"Carl Vehse" Part II: LC-MS change on Antichrist doctrine

      This blog post continues from Part I of Sept. 2, 2022 and documents the reasoning used by the LC-MS in the 1950s to soften its teaching on the Antichrist from that of the Lutheran Confessions.  Contributor "Carl Vehse"'s documentation is extensive and clear.  I especially appreciate how he documents a misuse of an essay by Prof. Martin Guenther from Lehre und Wehre of 1879.  I have taken the liberty to highlight the important points to enhance my own understanding and possibly the reader's. I encourage readers to read the entire post, past the break below, for the full story.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

"Carl Vehse"

In the September 2, 2022, Back to Luther blog on the LCMS change on the Antichrist doctrine, the following quote from the President's Advisory Committee on Doctrine and Practice was provided:

Scripture does not teach that the Pope is the Antichrist. It teaches that there will be an Antichrist (prophecy) . We identify the Antichrist as the Papacy. This is an historical judgment based on Scripture. The early Christians could not have identified the Antichrist as we do. If it were clearly expressed teaching of Scripture, they must have been able to do so. Therefore, the quotation from Lehre und Wehre "goes too far."

This excerpt is from the August 15, 1951, report of the Advisory Committee on Doctrine and Practice. It was replaced in the 1956 revised version of the Report by the following:

The Bible does not state in express words that the Pope is the Antichrist. We agree with Dr. Edward W. A. Koehler – A Summary of Christian Doctrine, River Forest, Ill. 1939, page 243, says: “The Bible does not expressly state who this Antichrist is, but it describes him, so that Christians may recognize him and be warned. As we endeavor to determine who this Antichrist may be, we must not take just one or two traits, but the entire composite picture as here portrayed, and find who fits into this picture. As we study the history of the church, we find but one institution which bears all the marks here ascribed to Antichrist, and that is the Roman Papacy.” [BTL: Koehler states in the following narrative (1952, p. 277) that “the Pope is the antichrist” as the Smalcald Articles state.]

We identify the Papacy as the Antichrist and we need both Scripture and history to do so. This is what is meant with the statement “This is an historical judgment based on Scripture.”

The issue of the Missouri Synod's teaching on the Antichrist and its role in fellowship discussions with other church bodies goes back further than the 1951 report and the 1956 revised report of the President's Advisory Committee on Doctrine and Practice (both reports available from Concordia Historical Institute), which dealt with the 1949 essay at the Southern California District and the California-Nevada District Conventions, "Present Hindrances to Lutheran Union," by Concordia Seminary Prof. William Frederick Arndt. It should be noted that Prof. Arndt was one of the signers of the September 20, 1945, "Statement of the Forty-Four", which included:

"We affirm our conviction that in keeping with the historic Lutheran tradition and in harmony with the Synodical resolution adopted in 1938 regarding Church fellowship, such fellowship is possible without complete agreement in details of doctrine and practice which have never been considered divisive in the Lutheran Church."

The Synodical resolution adopted at the 1938 LCMS Convention dealt with the Missouri Synod's fellowship talks with the American Lutheran Church.

The American Lutheran Church (ALC) was formed in 1930 by the merger of the Iowa Synod (est. 1854), the Buffalo Synod (est. 1845), and the Ohio Synod (est. 1818). In the 1935 LCMS Convention Proceedings (p. 221) a resolution was adopted to appoint a five-member Committee on Lutheran Union to hold church-fellowship discussions with the ALC, along with keeping the Synodical Conference informed about such discussions. The five Committee members included Concordia Seminary Prof. Arndt, Concordia Teachers College President Carl Frederick Brommer, Concordia Seminary Prof. F .H. Brunn, Concordia Seminary Prof. Theodore Engelder, and Rev. Karl Kretzmann.

 

The Committee on Lutheran Union reported on its church-fellowship discussions with ALC representatives in the 1938 LCMS Convention Proceedings, (pp. 221-228), which included (pp. 221-226) the Declaration of the Representatives of the American Lutheran Church. Among a number of other doctrinal issues was one regarding the Antichrist, in which the ALC Declaration stated:

B. In particular we confess the following:

1. In regard to the Antichrist we accept the historical judgment of Luther in the Smalcald Articles (Part II, Art.IV:10) that the Pope is the very Antichrist (German: "der rechte Endechrist oder Widerchrist"), because among all the antichristian manifestations in the history of the world and the Church that lie behind us in the past there is none that fits the description given in 2 Thess. 2 better than the Papacy....

The answer to the question whether in the future that is still before us, prior to the return of Christ, a special unfolding and personal concentration of the antichristian power already present now and thus a still more comprehensive fulfilment of 2 Thess. 2 may occur, we leave to the Lord and Ruler of the church and world history.

It was this ALC statement regarding the Antichrist that, in his 1949 essay at District Conventions under the heading of "The Few Non-Fundamental Matters Mentioned in the Resolutions of 1938 Need Not Be Held To be Divisive If The Right Attitude Toward the Scriptures Is Manifested" (resulting in memorials at the 1951 Synod convention demanding a recanting), Prof. Arndt had noted

Here, too, it is clear that the view in question need not keep us from granting fellowship to the one who proposes it, because he is not denying anything that the Scripture teach. [Essay, p. 20)]

The 1938 LCMS Convention Committee 16 took the Committee on Lutheran Union Report (p. 229), noting:

(b) In some non-fundamental points concerning the doctrine of the Last Things the Declaration of the American Lutheran Church representatives asks tolerance for certain teachings and interpretations which have been rejected in our circles.

1. This concerns particularly the doctrine of the Anti-christ. With the Missouri Synod the Declaration of the American Lutheran Church, on the basis of the Scriptures and the Smalcald Articles, teaches that the Pope is the Anti-christ; but the question as to whether the future will bring a specific unfolding and personal concentration of the present anti-christian power is left ot God....

While the Missouri Synod teaches on the basis of 2 Thess 2:3-12 and in accord with the Smalcald Articles (Part II, Article IV:10) that the Pope is the very Anti-christ for the past and the future, your Committee finds that the synodical fathers have declared that a deviation in this doctrine need not be devisive of church-fellowship. (Lehre u. Wehre, Vol 19, 1873, p. 290; Lehre u. Wehre, Vol. 25, 1879, p. 35 ff.)

And (on p. 231) Resolved (in part):

That Synod declare that the Brief Statement of the Missouri Synod, together with the Declaration of the representatives of the American Lutheran Church and the provisions of this entire report of Committee 16 now being read and with Synod's actions thereupon, be regarded as the doctrinal basis for future church-fellowship between the Missouri Synod and the American Lutheran Church.

The Committee 16 report and the Resolution was adopted by the Convention.

The 1873 Lehre und Wehre article stated, in part (as translated from German):

Therefore, although we are of the opinion that the ecclesiastical obligation to the Symbols includes also the non-fundamental doctrines, e.g., of the Antichrist, we are of the opinion, together with the Fathers, that a difference of opinion in non-fundamental doctrines cannot be regarded as a perversion, nor does it exclude absolutely from the ecclesiastical magisterium, nor does it hinder the right spiritual communion, if only it does not knowingly sin against God's Word or cause ecclesiastical disruption.

However, this article is entitled "Grundlage einer lutherischen kirchlichen Einigung in Deutschland" ("Foundations of Lutheran Church Unification in Germany"), and was written by Friedrich August Brunn (1819–1895), a pastor in Steeden, Germany.

The 1879 Lehre und Wehre article, entitled, "Macht sich wirklich die Missourisynode einer „Ueberspannung in den Lehrdifferenzen“ duldig?" ("Does the Missouri Synod really acquiesce to an 'excess of tension in doctrinal differences'?") was signed by "G" [Martin Guenther?]. However in this article, in response to German pastor and provost H. D. Röhler's reference to the 1873 LuW article, the 1879 LuW writer states that "the Missouri Synod declares the denial that the pope is the Antichrist to be church-dividing and indeed to be absolute, thus, church-dividing under all circumstances..."

In 1941, after further meetings with the ALC, the Committee on Lutheran Church Union reported in the 1941 LCMS Convention Proceedings on the status of negotiations with the American Lutheran Church (p. 298):

II. Present Situation

1. Little attention was given by our official committee during the past three years to "the five points concerning which there still exists a divergence between some members of the American Lutheran Church and our Synod (visible side of the Church, Anti-christ, millennium, resurrection of martyrs, conversion of Jews).

2. The discussion centered upon the following items (Sandusky Resolution, 1938):

The statement made by the American Lutheran Church that it is neither possible nor necessary to agree in all non-fundamental doctrines;

The declaration that the American Lutheran Church will not give up its membership in the American Lutheran Conference.

The phrase "in the light of" occurring in the sentence "We believe that the Brief Statement viewed in the light of our Declaration is not in contradiction to the Minneapolis Theses."

As a result the Committee proposed (p. 303) that discussions between the LCMS and ALC continue, and were an agreement to be reached on a single doctrinal statement and after the Missouri Synod and the ALC take favorable action, that it be presented to the members of the Synodical Conference and to the members of the American Lutheran Conference for their favorable action before any other doctrinal agreements would be presented. This was adopted by the 1941 Synod Convention.

In the 1944 LCMS Convention Proceedings (pp. 243-246), the Committee on Lutheran Doctrinal Union reported on discussions with the ALC, but with essentially no real success in doctrinal unity or in efforts to create a single doctrinal statement to which all would agree. Despite numerous memorials to rescind or annul the 1938 Resolution dealing with the ALC, and even with the obvious differences between the LCMS and ALC, the Committee's proposal to continue discussions with the ALC was adopted.

In the 1947 LCMS Convention Proceedings (p. 476 ff.), the Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod (from 1932) was presented (pp. 476-492). The Committee then reported (p. 497):

Now what is the situation? There are chiefly three difficulties standing in the way of fellowship with the American Lutheran Church:

1. The manifest lack of doctrinal unity...

2. The difference in conviction regarding the degree of doctrinal unity required for fellowship....

3. The membership of the American Lutheran Church in the American Lutheran Conference....

Again, there were numerous memorials to rescind or remove the 1938 Resolution. Following these memorials the 1947 Convention adopted a resolution (p. 510) that stated, in part:

Resolved,

1. That Synod declare that the 1938 resolutions shall no longer be considered as a basis for the purpose of establishing fellowship with the American Lutheran Church; and

2. That Synod encourage its committee on Doctrinal Unity to continue discussion on a soundly Scriptural basis, using the Brief Statement and such other documents as are already in existence or as may be necessary to formulate;...

Three years later, in the 1950 LCMS Convention Proceedings, along with the many memorials against the Statement of the Forty-Four and calling for an investigation of charges against Concordia Seminary faculty and various other individuals, Memorial 608 - Where Does Synod Now Stand? (pp. 587-589) noted:

4. Does the venerable Synod approve or does it reject the teaching as found in the classrooms of the St. Louis Seminary, in conference discussions, and in the Lutheran Witness:...

b. That, as openly stated by at least on member of the St. Louis faculty, the declaration of our Lutheran Confessions of the Pope's being the Antichrist according to clear statements of Scripture is not acceptable?...

d. That as recently repeatedly stated by Dr. William Arndt, there are "doctrines" of Holy Writ which are not divisive of church fellowship? See the venerable doctor's essay at the convention of the Western District, 1948, and in the two California Districts, 1949.

As a result, the 1950 Synod Convention adopted a Resolution (pp. 658-9) stating:

Resolved, To refer the charges to Synod's regularly-set-up channels for action.

The Praesidium then assigned the task of addressing the various memorials, including those regarding Prof. Arndt's 1949 essay, to an Advisory Committee on Doctrine and Practice, with the instruction to submit a report before the next Synod Convention, which takes us back to the September 2, 2022, Back to Luther blog post .

============================ End of Part II ===================================

I have documented Prof. Arndt's weakening theology elsewhere and so his weakening position on "church divisive" issues is just another sign of this. — Because the journal Lehre und Wehre was so instrumental in documenting the teaching of Old Missouri, I am taking this opportunity to announce that the complete series, all 75 volumes will be made available in English later this year.  Keep watching this blog…