors who were members of secret, sworn societies (a matter touched on above) was put up for consideration. While a number of younger pastors, who were publicly accused of being attached to Dr. Sihler's coattails, urged that these Lodge members should leave either the secret society or the Synod, an old preacher, Andreas Henkel, stood up and declared: “I have been a member of such a society for 33 years and have gone through all the stages in it” (as a Freemason), and that he was thus unwilling to leave his Lodge. Since Pastor Lehmann, who was highly respected in his Synod, was also used to accompany on horseback the corpse of the Oddfellows, when a deceased member of the Columbus congregation had to be escorted, it was considered a step forward when, through the mediation of Pastors Loy and Lehman, the decision was made that henceforth, no such pastors who were members of a secret society would be admitted to the Synod, although the Synod expressly refused the meaning as if it were demanding the resignation of those lodge members who were already pastors in the Ohio Synod.
332 >
After that, the same church politics was practiced as in the case of serving mixed congregations; for it was much better to ask what would be called expedient (useful for the moment and acceptable to reason, as Zwingli said) than what would be according to the Word of God. Pastor Loy, who soon afterwards also became a professor in Columbus, was considered a staunch opponent of the secret societies. Since he also raised his voice against this cancerous evil in the Lutheran Standard, the English District separated from the Ohio Synod and joined the General Synod. Twice such a separation took place, and it was hoped that the Ohio Synod only gained by the departure of these English pastors, who were almost all members of the Lodge. In 1866, when the old General Synod split into a lax Methodistic party and a stricter party which as a whole and in general adopted the Lutheran symbols, when in particular the Philadelphia Drs. Ch. P. Krauth, A. Spaeth, J. Mann, W. A. Schäffer [?] and others fought against the Platformists who, in place of the old Augsburg Confession, issued a newly manufactured Platform as their confession (only that which corresponded to American advanced Lutheranism was retained, but the remaining articles, especially those dealing with the holy sacraments, confession and absolution, were deleted as a papistical appendage), the Ohio brothers were also invited to participate in the so-called General Council. At that time, the General Council again called itself the Evangelical Lutheran Church Union of North America, although it was known that the Missouri Synod, which already had 400 pastors, also had its home in America. The Missouri Synod declared that it would not be present at this Council until a complete unity of faith and doctrine based on the divine Word had been achieved at free conferences, to which they cheerfully offered to come. The General Council contained many German elements, not only the Synods of New York, Michigan and Pennsylvania, but also the Western Synods of Wisconsin,
333 >
Illinois and Minnesota had initially joined. Although the Ohio Synod would not have lost any of its external creed by its admission, the Ohio delegation returned home in November 1867 from the visit of the General Council gathered at the English Lutheran Church at Fort Wayne without having achieved anything; they were not satisfied with the Constitution adopted there and were afraid to renew the fraternal relations without further negotiation with the English District, which had only recently been separated from the Ohio Synod and was now attached to the General Council. An old respected Ohio pastor at that time called out to his Synod: “The Missouri Synod on the one hand and the General Council on the other hand are becoming large bodies, we Ohioans will be crushed between these two millstones in a short time!” The Missouri Synod was never intent on expanding at the expense of the Ohio Synod. Many Ohio pastors, no doubt the better ones, when they reported for admission to the Missouri Synod district presidents, were instructed by the latter to continue in the Ohio Synod and by their testimony, after the manner of a leavening agent, penetrate their Synod. Nevertheless, the Ohio Synod lost its prestige, its congregations showed little love for its synod, and they noted that the Missourian pastors where they were located were soon taking care of the youth and establishing parish schools, which the Ohio pastors did not do. It was not uncommon for a congregation that had previously been served by Ohio pastors, when a vacancy arose, to consult a neighboring pastor from the Missouri Synod and finally appoint a Missourian as pastor. If such a congregation was therefore accused of apostasy by the Ohio president, it usually claimed that as a congregation it had never before been publicly committed to the Ohio Synod by public decree. In order to control this grievance, the Ohio Synod convention decided one day that all congregations served by Ohio pastors would be considered as belonging to the Synod. If such a congregation did not find itself willing to join, it would be
334 >
the duty of the president concerned to take away the pastor from this congregation and transfer him elsewhere. This hierarchical decision was carried out, for example, in the Pittsburgh area by the Eastern District. The consequence of such arbitrariness was that the congregation in question turned to the Missouri pastors, and these were obligated, since the bond which binds the pastor to his congregation is a divine one, and for the sake of mere synodical relations should not be torn to take care of such abandoned congregations. It has already been noted above, and by the Columbus conference resolution, which seeks to invalidate validly performed official acts by the stroke of a pen, while they were not performed under the jurisdiction of the Ohio Synod general president, it is evident that the Ohio Synod also understood administrative antics; the Synod believed itself entitled to not only to withdraw the license, but also to depose a pastor from his congregation, although the Missouri pastors were scolded as hierarchs, who, on the contrary, worked by preaching the Word that the congregation needed, and were often loved by them. Although the State of Ohio was claimed by name to be for Ohio Synod pastors, they did not succeed in gaining a foothold in the two largest cities of that state, Cincinnati and Cleveland. When for a short time in Cincinnati a split in the Missouri congregation arose, and several Ohio pastors tried to establish themselves there, the attempt failed nevertheless. In Cleveland, however, which has many more sound German elements among its inhabitants, one Missouri congregation develops around another, and the congregational schools there are seen as outposts for the establishment of new congregations. The Ohio pastors, however, were not anxious to bring their congregations to a sound church understanding and formation from within, Christian church life was missing under their leadership, but most unfortunate were those who, in the face of the prevailing ecclesiastical devastation, turned their eyes to Pastor Grabau in Buffalo, while the latter was still
335 >
able to manage a vigorous control. In 1856, five Ohio pastors had joined a Buffalo convention as guests and prospective members. Nevertheless, Pastor Grabau kept warm friends among the Ohio people who were unhappy that the leaders of the Ohio Synod were taking steps to approach the Missouri Synod in the late 1860s and to form the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference in conjunction with the Missouri Synod and some Western Synods that had withdrawn from the General Council. After the Wisconsin Synod was ready to agree with the Missouri Synod, negotiations with the Ohio Synod repeatedly encountered difficulties. Pastor Peter Eirich, who had previously been in the Ohio Synod area but had been ousted by Ohio pastors who were attached to the lodges, publicly declared, “I know the Ohio people, outwardly they are strictly Lutheran, but inwardly their whole way is lax!” Since the Ohio Synod, too, had to concern itself more with doctrines, including the doctrine of the Church and the holy Ministry, three Theses were adopted by them, of which the Missouri Synod, gathered at Fort Wayne in 1869, judged that “while they may be considered a beginning to a testimony, they do not yet provide a firm foundation!” Since at that time a number of such pastors who had left Grabau, but still held to its false doctrine, had been accepted by the Ohio Synod, the Missouri Synod postponed the fraternal recognition of the Ohio Synod. The Ohio pastors hoped that by such fraternization with the Missouri Synod, as requested, they would be able to achieve more peace within their congregations and to defend against the conversion of their congregations to the Missouri Synod. At that time it was said that the Buffalo Synod was torn into three pieces, the Western Synods were leaving the Church Council, “the Missourians own the kingdom!” Accordingly,
336 >
the Ohio people also had to follow. In the spring of 1872 the Missouri Synod celebrated its 25th anniversary in St. Louis, where two Ohio professors, Prof. Loy and E. Schmidt, were also guests. The Eastern District of the Ohio Synod pursued the union with zeal. When the first meeting of the “Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference” was opened in Pastor J. Bading's church in Milwaukee on July 10, 1872, twelve representatives of the Ohio Synod had gathered there (Professors Lehmann, Loy and five pastors, among others). A preparatory meeting had already been held in Fort Wayne, and all the synods, those of Ohio, Missouri, Wisconsin, Norwegian, Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, all came together in a federation that was a lasting blessing for the entire Evangelical Lutheran Church. Not only did they want to control by a firm agreement the troublesome erection of opposition altars, but also the public opposition in the church publications was to stop, because everything that the members of the Synodical Conference had to agree upon with each other was to be discussed and decided upon at conferences, District Synods and finally, as a last resort, at the meetings of this Synodical Conference. In particular, the intention was also to bring together the educational institutions situated in the area of these six synods in such a way that the academy which was appropriate to each synod would then send the students of theology to St. Louis, the theological seminary for the study of the last few years, at least for the time being until the time comes when the Synodical Conference would establish a common great seminary. For this final purpose, each of the major synods was to appoint its own professor in St. Louis; the Norwegian synod had already established a professorship in St. Louis; the Wisconsin synod had already elected a professor there, while the Ohio synod did not take such a step. Students from the two synods mentioned above also came to St. Louis, but not from the Ohio Synod; one
337 >
had to assume that the pupils leaving the Columbus college did not have a sufficient secondary school education to enter the St. Louis class. At the 1878 Missouri Synod convention in St. Louis, Prof. M. Loy was elected English professor for the theological seminary in St. Louis, but Prof. Loy did not accept this appointment. It was hoped that the growing generation of pastors would merge more closely from school on, and that the unity which had been lacking in these synods would be better guaranteed and promoted in the future. It was regretted, however, that the members of the Ohio Synod behaved as reserved gentlemen within the Synodical Conference. As late as 1869, when union with Ohio was not rejected but only postponed, Dr. Sihler shook his head deliberately and declared that, although he could not see the reasons for an alliance with Ohio, he believed that the fault lay with him as he grew old (he was born in 1801). But his knowledge of human nature had not deceived him. — IAt the sessions of the Synodical Conference, the synodical reports which the individual synods publish are usually reviewed by specially selected committee members, and when the Missouri Synod had handed over the Western District synodical report [German text, ], which contained the doctrine of the election by grace discussed in Altenburg in 1877, to a committee consisting of Ohioans, the contents of this Altenburg Synodical Report were approved and the same was recommended to the pastors; yes, even the sermon that Pastor J. G. Schaller gave in Altenburg [or St. Louis?], which explained the same subject so clearly that Prof. Walther said: “Schaller has already anticipated everything we wanted to say,” translated into English and printed in the "Lutheran Standard", the English organ of the Ohio Synod. The leaders of the Ohio Synod had also been well aware for years that Dr. Walther and most of the theologians of the Missouri Synod had been using the terminology, in regard to the Election of Grace, that the children of God, in consideration or
338 >
in view of their faith were chosen for salvation, is an unfortunate choice of terminology, for Dr. Walther, for example, had already explained this expression in 1872 in the July issue of Lehre und Wehre, whereas according to Scripture and the Formula of Concord the divine Election of Grace, which is only an election for salvation, has no other causes than God's mercy and Christ's merit. The Iowa Professor G. Fritschel was the only one at that time who wanted to smell a Calvinist determinism in Dr. Walther's doctrine; Prof. M. Loy, however, even in the year 1877 before the outbreak of the Election of Grace [or Predestination] controversy, in connection with the Herford Catechism explanation, which he had to review, as an criticism *) that he had to make on this book, had added to his expert opinion the words: “The expression used in that book ‘in view of faith’ ‘could easily lead to errors.’”
When the Election Controversy came to public attention, while Professor F. A. Schmidt, currently professor of the Norwegian Synod and serving in Madison, suddenly published a spiteful opposition paper called Old and New [Altes und Neues] in which he declared that he had to sound the alarm bell, it was the duty of the President of the Synodical Conference, even if the Missouri Synod was to be torn into a thousand pieces, either to stop this unconstitutional activity of Prof. F. A. Schmidt, or to organize an extra session of the Synodical Conference, so that the dispute in question could be settled in the right way, which the brethren had already provided for such cases in the constitution. At that time, however, Ohio professor W. F. Lehmann was the president of the Synodical Conference, and as such he did nothing in this matter until death overtook him. **)
——————
*) Loy's report on question 420 of that catechism is printed in the Der Lutheraner 1881 p. 116. In the “Berichtigung” [correction] Dr. Walther writes p. 39 [?] with reference to it: “This and no other is also our judgement. Now Stellhorn may either claim that his comrade-in-arms in 1877 was still a ‘New-Missourian’ heretic, or he may stop counting us among the Calvinists.”
**) Dr. Walther travelled on behalf of the St. Louis faculty to
339 >
On the other hand, Prof. Loy, as President of the Ohio Synod, was all the more zealous. Since Prof. F. A. Schmidt, from the beginning of the dispute he had started, had brought on to his side some brothers-in-law who were pastors in the Missouri Synod and won over co-workers for his opposition publication, the dissatisfied pastors, who were joined by Prof. Stellhorn, who had previously expressed himself as a restless spirit in other respects, now saw their time had come. Although at all times in the Missouri Synod the doctrine of justification was regarded as the very sun of all doctrines and the Election of Grace was only brought to light as a consoling confirmation of the state of grace of justified believers, the above-mentioned Altenburg Synodal Report of 1877 was nevertheless presented in individual mutilated passages in such a heretical manner that in such Missouri congregations, in which these hostile pastors stood, excitement and finally division arose. Prof. Stellhorn, who until then had taught languages at the Fort Wayne “Gymnasium” as a philological professor, was now called to Columbus at Prof. Loy's side as theological professor, and on September 8, 1881 Prof. Loy, as president, opened an extra session of the general Ohio Synod in Wheeling, W. Va. In his opening address, President Loy had cause to speak out why he was in such a hurry in this matter, since a doctrinal dispute requires much study and consideration. The general synod had met only one year earlier; it was more convenient for the Ohio people to watch or wait in doctrinal disputes. Meanwhile, the leaders of the Ohio Synod, with the exception of the former District President Pastor Fr. Brand [sic? Probably Peter Brand], who is already mentioned as an opponent in the synodical report, had well understood why it was expedient to confront the Missouri Synod as a united party. Shortly before that, in the same year, it had adopted Thirteen Theses extracted by Dr. Walther from the
——————
to Columbus to Lehmann's funeral to offer his condolences. One can also see from the repeated election of Lehmann as President of the Synodal Conference how gladly the Missourians like to resign in times of peace.
340 >
Article 11 of the Formula of Concord, which deal with the general counsel of grace and the Election of Grace, with a majority bordering on unanimity *); a year earlier [1880], a large general pastoral conference had also been held in Chicago, which controlled the confusion of minds. Nonetheless, the Ohio president already claimed in his opening address that the Missouri Synod had deviated from the old Lutheran doctrine!
So the first thing to do was to make the Ohio Synod a place of orthodoxy. The formula that election takes place in view of (or in consideration of) faith was, as it was said, written as a shibboleth from the banner of the Ohio Synod, in the spirit of the old teachers and the great theologians who use the term. Now it was not decided to postpone further discussion and voting until the following annual meeting, but on the fourth day of the discussion a vote was taken on the question whether this doctrine, which by and large agrees with the teaching of the old dogmatists, should be the only legitimate one in the institutions, schools, publications and churches of the Ohio Synod. The vote showed that 109 pastors and 33 delegates affirmed the above question, 19 pastors and 3 delegates voted against. Pastor Brand then read out a clear protest on behalf of the majority of those who voted against, stating first that the Ohio Synod had hereby adopted a new declaration on the election of grace by a majority of its members, and secondly that they (the protesters) have no doubt that while our doctrinal fathers [Lehrväter] have retained the right doctrinal basis, it is evident that some of these fathers have used different and contradictory ways of speaking on this very point, including some that are neither Scriptural nor in accordance with the symbols. But what is most striking
——————
*) The Thirteen Theses in question will be quoted verbatim in the next to the last section, Chapter XII, of this document, which deals with the Election Controversy.
341 >
is that the Synod herewith in its entirety confesses to doctrinal writings (of the old dogmatists), which it has not at all examined by the Scriptures and the Confessions of the church (which it does not even know). This is a non-Lutheran procedure, because the Lutheran faith and confession expressly demands that one goes back to the basis of divine truth. “In whatever books they may be found, and whoever may have written them, or even now may be disposed to defend them, might be exposed [distinctly repudiated], so that every one may be faithfully warned against the errors, which are spread here and there in the writings of some theologians, and no one be misled in this matter by the reputation [authority] of any man.” [FC Rule and Norm 19-20] The Comprehensive Summary of the Formula of Concord teaches this in explicit words. Thirdly, this protest declares that the doctrine adopted by the majority of the Synod, though not in itself heretical, is considered to be in error (as Prof. Loy himself had declared several years earlier): Protesters must reject an unqualified commitment to this expression, which is not found even in the Lutheran symbols to which one is committed in matters and words (in rebus et phrasibus). Therefore, so they say, this decision of the Ohio Synod, which overlooks the opposing doctrinal claims that the protesters represent, is unjustified, unLutheran and troublesome to conscience.
This same Synod, which in earlier years had been so unionist as to call a zealotism the desire of the strict Lutherans to put an end to the mixed congregations and participation in the secret societies, had suddenly come forward so vigorously that it declared the above position and version of the doctrine of the election of grace to be the only legitimate one, and already thereby compelled the protesting party to go out and form its own Synod. This then came to be known under the name: Evangelical-Lutheran Concordia Synod and has Pastor P. Brand as its president. — Meanwhile, the Ohio Synod was still part of the general Synodical Conference, as was also the Missouri Synod. In the constitution of the
342 >
Synodal Conference it was expressly stated that it was part of the purpose of the Synodical Conference, if a dispute arose among its members, to settle it on the basis of the divine Word. Although no force of majority vote can apply here, anyone who believes he is in the right, should nevertheless gladly bear witness before such a body. One might have expected that the members of the Ohio Synod would already feel compelled by brotherly love to go after the brethren who belonged to the Missouri Synod, and whom they considered to be erring, in this way, and to convert the supposedly erring ones from the error of their ways by presenting the proper foundation. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the Ohio Synod had quite different ideas. Although there were no lack of votes from that convention which declared that, since the Ohio Synod had already elected delegates to the Synodical Conference, they should go; there were also other synods represented there, to which one also had obligations; even if it was claimed that it was useless, one was nevertheless obliged to go, since the Ohio Synod had now taken a stand in this doctrinal dispute; if the Ohio delegates could defend their doctrine, they should go and defend it, that the suspicion should be removed from their hearts, as if Missouri wanted to teach Calvinism, and only against this suspicion the Missouri Synod had defended itself by its instruction given to the delegates! “What better place to make an unequivocal confession than there? Through oral exchange one has always gotten further than with a pen. If they (the Missouri Synod) want nothing to do with us, as both sides have said, then let us separate!” It was further argued that by the immediate withdrawal and omission of the delegation, Missouri would be granted the triumph “that we (Ohioans) had brought about the break-up.” — In the face of these valid reasons, what was intended by this extra convention and by the immediate withdrawal from the Synodical Conference finally became apparent. “It was replied,”
343 >
as p. 54 of the Synodical Report states in black and white, “that by hesitation we gain nothing, but harm ourselves. What should we do with the congregations that have separated from Missouri?” If one remains longer in the association of the Synodal Conference, one must (contractually) refuse to admit these congregations! “The same would perhaps have to exist for years alone and separately between the two synods.” (the latter would not in itself be a misfortune, since very often a congregation deliberates and examines for years before joining a synod). Another suggestion was made that we should not let the earlier times return, in which strife and discord had been sown by the erection of opposition altars; but the leaders were adamant and again claimed that those congregations “which have already broken away from Missouri and will still break away, should not be left hanging in uncertainty and trembling!” (p. 56.) So finally, the ruling majority also made this motion a resolution that the Ohio Synod to its great sorrow must withdraw from the Synodical Conference! — Since this decision paved the way for the Ohio Synod to align opposition altars and divisions in the Missouri Synod area, it is doubtful whether the Ohio Synod was really sorry to see this withdrawal! The Ohio Synod also succeeded in forming a so-called Northwestern District out of those who had left Missouri, but this district shows little attachment to the general Ohio Synod, since it was represented at the next to last convention by only one pastor. (In fact, another general assembly of the Ohio Synod took place at the end of 1884, at which the renegade ex-Missourians sought their own seminary for their Northwestern district). If this were not so apparent from the vocal Ohio leaders' own words above, the writer of these lines would much rather believe that the Ohio people had really separated from Missouri and the whole Synodical Conference out of a kind of need of conscience! But now it is obvious that they organized this quick separation from church politics
344 >
in order to gain territory and congregations that had been Missourian so far. Previously it was feared that they would lose more and more in relation to Missouri; it was also recently stated in an overview in the Ohio church newspaper that it had previously seemed as if the Ohio Synod was being eaten up and dried up; but now, as this tribulation came over the Missouri Synod and over three other synods, they used the opportunity to recruit and expand. That is why they made the doctrinal difference as important as they could, that is why they now boast that a new life is moving in the veins of the Ohio Synod, that is why the Ohio leaders already met with the vocal leaders of the Iowa Synod in Richmond, Indian, and the Iowans boasted that they were essentially in agreement with Ohio! The most essential thing now has become the enmity against Missouri; there is now a great harmony in this article, and the newly awakened party spirit ignites many to action who previously behaved indifferently. Particularly eagerly now those Ohio members are showing themselves who still pay homage to hierarchical tendencies from earlier times; at the last general synod an old Ohio pastor also raised Pastor Grabau's name again and reminded of his fights against Missouri. One could only object that the many items of business still to be done for the sake of one's own synod leaves no time for such discussions. The enmity against Missouri is so bitter that one must be careful not to call the Missouri congregations Evangelical-Lutheran, they must be branded as Calvinizing. — From a human point of view, the Missouri Synod has suffered not only harm but also ridicule as a result of these experiences. It was said in the publications of the General Council: “How soon the marriage between the Missouri and Ohio Synods was dissolved!” When Luther once allowed himself to conclude the Wittenberg Concord with Bucer and Capito in 1536, the well-meaning also hoped that the Lord's Supper controversy would now be settled at least within the German Empire. Luther was also
345 >
well-disposed, but he said, after the peace had already been concluded: it would have been best if the other part had just declared: We confess that God had let us down, we were in error, but Bucer and Capito did not want to confess this and the concluded peace was short-lived! Likewise, the members of the Ohio Synod around 1870 were willing to do whatever was necessary to participate in the fraternal union of the Synodical Conference, but they did not confess that they had been punished by Missouri (e.g., by Dr. Sihler). Sihler and Walther did not demand such a confession at that time, for love carries everything. Dr. Walther is said to have been deceived many times in his love. But in this he also proves himself to be one spirit with Luther, who says: Love must be deceived, for it is above evil and good, indeed above the whole world! Thus the Missourians must now suffer the same fate in their relationship with the Ohio people as Dr. Walther once said in another case: “Now it is said, of course, that you have let yourself be deceived again; — yes, love is deceived, and yet love is in the right! “Love is and must be deceived,” writes Luther, “because it believes and does everything; but faith cannot be lacking, because God does not lie, as man does.”
On the latest position of the Ohio Synod in the doctrine of the Election of Grace,
there is found at the end of the Ohio Synodical Report of 1881 concluding with p. 39, in a “concise declaration” from which, as is already evident from the contents of the first page of this important appendix, it is so far certain that the Ohio Synod does not now formally profess both the doctrine of Election of Grace contained in the Formula of Concord, as it reads, but rather the doctrine which is by and large found in the private writings of the later dogmatists of our church. Indeed, according to the above-mentioned report, the Ohio Synod itself defined its position in the above-mentioned doctrine as follows:
346 >
“We hereby reaffirm (?) the doctrine of the Election by Grace, as contained in the Formula of Concord, and also as it was by and large ever and always taught in accordance with it by the doctrinal fathers [Lehrvätern] of our church; in particular, we consider as Scriptural and symbolic, and therefore as good Lutheran, the doctrine of our fathers that the predestination of the elect to eternal life was made in view of faith, i.e., in view of the merit of Christ laid hold of through faith. Therefore be it resolved: That as in the past (?) so also in future the doctrine here confessed anew is to be the only legitimate one in our institutions, schools, publications and churches.”
Contrary to this, it must first be objected that this doctrine, according to which the Election of Grace took place in view of faith, was by no means the only legitimate one in the past of the Ohio Synod. It has already been noted above [p. 338] that just Professor Loy, the most respected teacher of the Ohio Synod, in 1877, in the official evaluation of the Herford Catechism, described the expression “in view of faith” contained in this textbook rather as one that “could easily lead to errors”. The teachers of the Ohio Synod were also well aware of the fact that e.g. in 1872, i.e. after the formation of the Synodical Conference, this doctrinal expression in Lehre und Wehre, which had its origin with the dogmatists, was described as an unfortunate choice of terminology, and among other things, the following was testified to the Iowa Synod, p. 132: “It is true that our Synod cannot and does not want to adopt the doctrinal expression [Lehrtropus] of our dogmatists of the 17th and 18th centuries, not because it thought that our faithful teachers were trying to express a false Pelagian doctrine, but because this expression, however orthodox it may have been understood by them, contains something false as soon as it is strictly taken, namely the doctrine that the elect are chosen for the sake of faith, that man's faith is the basis, the condition of his election and salvation.” —
347 >
But mainly one must ask, and ask in vain: where did the Ohio Synod, in the execution of the above-mentioned “Declaration”, even make the attempt to prove the above sentence of the Election of Grace made in view of faith as “in accordance with Scripture and Confessions”? Instead of taking reason and proof from the Holy Scriptures, that Declaration is rather based on the assertion that it would be too pitiful if the teaching fathers were considered, such as König, Quenstedt, Hollaz and others, did not teach about the Election of Grace in the sense of the Formula of Concord, but that the Ohio Synod was rather convinced that the doctrine of the dogmatists' Election of Grace was in accordance with the Formula of Concord, and that the doctrine of the Election of Grace of the Formula of Concord was in turn in accordance with the doctrine of the salvation of the people. Therefore, one does not hesitate for a moment to say that the doctrine of the dogmatists is the doctrine of Holy Scripture.
On the other hand, however, Dr. Walther also justly objected to this Ohio public confession in Lehre und Wehre, 1882, p. 107: This decision of an entire church body, consisting of laymen as well as church servants, has no equal in history not only of the Lutheran, but also of the so-called Protestant Church in general; only the Pope’s Church has achieved something similar. It should be borne in mind that, according to that document, not only have all the present pastors, a considerable number of whom have not even read the main writings of the so-called “teaching fathers of our Church”, but even the dear lay people have been led to profess a doctrine “such as has been by and large ever been taught by the teaching fathers of our Church.” Never before has a guileless, innocent crowd belonging to our Church been more irresponsibly abused by its leaders and thus led to deny their old Protestant foundation of faith, and even to profess something they cannot know what it is! It would be difficult to introduce a worse papism within the Lutheran Church! Here one is vividly reminded of that Papist legend which Luther once held
348 >
against the crypto-Zwinglians, who said to the Lutherans, “It is enough that you believe the body that Christ means,” Luther writes that the papists told the following: “The story is told that a doctor of theology, meeting a charcoal-burner on the bridge at Prague and taking into account that he was but a poor layman, asked him: ‘My good man, what do you believe?’ The charcoal-burner answered: ‘I believe what the Church believes.’ The doctor: ‘And what does the Church believe?’ The charcoal-burner: ‘The Church believes what I believe.’ Later, when the doctor came to die, the devil so severely troubled him as to his faith that he knew not where to turn and found no rest until he said: ‘I believe what the charcoal-burner believes.’” [Taken from Christian Dogmatics, vol. 2, p. 429, n. 55] — So now even a poor layman in Ohio must answer the question, “What do you believe about the Election of Grace besides what is written in the Formula of Concord?” If one asks him further: “How has this doctrine ever been taught by the teaching fathers of our church?” He must answer: “Just as our Ohio Synod teaches it.” But if one finally asks him: “How do you know this?” he must say, if he wants to be honest, “I know that because our professors say so.” “May God have mercy on a synod which calls itself Lutheran, and yet plants such a faith and confession in its members!”
Just as the whole supplement makes the confession of the Formula of Concord a meaningless game, so too the implanted words: “by and large” make that confession a miserable waxy nose, which everyone can twist at will, even for those members who have read the dogmatists. The members of the Ohio Synod must already admit in that declaration that their teaching fathers, in part in a different way from the Formula of Concord, presented the doctrine of the election of grace, as we read on p. 69. Yes, it is an undeniable fact that some of the later ones were aware of their own deviation from the doctrine of the Formula of Concord. Not only do many dogmatists of the 17th and 18th century expressly testify that
349 >
their doctrine of the Election of Grace is not that of the Formula of Concord, namely that they speak of an Election of Grace in the narrower sense, whereas the Formula of Concord is about an Election of Grace in a broader sense, but there are also those dogmatists, otherwise recognized as orthodox, who rebuke the doctrinal presentation of the Formula of Concord and declare it unbiblical. The Wittenberg theologian Caspar Loescher (the father of Valentin E. Löscher), for instance, writes in his Theologia thetica: ‘The word predestination has a wider meaning, however, not in Scripture, but in the symbolic books. So we must again distinguish between the symbolic and biblical meanings of this word; the former is the wider meaning, and the latter is the narrow and restricted one. The former one has no place here, except that we reject it; but this one has its place here. For we are presenting this doctrine from Scripture, and so this must also be done with words of Scripture and in the sense that they have in Scripture,’ p. 248. If we take the fact that already Jacob Heilbrunner in his theses de praedestinatione et al. that there has recently been controversy as to whether the language by which the word “election of grace” is interpreted in a broad sense to all people is the actual or, as the other part suggests, an improper way of speaking, one has to agree that the old dogmatist J. Heilbrunner is certainly right in that he teaches that it is better and more advisable (yes, peace is also necessary for the sake of the churches), that the doctrine of the general love of God, of the general merits, etc., should be opposed to the Calvinistic doctrine that the grace of God is not a general one, rather than to set the sentence (that the election of grace is universal), a sentence that is suspect of ambiguity, and is nowhere found in Scripture, against the Calvinists. J. Heilbrunner himself points out that the Book of Concord at the beginning of this article notes that the theologians do not all use the same words in this article. (See Der Lutheraner, March 1, 1880 on Thesis 9 concerning the Election of Grace.) One should be all the more grateful to the Formula of Concord
350 >
for resisting the dissimilar and ambiguous expressions of the theologians by means of the confession contained in Art. XI, and all the more strictly should we adhere to the doctrine of the Formula of Concord!
But the most alarming remains “the condition that what pious theologians have taught will therefore also be in accordance with Scripture and symbols. He who believes a statement of faith because it comes from a pious man must be satisfied in idolatry. That is why the Ohio Synod, with their Declaration, also denied the main principle of the Church of the Reformation. The Formula of Concord explicitly states that our confessional writings, too, are to be regarded only as testimonies, as a unanimous declaration of our faith. The principle of faith, however, the source, rule and norm according to which all doctrines and teachers are to be directed and judged, is only the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testament. It also says: We therefore also profess the unaltered Augsburg Confession, “not because it was composed by our theologians, but because it has been taken from God's Word and is founded firmly and well therein” (See the beginning of the Comprehensive Summary of the Solid Declaration.) [SD Rule and Norm 5] While Luther is recognized as “the most distinguished teacher of the Augsburg Confession” in the Formula of Concord, those who understand the Election of Grace to be only the general way of salvation for all people tend to disregard Luther and to call upon him later. There is no shortage of individual teachers among these, like Sebastian Schmidt, who teach: “God's election or predestination has been made by pure grace, without any merit of the works, and also without any consideration of these works, indeed even without any consideration of faith, as if the latter had induced predestination through its worthiness, whether it was its own or an attributed God.” Aphorismi p. 294, but most later theologians unfortunately departed from the truly biblical teaching of the Formula of Concord, which led to many misunderstandings. In contrast to Samuel Huber, who
351 >
taught a changeable election that includes all people, and who already in his time had chastised faithful Lutherans of Calvinism, the dogmatists came across this expression, according to which they taught that God had elected in view of faith; — Since they only wanted to oppose this expression to false doctrine, such things did not condemn them, although they lost the right way to teach about the eternal and saving election of grace, because they increasingly only replaced the purpose of God with the universal order of grace, “For before the time of the world, before we existed, yea, before the foundation of the world was laid, when, of course, we could do nothing good, we were according to God's purpose chosen by grace in Christ to salvation, Rom. 9:11; 2 Tim. 1:9.” (Formula of Concord Part II) [SD XI, 43]. Already in the Apology it is emphatically stated [Ap IV (II) 84], “experienced consciences can easily understand [and would not, for a thousand worlds have our salvation depend upon ourselves].” But just as the members of the Ohio Synod now teach that Election in the strict sense depends on good conduct or constant faith, so almost all of the newer theologians, even those who would be believers, teach that man's salvation does not rest solely in God's hand, but in man's own hand in the final analysis, that is, in man's own free and personal decision, foreseen by God; whereby God is robbed of the honor, that we owe our salvation to Him alone, and the same idolatrous way is given to man. — The doctrine of the Formula of Concord, that it is false and unjust to teach that not only the mercy of God and the most holy merit of Christ, but also in us is a cause of God's election, — is denied! While the old Luther doctrine that the elect are only saved by grace, but the rejected are only condemned for their unbelief, is offensive to the wise and prudent of this world, one falls on the horrible ingratitude toward God and wants to let salvation and therefore also the Election of Grace be based on faith in such a way that this finally becomes a work of man,
352 >
which man should only accomplish with the help of divine grace. In order to cover this rationalistic finding, they use the formulation that came from the dogmatists, that men are elected in view of faith, and interpret it as if the Lord Christ had not chosen His own from the world, as he says John 15:19, but from the state of faith, i.e. as if they had chosen Him by their faith; but he says John 15:16: “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you!.” In the Holy Scriptures the above-mentioned formula is not found, nor in the Lutheran confessional writings, so the Ohio Synod adopted an “only legitimate” doctrine that is found only in the private writings of dogmatists. On the other hand, the Synodical Conference held in Cleveland in August 1884 [German text; English translation in Walther's Works: Church Fellowship, pgs 351-412] bore witness to the Theses written by Dr. Walther, whose theme was: “How reprehensible it is to want to establish matters of faith from the writings of the fathers and to bind consciences to their doctrinal decisions.” There it was first proven that this is against the Scriptures, because it is against the authority of the Holy Scriptures, which according to Gen. 4:2 and 2 Tim. 3:15-17 is the only true source of all knowledge in matters of faith, which is perfect in itself according to these Bible passages, to which Acts 26:22, Luke 16:29 and Rom. 16:17 are added. From the latter passage it is clear that there is no source of knowledge “beside” the Scripture; therefore, everything that is taught beside Scripture should be rejected, even if it comes from the so-called Christian consciousness, or from enlightened reason, or from the writings of the teaching fathers [Lehrväter]! Great people also make mistakes! Ps. 62:10. [from Luther’s German] The passages Matt. 5:20-21, Matt. 15:9, John 4:41-42, where the authority of believers is rejected, contain an explicit warning against falling back into the theory of tradition. But as has been shown in the second place, it is also contrary to the teaching of Scripture, for it is against the nature of the faith of Christians, which according to Scripture is based solely on the Word of God
353 >
and for this reason alone is divinely certain. Only God's Word can bind the conscience, that is why according to Is. 8:20 one should consult the written Word of God, the law and testimony, i.e. God Himself. One should not despise prophecy, but also respect the writings of the fathers as a precious gift, but according to 1 Thess. 5:21 [sic, not 5:30] one should test everything! Woe to those who, contrary to Matt. 15:9, waste their labor with human doctrines and bind their conscience to the writings of the fathers, but to those who imitate the noble Bereans, Acts 17:11, and who at last can say with divine certainty with those Samaritan believers: “We have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.” John 4:32-42.In the next Part 16, Chapter 12.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.