M04: More good confessions; Green v. Bente on Supper

      This continues from Part 3 (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 continues reporting Melanchthon's good confessions during the later years of Luther's life. The matters touched on are still highly contentious today, especially on the Lord's Supper. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 324-6: 

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 4 of 28  - - - - - - -

  

On February 13, 1538, he [Melanchthon] wrote to Dietrich: 

“I have spoken with Dr. Luther about the quarrel of the man who discusses with you that the symbols (the consecrated elements) should not be lifted up into the air.  But my advice is that, if he confesses that the body is really present, he must allow the elevation to be necessary. If he defends Zwingli's dogma, I believe you will not defend the man.” (p. 488) 

In 1541 Melanchthon wrote to the Goldberg Pastor J. Resting about the elevation at Holy Communion: 

“Many of us have abolished the same, we here keep it according to the old custom, and I think that you should not suddenly change this custom. Although many questions would be avoided by abolishing that custom, because the Body of Christ is given with the signs, that outward reverence cannot be condemned if one has the right understanding, and does not worship the sign, but recognizes that there is something else given besides the signs. At all times of the Church (LuW 325), congregations fall on their knees in the action of the mystery, as it is called. Therefore I do not see how you could abolish this custom; only that the people should be taught rightly. (Corp. Reform. IV, 735) 

Of other certain confessions of Melanchthon to Luther's teaching from this and the following years, Melanchthon still writes in 1543 in the preface to his Locis: 

“I accept the doctrine of the Wittenberg Church and the churches connected with it, which, apart from everything else, is the consensus of the catholic [universal] Church, i.e. of all those taught within the Church of Christ.  But Paul wants there to be judgments on doctrines in the Church, so that the truth may be preserved unadulterated and unity not rashly disturbed. I myself also recognize the meagerness and lack of stainlessness of my writings. Therefore, although I make a foolish effort to speak, it can happen, especially with the great mass of things and the great brevity, that sometimes something is expressed too darkly or not comfortably enough. Therefore I do not evade the judgments of our Churches, for I respect them for God's Church and venerate them with sincere reverence, nor will I separate myself from them and submit my words, writings and actions to their judgment”. (Loci praecip. th. Lips. 1552. Praef. A 2. s.) 

Finally, the following is very important. When the Swiss wanted to be admitted to the Smalcald League in 1545, the Elector of Saxony asked the Wittenberg theologians to express their reservations. The Wittenberg theologians issued one, and it is not only signed by Melanchthon, but also written by him. In it, however, after mentioning the political reasons which oppose the admission of the Zwinglian Swiss, it says among other things as follows: 

“This we let the gentlemen themselves, who by God's grace are gifted with a high intellect, consider.  But it is public that the Zurich Predicants write against our Church, and have several articles which are criminal.  Now we cannot respect, if we on both sides are arguing against each other with writings, that the hearts would be inclined to equal protection. On the other hand, they would understand and need this acceptance as strengthening and spreading their opinion. (Corp. Ref. V, 723) *)

——————

*) Bretschneider, the editor of the Corpus Reformatorum, says for easily understandable reasons: “I do not consider either Luther or Melanchthon to be the author of this reflection, but either Bugenhagen or Cruciger.” Assuming alone that Bretschneider was in the right, it remains certain that Melanchthon signed the reflection with his own hand and thus testified that he wanted to be seen together with Luther as an opponent of the Zwinglian life, as an erroneous and dangerous one. But there is more to this, that the Wittenberg theologians in the year 1597 in of their Refutatio historiae Peucerianae expressly testify: “The response given to the Elector on this question was written down by Philip himself, which is well worth noting, and is still present in the Saxon Archives at this time.” (Consil. Witebergens. Tom. I. f. 307) 

What could and should Luther (LuW 326) conclude from this other than that Melanchthon was also in agreement with him regarding the Swiss in doctrine? Even if it may not remain entirely hidden from Luther that Melanchthon was tormented by scruples and that his nature of aversion to disunity and conflict inclined him to achieve unity through less distinct formulas, even to compromise with his opponents, all this was enough for Luther, and rightly so, not, in view of those beautiful confessions of the pure doctrine of the Word of God, to take his dear Philip to be a man who is a conscious opponent of any article of pure doctrine and any dangerous false doctrine. 

- - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 5  - - - - - - - - - -

Walther makes the clear case for why Luther still considered Melanchthon as his associate in theological matters. Philip clearly sounded just like Luther on the elevation of the host as an adiaphoron — an indifferent matter that should not necessarily be a point of contention. (This is the error of the so-called "Gottesdienst" organization.)  In the next Part 5…

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

      In Part 3, we touched on Dr. Green's errors on Church & Ministry, and the Inspiration of Holy Scripture.  This time we highlight his error concerning the Lord's Supper. In 1977, he wrote a provocative chapter for the CPH book A Contemporary Look at the Formula of Concord  attempting to drive a wedge between Luther's so-called teaching on the timing of the Real Presence in Holy Communion.  In the process, he impugns Bente's Historical Introductions… for example, the following statement (p. 306, fn 7):

“Bente paid the price [!?] of his overhasty condemnations of Melanchthon, pp. 175—185. Supposing that reformer’s [Melanchthon’s] doctrine of the Lord’s Supper to consist in covert Calvinism, he [Bente] regarded the hallmark of Luther’s doctrine to be the phrase, ‘nothing has the character of a sacrament outside of the use,’… [True! See Luther's letter to Amsdorf Jan. 11, 1545 in StL 21b, 3180, and his writing in StL 21b, 3457-59 (WABr 12, #4315); see SD VII, 85] This prompted Bente to misinterpret Beatus [Johannes] Saliger, who was probably [probably? not certainly?] a true representative of Luther [False!], calling him [Saliger] an ‘extremist … who taught that in virtue of the consecration before the use (ante usum) bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ.’ [p. 179] The term ante usum here evidently meant the time between the consecration and the manducation: Bente is espousing the Melanchthonian [?!] notion that the body is in, with, and under the bread only in the distribution and consumption [Which is the Formula of Concord’s doctrine!] (if, indeed, Melanchthon limited it to that extent), and calling the position of Luther and [False pairing of Luther with Saliger!] Saliger ‘extreme.’ Bente’s historical introduction has been very influential.”

Dr. Green uses provocative, "overhasty" terminology and methodology, the same as what Prof. Marquart uncovered in Green's doctrines of Church and Ministry (see Part 3). Luther's doctrine was definitely NOT the same as the erring Saliger. See the Wikipedia article on Johannes Saliger, Walther's Pastoral Theology, pp. 205 and 221, Pieper's CD III, p. 372) — Unfortunately Dr. Green did not stop with the three doctrines named so far, where he attacked Old Missouri, and has attracted a major following in the LC-MS even today. One could also suspect Pres. Matthew Harrison as a follower, along with Prof. John T. Pless (are you reading this, Logia?). Another of Dr. Green's deviations is planned to be revealed, the most devious.