M24: Elector's letter to spare M.; Kolb whitewashes history, theology; LCMS is not true "Missouri Synod"

       This continues from Part 23 (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 concludes John Frederick's pivotal ominous letter to Chancellor Brueck concerning the fate of Melanchthon. If a history of the Reformation does not include this letter, it is an incomplete history.  — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 367-368 [EN]: 

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 24 of 28  - - - - - - -

 

Therefore, our gracious request would be if he did not want to note such things from us in any other way than graciously and meant in the best way, and spared the mention of Philip in his book by name, but (since he has causes for him, since he thinks it doubtful that he is attached to the people of Zurich or others in what the doctrine of the Sacrament is concerned) to require him [Melanchthon] to come to him [Luther], and to admonish him alone, in a Christian and fatherly manner; we wanted to completely foresee that he [Melanchthon] would find himself Christian and in all fairness and let himself be instructed. ***) … 

—————— 

***) The Elector could well cherish this hope, since Brück had written to him shortly before, on April 24, that he 

“could not reassure him that Philip was once again grieved and distressed beyond measure,” and that “he should take it for granted that, because Martin wants to establish the article on the venerable Sacrament, it will go further than the Wittenberg Concord of the south Germans gives and is able to do in principle, and that a great disruption of this time will result between them and the south Germans, and not only between Swiss preachers.” (p. 743 [C. R. V, 739-743]) 

Accordingly, Melanchthon had declared that he wanted to hold fast to the doctrine as it had been formulated in the Wittenberg Concord in 1536. 

——————

If no admonition will help him, which we did not want to anticipate, then the proposals (LuW 368) for this and other things, if he thinks they are good, could well come. (C. R. V., 746. f.) 

However, as soon as Amsdorf had sent him his “Censure” of the Cologne Reformation, Luther had testified privately and publicly, and Melanchthon, since he felt guilty about the matter, had drawn Luther's sharp judgments on himself.. He [Melanchthon] wrote to [Veit] Dietrich already on August 11, 1544: “I wrote to you the other day about the Amsdorf censorship. And now Luther begins to arouse war in sermons. He should also, I do not know what, want to publish.” On the same day he also wrote to Camerarius: 

“Your Leocrates (Amsdorf), once a friend of yours, has sent here a sharp and malicious censure of the Cologne Reformation. But to him to whom he sent it (Luther) it appears as a mild one. Leaving his object, he now thunders and flashes against certain other things, occasionally attacking me as well.” ["interdum me quoque petendo"] (p. 461 f.) 

- - - - - - - - -   Continued in Part 25  - - - - - - - - - -

The items above that Walther brings out are hardly ever covered by other historians, especially those inclined to "Philippism". Now who actually has "much greater precision" in their history? — With such a pending ominous situation, how did it turn out for Melanchthon? Find out in the next Part 25…

[2023-07-18: For a further writing on this situation, including the letter of Elector John Frederick to Luther, see F. Bente's essay in Lehre und Wehre, especially 482 ff.]

- - - - - - -   LC-MS Opposing Theologians, Historians: Dr. Robert Kolb   - - - - - - - -

      Dr. Robert Kolb's report of the above events in his History (p. 169-170) is incomplete and therefore misleading.  He omits Elector John Frederick's letter to Brueck to have Luther counsel Melanchthon. He omits Melanchthon's private letter to Camerarius reporting that Luther was "occasionally attacking me [Melanchthon]".  As such he ignores just how serious the situation was for Melanchthon and his theology.  That Kolb is a "Philippist" in his History is evident, so how does his History have “much greater precision than was possible a century ago”?

against Walther

      Kolb's history is "poorly" covered, as seen also in Parts 12, and 20. His theology is questionable in his so-called "objective" treatment of Synergism, the Antichrist, and Election of Grace, etc. (see also here), which is even more troubling. (Wallace McLaughlin pinpointed the problem in 1953: "the so-called 'psychological approach' has displaced the old-time Scriptural propaganda and polemics once characteristic of the Missouri Synod.") In 2001, Kolb wrote an essay critical of Walther's 1877 book Concordienformel, Kern und Stern, a history of the Formula of Concord. The essay was included in the 2001 book Soli Deo Gloria: Essays on C.F.W. Walther in Memory of August R. Suelflow, and was entitled "C.F.W. Walther and the Epitome of the Formula of Concord". Kolb judges Walther like a Philippist would, as one with little regard for the primacy of Holy Scripture in matters of faith, and then presumes to make spiritual judgments of the people involved. Dr. Kolb

• calls Walther's history an "oversimplification" (p. 49),
• overturns Walther's use of "a commonplace used since the sixteenth century" with his own political judgment (p. 49),
• calls Walther's account of the banning of Luther's most controversial hymn by the Catholic party "a good story" (p. 51),
• calls Walther's history of Melanchthon an "equivocal assessment" (p. 51), 
• belittles Walther's defense against Melanchthon's "third cause" of conversion (p. 52), and
• charges Walther with not "addressing the historical problem involved in Luther's toleration of such [Melanchthon's confusing] expressions" (p. 55). 

Of course on this last point, Kolb must have been unaware of (or ignored) Walther's scholarly essay above that directly answers Kolb's "historical problem". Maybe Dr. Kolb, like the Leipzig Mission Society Director Hardeland, holds that Luther did tolerate Melanchthon's errors? (Those interested may read Kolb's 16-page essay, with highlighting and my comments in red text interspersed HERE.) — It appears that Kolb was setting the stage in 2001 for his profusion of books and articles since then claiming to have “much greater precision than was possible a century ago.” I believe CHI Director Suelflow would have been displeased with this critical essay by Dr. Kolb and would not have been honored by it. Walther would not accept Dr. Kolb's faint praise based on this essay. Sad.

      As I considered Dr. Kolb's critique of Walther, it seems to be one of the clearest indicators that the LC-MS is not the true "Missouri Synod". In truth, since the time of the name change to LC-MS in the 1940s, it never was. — Dr. Kolb's offensive essay has stirred me to spend many weeks translating, polishing, and adding hundreds of hyperlinks to Walther's much-maligned book. More about this, with a download, in Part 26. 

[Below, in the "Read more" section, is the text of Kolb's 2001 16-page essay with my highlighting  and interspersed comments in red text. Also it may be viewed here. Jump to pages 51 and 54-55 for the heart of Kolb's false judgments of Walther and of the theological controversy on Synergism.]