RH11: Irony of Hoffmann's United Church; Repristination theology?; Chiliasm

   This continues from Part 10 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting Pastor's Hochstetter's critique of an 1881 German pamphlet on the Old Missouri Synod. — Hochstetter lays bare the corrupted teaching within the United Church, and so encourages Christians to take their doctrine, what they are to believe, from Holy Scripture itself. When scholars give long-winded narratives with little reference to the Bible, that is a sure sign to beware, and go back to the proof texts to assure oneself of the Truth. — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 28 (Feb. 1882), pp. 79-81 [EN]:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

How the Missouri Synod is Judged in Germany Today.

[A review of an 1881 pamphlet by Pastor Rudolph Hoffmann of Germany]

By Pastor Ch. Hochstetter, Stonebridge, Canada.

 

In view of the situation that Hoffmann himself complained about in his church [p. 19], that there are often two preachers in one and the same congregation, one of whom preaches the divinity of Christ in the morning and the other one denies the divinity of Christ in his lecture in the afternoon of the same day, Hoffmann should have refrained from the irony with which he enumerates a few things that the Missourians still consider an open question. He could have left such accusations to the Iowans, for from them one is accustomed to hear all the things he otherwise cites against Missouri. The answer has been given so often that we <page 80> mostly limit ourselves to the enumeration. 

The first accusation leveled at Missouri theology is that it is a pure repristination of Old Lutheran dogmatists. This reproach does not apply to us inasmuch as we always take reason and proof of our doctrine from God's Word itself, especially the dicta probantia [proof texts], in which the doctrine is dealt with ex professo, but the Missourians rejoice in the testimonies that are consistent with their doctrine and that delve into the doctrinal writings of the fathers. These testimonies serve to show that we teach nothing new in rebus et phrasibus. This is what we fear, for truth is but one, and the revealed Word of God is simple, not a thousandfold, which is what the Unionists want to make it; the Missourians do not want to make progress which leads to unbelief and apostasy. That is precisely why the serious accusation that the Missourians want to make new doctrine is not true. Many a unanimous testimony for the old scriptural truth, as already follows from the Seventh Commandment when the doctrine of usury comes into consideration [see p. 29], is cited by the Missourians, because we find the truth in God's Word, and this is also the normative norm according to our symbols! We always maintain that God's Word alone should make articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel from heaven [Gal. 1:8]; this word was once held by Luther against the Pope, we must again testify to today's neo-Lutherans, who want to wait until the Church speaks: “The Church cannot set anything new, nor has it ever done so!”

Hoffmann then takes the fact that chiliasm is not tolerated in the Missouri Synod as a reproach! But if he wants to use as evidence the proceedings that were once taken against an old pastor [Schieferdecker] who had long since recognized his error and returned to our midst, this example has been unfortunate. Whoever is not satisfied with the spiritual nature of the Kingdom of God, whoever, moreover, has before his eyes a sad confusion and vain dissension among the teachers (there will hardly be twelve pastors in the state churches who harmonize with one another), will gladly take refuge emotionally in the imagination of a future millennial kingdom! Therefore, if Hoffmann, according to the complaints he himself makes about the German situation, nevertheless thinks that an essential difference between the two sides is that [p. 33] 

“what we can tolerate in the solid structure of a church system that has been ordered for a long time cannot be tolerated by the Missourian Free Church, which is set on the basis of complete arbitrariness”, 

then this is poor consolation for the United Church members if they want to belong to church in another way. 

The Missouri Synod, which has unity of faith and doctrine as its foundation, certainly cannot bear such an internal disruption and doctrinal disunity, as it is privileged among the syncretistic [Prussian] Union! The Uniteds do not have a certain, firm doctrine to which <page 81> they can adhere; where there is no unity of spirit, there is nothing to adhere to as there is according to Ephesus. 4:3; but the Missourians are allowed make this memorial their own, which, according to the Missouri Synod, means: “Hold what you have!” [Rev. 3:11]

- - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 12  - - - - - - - - - - - -

      It is quite sad to read of the condition of the German Union Church, that within the same congregation with two different pastors, one could preach the divinity of Christ, the other deny it. This also sadly mirrors what is going on in today's LC-MS, where the moderate or progressive party are allowed to refrain from or even teach against what the Old Missouri Synod taught and would discipline. But on top of this, they will glory in their shame. — 

      In the next Part 12, Hochstetter unravels another charge by Hoffmann, then summarizes how the Missouri Synod was glorified through its struggles against false doctrines.