M03: M.'s good confessions in Luther's last years; Lowell Green's attacks, Marquart's rebuttal

      This continues from Part 2 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C. F. W. Walther's 1876 essay “The ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon on the Part of Luther.” — Walther shows us the good confessions of Melanchthon, even as he complains of "more disunity" which would lead others to a false conclusion.  This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 323-4 [EN]::

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 3 of 28  - - - - - - - 

Without doubt, however, Melanchthon had only been against the meeting [for the Wittenberg Concord] because he had feared that it would only become trouble because of ill will.  Already before that he had written to Landgrave Philip in relation to the projected meeting: “Now I am worried for many reasons that this will lead to more disunity, and that more treachery, hatred, indulgence and public scolding will arise.” (op. cit. p. 56) He expressed the same concern also in letters to Veit Dietrich. (p. 65, 70) As suspicious as all this can be seen, Melanchthon is not to be believed that he should have signed the [Wittenberg]“Concord” in contradiction with his conviction at that time.  In 1537 we find Melanchthon among the signatories of the Smalcald Articles, which, as is well known, express Luther's doctrines in such clear words that an opponent of them can only sign them as one self-condemned. (Autokatakritos). In 1538 we read further in a response of Melanchthon to one of the nobility: 

“There is no reason to tear Christ apart, that He is with us according the Godhead, and is not with us according the humanity, especially since He said He would give us His body and blood etc.  Paul also says that the Lord's Supper is a fellowship of the body and blood of Christ. But if Christ were not bodily present, it would be fellowship of the Spirit alone, and not of body or blood. And this I consider to be enough for a simple teaching.  Now these words of the Supper are not contrary to other Scripture, whether they are already foreign to reason.” (p. 620)  

We find a particularly splendid confession of Melanchthon in the testament which he wrote in 1539 in a premonition of death.  In it he writes among other things:

“Of the Lord's Supper I hold fast the Concordia made here. *) I have therefore joined these churches, and I hold (LuW 324) the fact that they professed the doctrines of the universal Church of Christ and were true churches of Christ. And I command my children to remain in our churches and flee the churches of the Papists and from binding with them.  For in many articles the Papists confess a very corrupt doctrine: they know nothing of the doctrine of the righteousness of faith and of the forgiveness of sins; they teach nothing of the difference between the Law and the Gospel; they have pagan or Pharisaic opinions about the invocation of God; to these errors they add many others, as well as manifest idolatry in their masses and their veneration of the deceased people. I therefore demand of my children that they obey me for the sake of God's command in this and do not join the Papists. … New sophistical comparisons of the doctrines of the faith will perhaps arise, by which the old errors, somewhat colored, will be restored, and these comparisons will spoil the purity of the doctrines which are now being taught.  I also warn my own people against these, that they do not approve of sophistical comparisons. … My intention has not been to sow any new opinion, but to make a clear and real declaration of the catholic doctrines taught in our churches, which I believe have been revealed by a special act of grace of God in these last times through Dr. Martin Luther, so that the Church might be purified and restored, which otherwise would have been completely lost. … But I thank the venerable Dr. M. Luther, first of all because I learned the Gospel from him. And secondly for the special goodwill he has shown towards me, which he has shown through many good deeds, and I want the same to be honored by my own people only as a father.” (Corp. Ref. III, 826. f.) 

——————

*) Proof that Melanchthon had signed the Wittenberg Concord with complete conviction. 

- - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 4  - - - - - - - - - -

Walther surprisingly tells us that "Melanchthon is not to be believed" when he speaks at this time in ways that would condemn himself as a hypocrite. All those who would say that Walther (and Bente) is only wanting to put a “black hat” on Melanchthon will have to ignore several points that he makes, here and elsewhere, of the strengths of Melanchthon during this period.  Indeed, it was my pleasure to present other examples of his strengths on my blogs here and here. — In the next Part 4… 

- - - - - - -   The LC-MS Opposing Theologians, Historians: Dr. Lowell C. Green   - - - - - - - -

anti-Missourian

      Who was Dr. Lowell C. Green († 2014)? He certainly was a talented, well-read, and educated scholar. Various sources (CLTS, Wikidata, funeral sermon by Dr. John T. Pless) reveal that he was never trained in the LC-MS, but by the opposing Iowa Synod and theologians of Erlangen in Germany (doctorate, 1952 to 1955). But much more, Dr. Green taught in the LC-MS against Missouri's teachings. It was said that he was influenced by "Werner Elert, Paul Althaus, Wilhelm Maurer." He testifies in his books to having been especially influenced by Prof. Werner Elert who maintained that the "Lutheran Confessions show a deviation from Luther" and that as a "Bad Boll" participant "asked whether verbal inspiration will not lead to an intellectual and legalistic apprehension of the Bible." The result has been that Dr. Green has always taught modern German theology against Old Missouri Synod teaching. A blatant example of this was published in Logia May, 1996, Dr. Green wrote (p. 32):

“Walther expressed some positions [on Church and Ministry] that become subject to criticism when reviewed in the light of the Scriptures and the Confessions.”

Prof. Kurt Marquart († 2006) gave a masterful rebuttal to this attack in Logia 1997, no. 2, p. 31 ff. [2024-01-02: fixed link], also here. He uses strong language against Green's methodology such as 

• Green's "tangled webs of half-understood clichés from mistranslated sources", 
• "Green keeps taking away with one hand what he gives with the other", and
• "Green has made up a scarecrow.", etc. 

In the same rebuttal, Marquart highly praises Hochstetter's history of the Missouri Synod, so one could wonder that he would also praise Bente's history. May the name of Prof. Kurt Marquart be remembered for his outspoken defense against this outrageous attack of Dr. Green. — 

      LC-MS Prof. Martin Naumann explained the thinking of Dr. Green's teachers in Germany, in the Springfielder, vol. 24 (1960), no. 2, p. 19, that for them "it is impossible to present one's theology if one [Missouri Synod?] still is so backward as to believe in inspiration." — The over-arching question one has to ask is "Why was Dr. Green allowed to teach in LC-MS schools, to write for LC-MS journals?" if he was trained in opposing schools and explicitly taught against LC-MS doctrine? Unfortunately, Dr. Green's sympathy for Grabau was matched by that of Prof. Benjamin T. G. Mayes in "honor" of C. F. W. Walther in 2011! — We will later give more examples of Dr. Green's explicit charges against Walther's and Bente's (i.e. Old Missouri's) history and teaching.