M25: L. reproaches M., Elector seals record; Dr. Scott Keith's Law-driving

[2024-08-23: added Luther quote against Dr. Keith below.]

       This continues from Part 24 (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 reports how it happened that general history does not speak of a falling out between Luther and Melanchthon. We see also how Luther did not "carry" Melanchthon. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 368-369 [EN]:

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 25 of 28  - - - - - - -

That Luther followed the Elector's advice [to counsel Melanchthon] is reported by Seckendorf in the following words: 

“Luther received Melanchthon's apology, in that he [Melanchthon] said that he had neither drafted the passage on Holy Communion nor concealed from Bucer what he was missing in it, but that Bucer had paid no attention to his memory.  Thus Luther's anger turned all the more against [Martin] Bucer [who was certainly culpable!]; however, Bucer also calmed him down by publishing a booklet in which he set forth his opinion of the Sacrament somewhat more clearly.” (Commentar. de Lutheranismo. L. III, p. 27. § 108. P. II, fol. 448) 

Although, apart from this report by Seckendorf, which is undoubtedly based on documents contained in the Saxon archives at his disposal, we ourselves do not have any further authentic document about a reproach made by Luther to Melanchthon in private at the request of the Elector and about the success of such a reproach, it would be foolish to doubt on this account that the same had happened.  For as far as Luther is concerned, first of all, faithful as he was, he never wrote anything unfavorable about his relationship with Melanchthon, whether it was to a friend or an opponent of him, and how could Luther have done it? Can you think of commenting on a matter about Melanchthon, in which the Elector had obviously placed a seal of secrecy on him? As far as Melanchthon is concerned, he too made no mention of that reproach [although see above Part 24, p. 358: “occasionally attacking me as well” 8 months before the Elector’s letter to privately counsel M.]; but since he knew, however, that the same had been done by order of the Elector, and according to his express wish was to be a secret one, this is very understandable. If it was dangerous for Melanchthon to divulge these secret proceedings to the Elector, (LuW 369) it was certainly in his interest to keep his mouth shut. There is therefore no doubt, not only that the reproach happened, but also that Melanchthon thereby declared himself, as he had always done, toward Luther in such a way that the latter was now completely pacified. 

Thus, we notice not only that Melanchthon, from the time in which this reproach must have occurred until Luther's death, never again complained to his confidants that Luther was also aiming at him in his polemics, but also that from now on both of them again conversed with each other in unclouded cordiality and intimacy. Already on May 7, 1545, Melanchthon wrote to Wolfgang Musculus: 

“It pains me that the Zurichers not only answered improperly,” (in reply to Luther's “Brief Confession” [StL 20, 1764 EN]) “but also that they mixed in the absurd opinion of the heathens. The Church is not in that crowd in which there is no knowledge of the promise of Christ, no voice of the Gospel, no preaching ministry.” (C. R. V. 755) *) 

—————— 

*) Before that, Melanchthon had not dared to hand over to Luther a letter from Calvin to Luther that had been sent to him. “Your letter,” he writes to Calvin on April 17, 1545, “I did not hand it over to Martin, for he takes many things with suspicion.” (From the Zurich manuscript printed by Henry II. Beil.. 12. p. 107. Compare Unschuld. Nachrr.. 1722, p. 626. ff., where Calvin's letter is communicated). 

That Luther in his writing “Against the Thirty-Five Articles of the Louvain Theologians” [StL 19, 1808 ff.] of that year [1545] in the 28th thesis had declared “the Zwinglians and all sacramentarians” to be heretics [Ketzer] (Opp. Hal. T. XIX, 2256), Melanchthon does indeed mention this, but without, as he usually did on such occasions, pronouncing a rebuke on it. He writes only to Menius on the year mentioned, September 9: 

“I am sending you the sentences published against the articles of the Louvain's Sophists, which will be followed by a whole book. Only Adam may not think that Luther has taken up arms in the point of the Lord's Supper (abjecisse hastam). You see him again giving the signal here.” (C. R. V., 848) 

To his Veit Dietrich he explains without a side glance at Luther, as otherwise, on September 13: 

“If I could shed so many tears as our Elbe carries water with it when the river bed is full, my pain, which has arisen from this discord, could not be satisfied.” (p. 852) **) 

—————— 

**) It is known that Luther also made similar statements repeatedly with regard to the dispute over the sacraments. 

- - - - - - - - -   Continued in Part 26  - - - - - - - - - -

Walther carefully studied all the history and writings of this period. We see above how his studies of the private writings of Melanchthon revealed a change in them after the meeting with Luther. Where is the "much greater precision" of modernist historians? In the next Part 26…

- - - - - - - -   LC-MS Opposing Theologian: Dr. Scott Keith:   - - - - - - - - -

While we already in Part 14 quoted a statement of Dr. Scott Keith, I would expand that quote to include a reference to the doctrine of Justification. In his Preface to the re-published book of Dr. Lowell Green, Dr. Scott Keith stated, p. xix (emphases are mine):

“Historic Lutheranism is often accused of antinomianism. Through his formulation of justification as forensic declaration, the will and the relationship of good works to salvation, Melanchthon was systematizing not only justification by faith, but also the necessity of love and good works in response to the free gift. The good news was clearest in the writing of the Apostle Paul as explained in the Reformation doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone. This teaching, according to Melanchthon, and Dr. Green, is incomplete without the addition of a changed will compelled to be sent out in love to share the gospel, spread the “good news” and be the ambassador of Christ to family and neighbor. When only given half of the message the historic Lutheran doctrine is left incomplete.”

A Bible passage that applies to this narrative would be Galatians 3:1-3:

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

The Formula of Concord defends against wording like the above from Dr. Keith, FC Ep  4, 16 (Trigl. 801, 16): 

"We reject and condemn the following modes of speaking: when it is taught and written… that no one ever has been saved without good works; also, that it is impossible to be saved without good works."

[2024-08-23 - Added this quote: Luther wrote in 1533: 

"Because they (papists) say: ‘It is true, one must be justified through faith, provided at the same time the works go along with it; since before and without works faith is nothing.’  With these words they name faith as that which justifies, but nevertheless give to the works the righteousness, and faith alone gets precisely nothing." (StL Ed. 17, cols. 2009-2010, paragr. 6; not in Am. Ed.)]

What else can Dr. Keith mean for the other "half of the message" than it is good works? Dr. Keith in the quote above is again mixing the Law with the Gospel. C. F. W. Walther said it well as previously reported, in Part 15, that

“Cordatus… unquestionably distinguished Law and Gospel a thousand times better than Melanchthon, even though the latter was called ‘Teacher of All Germany.’”

Dr. Keith's praise of Melanchthon is poor praise indeed! It promotes Melanchthon's weakness instead of his earlier strengths! (Otherwise, there is plenty to praise in Melanchthon.) When the poor sinner is told that the pure Gospel is described as only "half of the message", what is he to think, but that there must yet be something he must do, which overturns the notion of a "forensic declaration", a "forensic declaration" which is the subject of Dr. Green's book.  This narrative of Dr. Keith involves driving the Law back into the Gospel.  No one can promote pure "Good Works" without first getting the Doctrine of Justification pure and maintaining the proper distinction between Law and Gospel. — In the next Part 26…