Search This Blog

Thursday, April 20, 2023

M06: Ratzeburger “hits truth”; Scott Keith: Bente's “poorly” covered history

      This continues from Part 5 (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 is not only pointing out Melanchthon's errors, his major theme is that this “remained completely unknown to Luther”. That is a difficult thesis to defend, and Walther is the most qualified to present the case. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 327-9 [EN]:
 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 6 of 28  - - - - - - -

On October 13, 1537, when a day had already been set on which Melanchthon was to be reproached for suspecting that he held false doctrines, he wrote to the same Dietrich: 


“Today I have collected a small supply for my defense. I will tell you why I thought I had to explain some things in the dogmas more precisely in order to eliminate ambiguities and improper ways of speaking (άχυρολογίας), which have many dangers. I will show which dark parts (LuW 328) have created such improper ways of speaking; I will also say why I thought I had to moderate some of them. I will add the goals I have set myself, not to be the author of a new sect, or to appear to be fighting a mirror-image against Luther, but to achieve these two things: that there might be a Christian doctrine that was actually and simply presented for the benefit of youth, and that I might promote the study of other sciences. . I will also apologize that my views have been more moderate in public deliberations. For I have never tyrannically defended my opinion, but have rather followed what the princes have decided by common council, as in an aristocracy.… Know, then, that I am ready to answer with full equanimity. For perhaps an open discussion will be the best way to lift the whole offense.” (op. cit. p. 429

When in the year before Cordatus had attacked Melanchthon on account of the latter's naming of good works as the causa sine qua non, Melanchthon declared in a letter [of Nov. 1, 1536] addressed from Nuremberg to Luther, Jonas and Cruciger together: 

“I have never wanted to teach anything else, especially with regard to this point of contention, nor have I taught anything other than what you teach together.… My writings are here. Nor do I flee your judgment, not even [Nicholas] Amsdorf's. Nor have I ever thought of anything other than to explain as accurately as possible what your doctrines teach, because I knew that many of such important things have perverse opinions. Young people also need a suitable way of teaching doctrines, sometimes in dialectical words.… I also ask you for Christ's sake to make sure that I 'taught' what I taught with good zeal and not in the knowledge (animo) of disagreement with you. I have never wished to separate my opinion from your own; rather, when I am incriminated by the suspicions and slander of certain men, and alienation of minds is to be feared, I would rather go away somewhere.… I do not presume to presume anything and I have nothing new to publish but my opinion. I collected yours and explained it as simply as I could." (op. cit. p. 180 [StL 21b, 2117]

He also wrote to Camerarius in the same year concerning this dispute: 

“They have circulated letters” (of Cordatus) “in which it was written that I would not return because I disagree with Luther and the others. This idle talk of the people is ridiculous to me; but there are those here who have stirred up these fables, who thereby sufficiently place their folly or the weakness of their will on display. Nothing is reproached to me but that I am said of myself that I praise good works too much.  This is because, by actually and precisely declaring and methodically presenting these points of contention, I am talking about some things less offensively (minus horride) than they do.” (p. 193

Still on October 21, 1545, he writes (LuW 329) to Buchholzer: 

“I do not know where the so great hatred against me in some old friends comes from, since they themselves know that no new dogma of mine has been brought forth and that in some matters the true and actual explanation has been sought with considerable diligence.” ([CR 7,] p. 872

it remained… unknown to Luther

In addition to Melanchthon's repeated assurances that he was in agreement with Luther in his doctrines, there is now also the fact that much of what Melanchthon said and wrote was questionable, and that it remained completely unknown to Luther. That Melanchthon, for example, had written an "Apologia de conciliatione", defense of a compromise, Luther learned with astonishment only through a letter from Venice [WABr 10, 201-206, text here; English translation here.]. (Luther's Letters, de Wette. V, 568 [StL 21b, 2807; Luther’s answer: StL 21b 2876-2877]) [Matthäius] Ratzeberger also writes: 

“After this Colloquio (1536) and departures from Wittenberg, not only Bucer, but also the other theologians from Upper Austria, Switzerland and Zurich would write a lot to Philip, likewise Philip now and then to the Zurich theologians, since Heinricus Bullinger had only recently succeeded in Zwinglio caeso [beat Zwingli]. Luther did not know the slightest thing about this secret writing back and forth, and it remained hidden for a long time that Luther did not learn anything about it.” (Ratzeberger's handwritten history of Luther and his time, edited by Neudecker. Jena 1850, p. 85

"nobody could notice it, except his secret, trusted friends"

Ratzeberger tells further below, 

“So now Philip, as reported, could hide his dissensum a doctrina Lutheri de sacrosancta coena [dissent from Luther's doctrine of the sacrosanct Lord’s Supper], so that he didn't let it be heard or noted in the slightest, and almost nobody among the Studiosis [students] could notice it, except only his secret and trusted friends, as Vitus Winshemius, Mag. Marcellus et pauci alii [and a few others], and so his secret remained affectus Luthero adhuc vivente [while Luther still lived] or more remained hidden and hushed up.” (p. 95) 

- - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 7  - - - - - - - - - -
On Ratzeburger, the Deutsche Biographie testified (translated): “It was then seen that Ratzeburger, even if he was somewhat pessimistic in his views of the times and people [?], and sometimes bitter and severe in his judgments [?], nevertheless generally hit the truth.” The witness of Ratzeberger gives Walther's thesis of Luther's ignorance of Melanchthon's errors great weight. A thorough Internet search for his image was fruitless. — In the next Part 7… 

- - - - - - - -   The LC-MS Opposing Theologians, Historians: Dr. Scott Keith   - - - - - - - - -
Dr. Scott Keith; reprint of Green's "How Melanchthon Helped Luther…"
       Dr. Scott Keith is an Adjunct Professor of Theology at Concordia University, Irvine, California, and the Executive Director of the "1517 Legacy Project", now "1517.". By the naming of his organization, he means to promote the idea that they are the source for the history of the Reformation most commonly acknowledged as beginning in the year 1517. 
      What does Dr. Keith say about Bente's Historical Introductions?… about the history of Philip Melanchthon?  We heard in Part 5 that he, along with Dr. Rod Rosenbladt, were students of Dr. Lowell Green.  His "1517 Publishing" has re-published, in a new edition, Dr. Green's 1980 book How Melanchthon Helped Luther Discover the Gospel in 2021. In Dr. Keith's Preface he states:
"[Bente's] work covers a goodly deal of Melanchthon history and theology, but poorly.
It is apparent that Dr. Keith follows Dr. Green in his assessment of Bente's, and Walther's, history of Melanchthon. And he confirms his judgment of Bente in his podcast of May 19, 2017 (~08:15-08:50):
Dr. Keith expresses here what is surely the prevailing opinion and teaching in the classrooms of the LC-MS. Not only is Bente criticized, but Keith again expresses publicly what is surely taught today in LC-MS schools and seminaries: Dr. Robert Kolb instead of Prof. F. Bente. This is surely the intention of the Fortress Press authors, although not expressly stated in this 2012 book. More specific charges by Dr. Keith from this podcast will be brought to light in future posts. 
     It appears that the aim of Dr. Lowell Green to steer the LC-MS completely away from Missourian theology to that of modernist German theology, is now fully realized… or are there still some who want to stay true to the theology of Old Missouri? We present a surprising example later in Part 9.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.