Spiritual "death and life": Pieper's 1912 sermon to Synodical Conference on fellowship

      Although I have referenced a quote from Dr. Franz Pieper's sermon to the 1912 Synodical Conference convention several times (here, here, and here), it was only the quote itself without the surrounding text. I want to expand this quote by giving the full text that went with this phrase. One may read a good chunk of this text in C. S. Meyer's 1964 CPH Moving Frontiers book p. 289. But I want the full text published, as a greater testimony of just how serious the matter is if one does not follow what is according to God's Word. The German text may be followed starting here in Google Books: 

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

To teach other doctrine than Christ's Word is a slap in the face of Christ, who wants to teach and govern the church by His Word alone. To teach other doctrine than Christ's Word is also a blow to the face of Christians, whose Christian dignity and Christian glory consists in the fact that they are not subject to the word of men, but are subject to Christ's Word alone. And finally also: Leading other doctrine than Christ's Word can always only happen to the detriment of souls. 

It is a matter of death and life. 

The word of man, however well-intentioned, can never save a humanity dead in sins. Only God's Word can do that. [The following is not in C. S. Meyer's translation:] All the word of man in the Christian church is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers and the flower falls off, even if people imagine that they could lead the whole world to the light with their "conception" or "further development" or "supplementation" of the Christian doctrine. Only God's Law, provided it is taught without attenuation and human addition, makes man a truly poor sinner. Only God's Gospel, provided it is preached without interference from the works of the Law, produces faith in Christ, gives the highest good here on earth, the assurance of grace and salvation, and gives strength and desire to walk the narrow way to eternal life. Every change of the Gospel by admixture of man's works, whether it is called merit or only right conduct, is poison and death for the spiritual life, puts itself as an obstacle, as a trap, as a nuisance between men and the grace and blessedness acquired for them by Christ. Hence the apostle's zeal in pronouncing a curse on all who teach the Gospel of Christ differently than He taught it, Gal. 1:8.

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

In the Meyer English translation, the phrase is "It is a matter of life and death", a version more familiar to American readers. But the German is stated in the reverse order, perhaps adding to its sense of urgency. While the above text speaks of Christ's Word, the sermon topic was on church fellowship and Romans 16:17-18.

      In a synod where a prominent professor ridicules so-called "biblianity" and those who stand by their Bible, there can be no unity. Indeed there is constant danger of spiritual death.

Stoeckhardt's Advent Sermons book: "a greater grace yet to come" (another BTL book)

      There were many books published by the Old German Missouri Synod, and the books by Prof. George Stoeckhardt were highly regarded, as were those of Walther and Pieper. Although the following offering may be a little late for this Advent season, yet I am presenting an English translation of Stoeckhardt's Adventspredigten, or Advent Sermons, published in 1887, the same year that C. F. W. Walther passed away. This was a time for comfort for the people, and this book filled that need nicely. Stoeckhardt was known for his deep familiarity with Holy Scripture, and that gift was on full display in this book of sermons.

      To provide motivation to read from this book, or at least to read one of the 28 individual sermons, I present a few

Notable Quotes:

iv: "Superficial listeners and readers may become weary of the apparent monotony that confronts them in the prophecy… Souls eager for salvation, on the other hand, rejoice…"

1: "But the word of prophecy gave them enough light and knowledge that they could believe and be saved through faith in the promised Savior."

1: "during Advent, we follow in the footsteps of the fathers, as it were, preparing ourselves for Christmas by contemplating the promises that were given to them and awaiting the fulfillment of which the Christmas message tells us."

2: "We can wait and hope all the more confidently because the first Advent is behind us".

4: "Now, through the later promises, through the gospel of Christ, that first gospel from paradise has become much clearer and more evident to us."

9: "In defiance of Satan, Eve named her firstborn Cain, saying: 'I have the man, the Lord.'" [Gen. 4:1, LED Bible]

54: On 2 Sam. 7:18-19, which is mistranslated by virtually all popular English Bibles: 

"David also recognized the will of God and, after Nathan had finished speaking, remained before the face of God, humbly giving glory to his grace and saying, 'Who am I, Lord, Lord, and what is my house, that you have brought me this far?' 2 Sam 7:18. But Nathan spoke to David in the name of God of a greater grace yet to come. He said, 'And the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house. Now when thy days are fulfilled, that thou shouldest sleep with thy fathers, I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall come from thy body, and I will confirm his kingdom unto him. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. And I will be his father, and he shall be my son.' At this great word of promise bowed King David to the ground, so that he continued to speak to God, saying, 'You have paid too little attention to this, O LORD, O LORD, but have spoken to your servant's house of things yet to come. This is the way of a man who is the LORD God.' 2 Sam. 7:19 (LED)" [See this blog post]

The last sentence above is stripped of its glory by today's English Bibles by taking Christ out of it. But Luther's Bible had it right, and Stoeckhardt makes great use of it, bringing Christ back into 2 Sam. 7:19.

————————————————————

      In this book, the quoted Bible verses are largely a product of the DeepL Translator of Luther's German Bible. In some cases it will be preferred over today's popular English Bibles, especially where they have used rationalist translations. — If the machine translation seems to be in error, compare with the original text by going to the Google Books copy here. The translated pages are from the same page as in the original German book. Now I present a slightly enhanced English machine translation of Stoeckhardt's Advent Sermons. Interpretation of the Most Important Prophecies of the Old Testament:

The above file, with no highlighting, is available to download here; PDF here.

On this day of Christmas Eve, let us look to the Word to which King David bowed ("at this great word of promise bowed King David to the ground"), the Word of promise fulfilled… on Christmas Day.

E3: Will another, beside the Pope, be Antichrist?; full translated text of 1870 Eastern District

      This concludes from Part E2 (Table of Contents in Part E1) presenting the 1870 Eastern District convention essay on "The Antichrist". Walther was in attendance, so the essay's content would be his as well. — The LC–MS teaching even denies the Confessions' statement that "the Pope is the very Antichrist" by stating that this could change over time:

3) Duration of the Pope as the Antichrist:

the LC–MS's Theological Commission states:

1870 Eastern District essay (w/ Walther): (emphasis mine)

“We acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist could change. … [Footnote:] At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God's guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on "Justification by Faith") could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine [i.e. Council of Trent] dogma.

Gerhard: (p. 34) "When the papists speak of the Pope, they do not mean any particular person, but the series of people who have succeeded one another on the papal throne. Augustine Trinuphus [a papist] writes,  ‘with regard to the office of the papacy and authority, all the popes who have been from the beginning and will be until the end of the world are no more than one Pope’.  …  Indeed, Cardinal Hosius [another papist] writes:  ‘…but Peter, that is, the man who bears this name, according to the authority of his office and calling instituted by Christ for the salvation of Christ's sheep, who never dies, but always lives by succession; and he is in the Church, has been, and will be to the end of the world. ’ …  …For in the same way that the Pope is the Antichrist to us, as he is to them the head of the church, the bridegroom, etc." (Conf cath. l. c. p. 603. a.)

      John Gerhard’s narrative demonstrates that the Lutheran Confessions understood the duration of the reign of the Pope as Antichrist to be the same as what the Papists understand to be the period of the reign of the Pope, until the “the end of the world”. 

      Also Gerhard here understands the word “Pope” in the confessional phrase “the Pope is the very Antichrist” to have the same meaning as the papists understand that term. The Papists do not distinguish their word “Pope” from the individual. They teach that under the term “Pope” is meant both the “office of the papacy” and the individual in that office. So means the Smalcald Articles.

      Any LC–MS pastor who has signed the Lutheran Confessions, but believes the official LC–MS doctrine, has given up his “confessional” status. Or would they assert that what Gerhard taught here was not “confessional”? — The LC–MS’s Theological Commission is ignoring the fact that the papists are teaching what some would call  “retroactive continuity” or to “change something and then you simply assert you have always taught it”. The LC–MS is trying to avoid the scorn of the world, by toning down the actual message of the Confessions on this Lutheran and Biblical doctrine.

      One may wonder: why is the doctrine of the Antichrist so important? The Eastern District essayist, and Walther, put it succinctly:

“If we do not recognize 

the true Antichrist from the prophecies, 

what right do we have to reproach the Jews 

for not recognizing 

the true Christ according to the prophecies?”

If Christians do not believe that the Pope, including the individual, is the very Antichrist, then they are not yet destroying but are jeopardizing their Christian faith.

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

Now I present a polished translation of this important essay. I have included several hyperlinks for reference and navigation:

The above file, without highlighting, may be downloaded directly >> HERE <<. PDF file HERE.

E2: Antichrist = "collective person", all individual Popes (Comparing LC-MS vs Old Missouri)

[2024-12-21: added note in red below on "collective work".]

      This continues from Part E1 (Table of Contents in Part E1) presenting the 1870 Eastern District convention essay on "The Antichrist". Walther was in attendance, so the essay's content would be his as well. — In this post, we dig into the portion that is in direct opposition to what is taught in the LC–MS today: 

1) Has the “Missouri Synod” never taught that individual Popes were the Antichrist?

the LC–MS's Theological Commission states:	1870 Eastern District essay (w/ Walther): (emphasis mine)
“The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist.”	“The present pope is considered by many to be too pious to be the Antichrist… But do not be deceived, the devil disguises himself as an angel of light.  Pius IX is rather the greatest hypocrite, the most shameful, most wicked man that the earth bears at present”

The Eastern District convention, along with Walther who is considered the father of the Missouri Synod, explicitly taught that an individual Pope was “the Antichrist”. Walther’s word to the LC–MS: “do not be deceived”.

2) Again, not “any individual Pope as a person”?

the LC–MS's Theological Commission states:	1870 Eastern District essay (w/ Walther): (emphasis mine)
“…the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic "Anti-Christ" ... Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions' identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy…” [excluding any individual Pope]	“…according to the Scriptures, we should rather think of a collective person (consisting of several individuals).” Luther: "One should by no means obey those who understand this (Dan. 8:23-25) and similar passages of the prophets to refer to one person alone… [Luther refers to “person” here, not just an office. The Antichrist is not “one person” but a series of persons holding that office.] Paul would have understood the whole body and the whole swarm of the ungodly and all their descendants to be the same end-Christ [or Antichrist]. Gerhard: “…Against the Papists we urge that in Matt. 16:18 the singular with the definite article and the demonstrative pronoun “ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ” [“on this rock”] is found, and yet they [papists] refer that word no less to every pontiff. We also urge this, that canon law, when it names the "Pope," does not understand one [einen] man, but every Pope who is present at the time, or the whole succession of Popes." Hülsemann: "There is absolutely no reason why one should think more favorably of the present Roman bishop, Urban VIII [an individual man], as if he were either not the Antichrist, or that he has not defiled himself with all the marks of the Antichrist.

Now the LC–MS may think that their identification of only the “office of the papacy” as the Antichrist agrees with the essay’s statement of a “collective person”, but the Eastern essay then clarifies this with the term “several individuals”. [2024-12-21 Cp. to "collective work" in copyright law.] Now the LC–MS theologians will surely fault the Eastern District essayist, saying that this is not what the Scriptures teach, not what the Confessions teach. But the LC–MS’s teaching essentially says that the Confessions are ambiguous when it is written that “the Pope is the very Antichrist”. But the writings of Luther, Gerhard, and  Hülsemann know nothing of the peculiar LC–MS doctrine. Luther does not speak of just the “office of the papacy”, he used the word “person”. He is not excluding the “office of the papacy”, he is reinforcing it by referring to the “person” or “persons”. And while Gerhard does not specifically speak of “individual men”, yet his terms “every pontiff” and “every Pope” point to individual men as Popes. — He also understands the word “Pope”, in the confessional phrase “the Pope is the very Antichrist”, in the same way that the papists do. The papists do not distinguish the word “Pope” from the “individual men who fill that office”. 

      The Lutheran Confessions state “the Pope is the very Antichrist”. Nowhere do they exclude the individual Popes as the Antichrist, as the LC–MS theologians do. Yet these theologians boldly claim “we affirm the Lutheran Confessions'…”.

      There is another aspect of the Old Missouri Synod teaching that "flies in the face of" today's LC–MS, the duration of the period of time of the Pope as the Antichrist. We cover that in the next Part E3.

E1 Eastern District's “Theses on the Antichrist”, Walther present (in 1870)

      In a previous blog post, I covered the topic of how the LC–MS deviates from the Lutheran Confessions on the doctrine of the Antichrist. This was part of a series that covered Walther's sharp essay in the 1874 Der Lutheraner defending against the error of Wilhelm Loehe and the Iowa Synod on this doctrine. I had thought that that post was sufficient to establish that the Lutheran Church–"Missouri Synod" was not truly "confessional", and so I was done with this doctrine. 

      But now, once again, I find that I have been too mild, for I have come across even stronger evidence of just how far the LC–MS is non-confessional. In that old post I included a link to the 1870 essay to the Eastern District, "Theses on the Antichrist" (English translated). Walther was in attendance, so the essay's content would be his as well. My old translation was not polished, so I have taken several days to polish it and study the material in more depth. What I discovered was how important this doctrine of the Lutheran Confessions really is, even if it is a non-fundamental article of the Christian faith. 

      What is unique about this District convention essay is perhaps the extent of the details on why this article is important: it was one of the defining articles, after "grace alone — faith alone", of the Lutheran Reformation. Walther knew very well how this doctrine was despised even in his day. That unpopularity did not sway him, it only made him more earnest in educating his Synod in exactly what the Lutheran doctrine is. And oh! did this essay lay it out before the Eastern District convention, surely the least sympathetic district to this Lutheran doctrine. The essay is more instructive than the shorter Der Lutheraner essay of 4 years later. It is 54 pages long so I will not be presenting it in a lengthy blog series (but see the later Part E3 for download). But I would highlight some of its major points in the following list of quotes:

Notable Quotes (tl;dr):

p. 20: "According to Scripture, the discovery of the Antichrist is also to be connected with the reformation of the Church." [The Reformation was Luther's Reformation.]

21: "this doctrine is important because it is clearly stated in the confessional writings of the Lutheran Church (especially the Smalcald Articles)" [To deny it is to deny one is Lutheran.]

21: "Although the Iowans say that everything here depends on history, the Jews could have said to the apostles in exactly the same way: we first want to see how it goes with your Christ, for it is indeed written in the Bible that a Christ is to come, but not expressly that it is precisely this Jesus of Nazareth.… the characteristics of the Antichrist are also clearly laid down in Scripture" [To deny doctrine of Antichrist uses same reasoning as the Jews did with Christ.]

22: "if they find that these people [Romanists] even surpass others in outward, worshipful exercises [i.e. Liturgy, ceremonies] … they wonder what kind of Christianity must be hidden there." [error of Pres. Matthew Harrison and "Gottesdienst"]

25: "In the old days of the Christian church, an Antichrist was expected in the sense that he would not be a collective but an individual.… many Christians were inclined to believe that he [Mohammad] was the Antichrist."

28: "because of the words: 'the true, right one', i.e. in the actual, narrowest, strictest sense of the word the Pope is the Antichrist."

29: "This failure of the Iowans on the symbols proves again that Iowa is not sincere about the symbols." [now also the LC–MS]

30-36: Theses VI & VII: "a collective person" section —> see the next Part 2 (70E2).

38: "For when someone departs so far from the rule of faith that he can no longer stand in justifying faith, Scripture calls this apostasy. This great apostasy took place in the Roman sect."

38: "We Lutherans write Pabst [Pope] with a "b" at the end, like our fathers, while the Romans write it with a "p" [Papst]. The latter thus indicate that they consider the Pope to be the true Papa…"

40: "This requires art and deceit, to defile everything under the best pretense"

43: "as great as the corruption of the sects is, it is nevertheless infinitely surpassed by the papacy."

48: "The Roman theologians say that the images are only signs of remembrance, but the common people use them quite differently…in the crucifix they do not worship Him whom it depicts, but the crucifix itself."

48-49: "one should not be surprised that the Roman people look up to the so-called saints as their gods and pray to them." [It is the same today. Just Google it.]

50: "Do they not worship it [bread in the monstrance] by genuflection, kisses, prostration on the ground…"

53: "The time in which the Antichrist began to reveal himself… around the year 607."

54: "The preacher has no more authority over a Christian than a baby in the cradle, and Peter had no more."

54: The papacy "has recovered from the severe wound inflicted on it by the Reformation and is now spreading all the more, the less attention is paid to it and the less it is feared."

55: "The papal religion is a totally new, shameful and diabolical invention; not a syllable, not an iota of it is confirmed in Scripture."

60: "In the struggle against the authorities, the Pope is one with the revolutionaries…" [Cp. Dr. Christian Preus' essay "Roman Catholicism and Liberalism"]

61: "…the papacy, which always offers its mediation to states in distress in order to gain influence on the politics of these states…"

66: "The pope pretends to be God by teaching and preaching without the foundation of Scripture"

68: "Rudelbach: 'Sixtus IV (1471 to 1484) practiced even the most outrageous usury" [Rudelbach names an individual Pope]

Pages 30-36 concern matters that are explicitly denied by the theologians of the LC–MS. We compare the two "Missouri Synods", Old and New, in the next Part E2…

- - - - - - - - - - - -  Table of Contents  - - - - - - - - - - -

E1: This introduction, with "Notable Quotes"

E2: Antichrist = "collective person", all individual Popes (Comparing LC-MS & Old Missouri)

E3: Will another, beside the Pope, be Antichrist?; full translated text

John Gerhard, Prof. Mayes defend "grace alone" (vs Harrison)

        While researching some writings of John Gerhard, I had occasion to glance through the 2020 CPH book On Good Works - Theological Commonplaces. What impressed me was how thoroughly Gerhard defended against the Roman Catholic theologian Robert Bellarmine, who doggedly defended his Church's doctrine of "grace and works" for salvation.

      The editor of this volume is Prof. Benjamin T. G. Mayes, a theologian who has been shown to hold questionable theology in other blog posts here and here. So it came as a surprise to me that he spoke well about Gerhard's strong defense against the Roman mixing of grace and works. What was perhaps most helpful was his quote from Catholic sources of their "Response" to the 1997 Joint Declaration of the Doctrine of Justification. On page xii, Prof. Mayes quotes this Roman "Response":

“We can therefore say that eternal life is, at one and the same time, grace and the reward given by God for good works and merits” — (Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity) (see archived copy here.)

That is an official statement of the Roman Catholic Church in 1998 under Pope John Paul II. Prof. Mayes' republishing of this statement was most helpful for Lutherans today in order to see that there remains a major difference between Lutherans and Catholics. The Roman Catholic Church is the same church today as it was in the days of the Council of Trent. Now Prof. Mayes goes on to make the following statement of "Applications to Modern Theology": 

“Gerhard’s response [to Catholic theology] will thus be applicable to modern ecumenical discussions…”

That is a very appropriate statement! But our professor does not go into detail of what these "modern ecumenical discussions" might or should be. Perhaps that was not the place to do it. But he should have "discussions" within his own church body, particularly with President Matthew Harrison, who in his presentation of Walther's Church and Office said this (p. xiv, emphasis mine):

“As I perused the Catechism of the Catholic Church for contemporary documentation of positions of the Roman Catholic Church which Walther addresses and which are the object of Lutheran polemic, I noted numerous points of remarkable convergence of Lutheran and Roman Catholic doctrine on the Office of the Ministry. While we must reject what is false, we can also joyously note what is right—no matter who says it.”

Now if Prof. Mayes actually believes what John Gerhard defended, then he would recognize the fallacy in Harrison's statement. Because when the Roman Catholic Church condemns "grace alone" and "faith alone", it has struck at the heart of the Christian faith. And so there can be no "convergence of Lutheran and Roman Catholic doctrine", no matter what doctrine the papists teach.

==>> Prof. Mayes: Do you really believe what John Gerhard defended? It seems that your spiritual leader causes one to question "grace alone".