M12: Quenstedt & Calvin tell the truth about M.; do Dingel & Kolb on Melanchthon & Leipzig Interim?

[2024-07-19: added another quote of Dr. Kolb on the Leipzig Interim; 2023-06-18: added note on Dr. Dingel below in red text.]

       This continues from Part 11 (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 now brings out the unsettling ambiguity in Melanchthon's writings after the presentation of the Augsburg Confession, and Luther's corrective counsel to him. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 336-337 [EN]:

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 12 of 28  - - - - - - -

As early as 1530, Melanchthon, as we have already seen, was guilty of using ambiguity to establish peace. [See above Part 8, p. 332 ff. above, Baumgartner] Among other things, he himself wrote to Luther on August 22: “Eck sneered at the word 'alone' [sola], if we say that men are justified by faith alone; but he did not condemn the matter, saying it was offensive to the ignorant. For I forced him to confess that righteousness is rightly attributed by us to faith.  He (LuW 337) wanted us to write: that we are justified by grace and faith; I did not resist, [“non repugnavi”] but that foolish man does not understand the word ‘grace’.” (II, 299. f.  [StL 16, 1401-1402, #1057]) To this news of the foul peace Luther answered him: "You write that Eck was compelled by you to confess that we are justified by faith; would to God, you would have compelled him not to lie. (Luther’s Letters, de Wette. IV, 145; [StL 16, 1402 #1676; not in old  series Am. Ed.]) *) 

——————                                                                                 

*) [Johannes] Quenstedt writes: "When, after the delivery of the Augsburg Confession at the Imperial Diet of 1530, a settlement of the points of contention between the princes and theologians of both parts was negotiated from August 16 to 22, it pleased Melanchthon to leave that word 'grace' in its ambiguity, that he and his comrades could take and interpret it for the mere affect of divine benevolence, but Eck and his comrades, as usual with them, for virtuous qualities, which were poured into men by the benevolence of God, as the principal cause; which meaning does not prevent man from obtaining salvation through merit, as the secondary cause, which would be infused into him by God out of his good will, as the primary cause. In such ambiguities Philip was extremely pleased, as can be seen from his letter of August 22. But Luther disliked this ‘wickedness’ (Ephes. 4:14) from the beginning; hence he wrote a reply to Melanchthon on August 25th.”. (Theol. did.-pol. II, 770)  

In 1539 Calvin wrote to Farell: 

“I sent him (Melanchthon) a few articles in which I had briefly summed up the sum of the matter.  He himself agrees with these without contradiction, but he admits that in that part there were some who demanded something more crass, and with such rigidity that I do not say, tyranny, that for a long time it was to be feared that they saw him alienated from their opinion. Though he does not think that there is a friendly agreement, he wishes that this unity, whatever it may be, be cultivated until the Lord will have led us on both sides to unity in His truth. As for himself, have no doubt that he believes as we do.” (Calvin. epp. p. 24) 

The consequence of his dissimulation towards his opponents was, then, that they took him completely for their side, far from it, that he, as he undoubtedly intended, at least at that time, to have brought them closer to the truth through the same. [i.e. opponents misread M. at that time]

- - - - - - - - -   Continued in Part 13  - - - - - - - - - -

The time in 1530 at which Luther had to warn Melanchthon about his ambiguity in the meaning of the word "grace" is critical in understanding Reformation history. — In the next blog post we present Excursus 1 on the testimony of Martin Chemnitz pertinent to Walther's points about Melanchthon.  Then in Part 13…

- - - - - - - -   LC-MS Opposing Theologians, Drs. Dingel & Kolb:   - - - - - - - - -

      In the preceding Part 11, we saw indisputable testimony of the differing natures of Melanchthon and Luther.  But what about their doctrine?  What do modern historians conclude about Melanchthon's theology? Dr. Irene Dingel, is a frequent associate of Dr. Robert Kolb in church historical literature.  She judged, in her 2008 essay "Culture of Controversy" in editor Kolb's book Lutheran Ecclesiastical Culture, 1550-1675, (p. 22, emphasis mine): 

"In contrast to the Augsburg Interim, this Leipzig “alternative” [i.e. Leipzig Interim] preserved evangelical doctrine but reflected some medieval Catholic practices in ceremony and custom." 

Dr. Dingel makes no mention of the actual wording on Justification, and it's ambiguity, in the Leipzig Interim, and only gives her opinion that it "preserved evangelical doctrine". That is not church history, but her opinion. We saw above that Melanchthon even exhibited this same ambiguity 18 years earlier in 1530. (Dingel also makes no mention of Melanchthon's letter to Carlowitz of April 28, 1548.) [2023-06-18: Dr. Dingel made the same erroneous judgment in her essay "Melanchthon and the Establishment of Confessional Norms" in the 2012 book Philip Melanchthon: Theologian in Classroom, Confession, and Controversy., p. 163: "…the article on justification which Melanchthon had drawn up in the 'Leipzig Interim' preserved Evangelical teaching."]

      Dr. Robert Kolb, in his 2001 book Sources and Contexts, stated the following on the "Leipzig Interim" p. 183: 

“However, the statement of the final draft regarding justification, … contained ambiguous language regarding the doctrine [of Justification]. In fact, parts of it had been borrowed directly from the Augsburg Interim.”

[2024-07-19:] Then in his Kolb/Wengert version of the Book of Concord (p. 563), he said the following about the reference to the "Interim" in Article III of the Formula of Concord:

“Although the Augsburg Interim, with its doctrine of double justification, is probably meant here, the “Leipzig Interim’s" article on justification had been fiercely attacked by the Gnesio-Lutherans for its formulations that seemed to compromise the Lutheran understanding of salva­tion 'by grace alone' and 'through faith alone.'”

Kolb's reporting differs from that of his associate Dr. Dingel who makes no mention of the "ambiguous language". (Why does Dr. Kolb join his histories with Dr. Dingel's?) But even Kolb avoids spelling out the actual "ambiguous language" (Sources and Contexts, p. 185): “the merciful God draws… (men) in such a manner that their will cooperates, if they are of the age of reason.” That  "ambiguous language" fits well with the papist teaching, if not outright Synergism. — But even Dr. Kolb's weak defense of the doctrine of Justification, if one can call it that, overturns the judgment of Dr. Dingel's non-defense at this critical point, a point of "terrible pressure" according to Dr. Rosenbladt. (Where now is Kolb's claim of "much greater precision"?) This disqualifies Dingel, (perhaps even Kolb) as a truly Lutheran theologian, not to mention that she has no Scriptural basis (jure divino) for her teaching position in the Church as a woman. [1 Tim. 2:12, blog post here] — And what about Dr. Kolb, who in his "objectivity" makes himself suspect in this matter, for in his own 2005 Bound Choice book, he speaks of the "Leipzig Interim" (p. 106) as the "effort to present an official Saxon policy that seemed to comply with the catholicizing Augsburg Interim, such words appeared to be a perfidious betrayal." The same was true in his 2012 History where he avoids stating this unequivocally, only saying (p. 178) that "this doctrine was ambiguously stated according to its critics". Is he a critic of the "ambiguous" language in the "Leipzig Interim" or not, i.e. is he Lutheran or not? (It seems he has put his Lutheran "bias" too far onto the shelf.)

      Dr. Kolb strangely never mentions the name of Carlowitz (see Part 11) in all his chief books in recent decades, but he did mention it in an October 1997 Concordia Journal article on Melanchthon, p. 310: 

"To be a colleague of Luther's was, of course, not an easy task. It was like being harnessed to a dynamo. Melanchthon himself complained about living under the burden of servitude to Luther. (fn#7: In a letter to Christoph von Carlowitz, 28.4.1548, Corpus Reformatorum, VI:880)"  

Even though Kolb did not use a pejorative term in 1997 against Luther, he came close, giving no rebuttal to Melanchthon's complaint. (He did call Luther "overheated, overblown, harsh, and petulant" in 2012, p. 155; [2023-05-15: Löscher's judgment is the opposite of Dr. Kolb - see Part 11]) Why did Kolb not mention this "servitude" letter to Carlowitz in his subsequent history books? Why did he not point out how this letter gave aid to the opponents of true Lutheranism? Is he justifying Melanchthon's charge against Luther? Was he seeking favor with today's Melanchthon defenders? (Maybe Kolb does not want to be "harnessed to a dynamo.") And this report is hardly an improvement over Dr. Green's omission of Carlowitz's name because the significance of Carlowitz is that he was an opponent of the expelled Elector John Frederick, and a follower of Erasmus, an opponent of Luther. Melanchthon was complaining of his dissatisfaction with Luther not to friends of true Lutheranism, but to a foe.  Why do all these modern theologians avoid reporting about this if it is not embarrassing for their defense of the legacy of Melanchthon?… or not embarrassing for their so-called "objectivity"?

      The true church historian in this matter was not Drs. Green, or Kolb, or Dingel, but Prof. F. Bente who reported (p. 99 or here) of the Leipzig Interim that "Even the Lutheran sola (sola fide, by faith alone) is omitted in the article of justification." — We will cover the doctrine of Justification in more detail in a future post. But we reinforce Bente's (and Walther's) history of Melanchthon with a refreshingly clear testimony from Martin Chemnitz in Excursus 1.