JPK3: Pieper's "Use and Abuse of Analogy of Faith"

     This continues from Part JPK2 (Table of Contents in Part JPK1) in a series defending against the aberrant teachings of deposed Wisconsin Synod Prof. J. P. Koehler († 1951) of the Wisconsin Synod. — We move from Luther now to Pieper. What stirred up the "hornet's nest" by WELS Prof. J. P. Koehler's theology was the controversy regarding the Doctrine of Election between the Synodical Conference and other American Lutheran synods. A major Intersynodical "free conference" was held in September of 1903 in Milwaukee to discuss the issues. What became apparent during the meeting was that the reason for the controversy was a different approach to Holy Scripture. It had to do with something called "the analogy of the faith". After this meeting, Franz Pieper was forced to produce a "signature" essay giving masterful instruction on both the "analogy of the faith" and the Doctrine of Election to try to clear the matter up – if only the opposition would pay attention. The essay was serialized in Lehre und Wehre, volumes 49 (1903) and 50 (1904). The following are

Notable quotes:

Vol. 49 (1903) [EN]

321: "the question arose as to what the analogy of the faith is. … the “analogy of the faith” is not something subjective, …but something objective, namely, the clear statements of Scripture themselves".

322: "And before the doctrine of election could be discussed, a fundamental disagreement had already emerged among the participants in the assembly. … the great gulf that must be bridged if real and true agreement is to be achieved in these matters."

323: "The discussions about analogia fidei were not concluded."

323: "if something does not fit into the framework of the rational context, the theologian would be justified in reinterpreting or completely denying clear statements of Scripture." [i.e. abusing the "Analogy of Faith".]

324: "harmonious unity of Christian doctrine only as a unity in the sense of the divine revelation of Holy Scripture, not in the sense of human reason" [i.e. the proper use and the abuse of the Analogy]

324: "There is a right and a wrong use of the analogy of faith in the interpretation of Scripture."

324: "As church history teaches, the analogy of faith has been invoked to reject clear teachings of Scripture under a good appearance." [Nestorius, Zwingli, Reformed, Oecolampadius]

326: "Zwingli gives Luther the following extra lesson on the interpretation of Scripture [like J. P. Koehler]"

329: "…the analogy of unbelief, which does not want to submit to God's Word, but to be the master God's Word…"

354: "As soon as someone… is forced to distort clear words of Scripture, it is a sign that somewhere, or even in several places, he is not quite right."

Vol. 50 (1904) [EN]

21: "Our confession defines the rule of faith as 'clear Scripture.' Thus it says in the Apology: … should be interpreted or introduced according to the rule, that is, according to the clear Scripture, and not against the rule or Scripture". [(Triglotta p. 441, § 59-60)]

22: "We have a brief rule of faith in the Apostles' Creed. We have a somewhat more detailed rule of faith in Luther's Small Catechism." [Both outline "the faith" that is to be believed.]

24: Luther on Romans 12:6: 

“This is his (the apostle's) opinion: those who have the grace to interpret Scripture should see to it that they interpret it in such a way that it is in harmony with the faith [dem Glauben], and not against it, nor otherwise, than the faith [der Glaube] teaches” [St. L. ed. 12, 334 (not in Am. Ed.)]

27: 'The rightly used analogy of faith is not a guard for the Scriptures, but for the exegetes, who are inclined to insert their own thoughts into obscure passages, and sometimes even into clear passages of Scripture"

      It is to be noted that Pieper's associate, the noted exegete Prof. George Stoeckhardt, did not teach Romans 12:6 as an objective faith, but a subjective one., as reported by Koehler in History, p. 244, and in Stoeckhardt's Commentar über den Brief Pauli an die Römer, p. 560-572 (See Stahlke's hand-written translation here, p. 420-429; Koehlinger p. 170-173.). However Koehler admitted that Stoeckhardt "did not contradict his colleague’s (Pieper's) statement about the analogy of faith." (History, p. 244).

     Now we present a greatly enhanced translation of Pieper's full essay spanning 3 issues of Lehre und Wehre. Many hyperlinks have been added, for navigation and for almost all references:

The full document may be downloaded >> here <<. German text >> here <<.

      Prof. J. P. Koehler's teaching on Romans 12:6, as seen in the last Part JPK2, is in direct opposition to Martin Luther, now Franz Pieper and the Lutheran Confessions, and, as we will see in the next Part JPK4, the premier theologian of Lutheran orthodoxy, John Gerhard.

JPK2: Luther vs J. P. Koehler on Rom. 12:6, "analogy of faith"

     This continues from Part JPK1 (Table of Contents in Part JPK1) in a series defending against the aberrant teachings of deposed Wisconsin Synod Prof. J. P. Koehler († 1951) of the Wisconsin Synod. — Koehler's provocative charges against the Missouri Synod and Franz Pieper, can be answered by the Reformer, Martin Luther.  First, let us review again Koehler's main argument regarding Romans 12:6 and his defense of it from his History of the Wisconsin Synod book, p. 212 [comments in red]: 

J. P. Koehler: subjective faith (Rom. 12:6) (p. 212): 

"The proper interpretation of the misapplied Scripture text [by the Missourians] became imperative, and Koehler [Koehler writes of himself in the third person], who had not taken part in the discussions, applied himself to the task, with the result of the article in the first number of the Quartalschrift under the head of “The Analogy of Faith.” His finding was that the Apostle is not stating a technical principle of hermeneutics in Rom.12:6 but saying that in the matter of the gift of ‘prophecy’ such prophesying should be according to the proportion of faith (as it is translated quite aptly in the English Bible); in other words, those in the early church endowed with this particular gift should confine themselves in their prophesying’, its content, scope, and exercise, to the measure or degree of faith with which they were endowed, [i.e. subjective faith] by virtue of which they could exercise such gift thru the Spirit; they should not try to go into higher flights of their own (cf. v3)."

That is subjectivism. Koehler immediately admits that Dr. Hoenecke, his superior, called his attention to the fact that "the article was in conflict with the practically unanimous opinion of the dogmaticians regarding the use of two vital concepts of the Scriptures: pistis (faith) and charis (grace)." Koehler admits that his

"article contended that ‘faith’ [in Rom. 12:6] is used subjectively only of the Christian’s inner attitude".

Koehler admits to his own "private interpretation" ("contended") which is warned against in 2 Peter 1:20. 

      More than the later dogmaticians, Koehler's contention is directly opposed to Martin Luther's repeated teaching on Rom. 12:6. 

 

Martin Luther: objective faith

• LW 1, 354: "This interpretation is in accordance with the faith (Rom. 12:6) and confirms the hope of resurrection and of eternal life."
• LW 2, 151: "…the rule of Paul, who enjoins in Rom. 12:6 that prophecy or doctrine should be conformable to the faith."
• LW 6, 131: "…not all of them are to be believed, but only if they are of the analogy of faith (Rom. 12:6). I shall cling to the Word of God and be content with that."
• LW 7, 118: "But here the analogy ends, not of faith (cf. Rom. 12:6) but of things".
• LW 9, 25: "This is done when, according to the injunction of Rom. 12:6, prophecy is according to the analogy of faith…"
• LW 22, 105: "'You hear that God did not become an angel but a man like you, and you just stand there like a stick of wood!' Whether this story is true or not, it is nevertheless in accordance with the faith (Rom. 12:6).".
• LW 34, 96: "We will cleave to this rule which St. Paul teaches us, Romans in the twelfth chapter [:6], 'All prophecy shall be similar to faith.' Those teachers who teach what conforms to the faith in Christ, them we will teach and hold to; any teacher, however, who does not teach what conforms to the faith, him we will neither hear nor see"
• LW 36, 195: "Nothing is to transpire or be done unless it is certain that God is the author and doer of it. [i.e. objective] This is what Paul intends in Rom. 12 [:6] — 'If any one has the gift of prophecy, let him prophesy in accordance with the faith…'"
• LW 37, 261-262, the powerful words of Luther defending the Real Prescence: "For all the words of Christ must … be in accord with faith, Romans 12 [:6]."
• LW 51, 378: "If an idea occurs to you, I would not throw it out altogether, but let it have some value. But go easy; St. Paul says, 'in proportion' [Rom. 12:6]; don’t be misled by it. How can I know, then, how far? Paul answers, 'in proportion to our faith', that is, as far as it is in accord with faith"

It was an instructive experience for me as I gathered the quotes from Luther — they pointed to an objective faith, not a subjective faith such as Koehler teaches with his "measure or degree of faith with which they were endowed". Our objective faith is not founded within, it is based on the objective Word, a Word that no one can change or take away. — A good follow up to this controversy would be to read Franz Pieper's extensive essay “Use and Abuse of the Analogy of Faith” in Lehre und Wehre in English, volumes 49 (1903, p. 321 ff.) and 50 (1904, p. 20 ff). I will present that evidence of Lutherans against the teaching of Prof. Koehler, in the next Part JPK3.

JPK1: Koehler not true exegete, not a Stoeckhardt; protest to WELS; Pless counters Prange

Prof. J. P. Koehler
Better than Stoeckhardt?
Why deposed?

 

Pastor Peter Prange: 
Out with Old Syn. Conf.
In with New "Exegesis"

    This blog post was provoked during my research of George Stoeckhardt and his Exegetical Theology. It is a protest to today's Wisconsin Synod (WELS).  I am lodging a protest against your Pastor Peter M. Prange who is a member of the WELS Commission on Inter-Church Relations (CICR) and was also a member of the committee that produced the Christian Worship: Supplement  (according to current info here.) 

      What is my protest?  It is the same as the formal protest reportedly issued by the St. Louis faculty and submitted by Prof. George Stoeckhardt against the new theology promoted by your Prof. John Philipp Koehler. 

This formal St. Louis protest was reported by Koehler himself in his History of the Wisconsin Synod (HWS; WHI; Internet Archive 2024) , p. 212. I have blogged about Koehler in 2017, and this post expands on that by bringing it into today's Wisconsin Synod.
      Most WELS church historians, and many outside the WELS today, make extensive use of Koehler's HWS book. (It should be noted that there is an extensive "Introduction" by Koehler follower Prof. Leigh Jordahl of Gettysburg Lutheran Theological Seminary).  It has been called "the standard reference for the early history of the Wisconsin Synod" by the WELS Historical Institute.  It should be mentioned that it was not made available from WELS publisher NPH, but only through those who followed Koehler and separated from the WELS, the "Protes'tant Conference", which may no longer have congregations. Its periodical "Faith-Life" appears be be discontinued.  While the historical works of WELS Profs. Mark Braun, Armin Schuetze and E. C. Friedrich make substantial use of HWS, they offer practically no correction to Koehler's weaknesses and errors (he was deposed from his professorship in 1929).  This leads their readers to sympathize with Koehler, and wonder: "Why was Koehler deposed from his post as professor?"

      Again, Koehler was the leader of this "new exegesis" movement. What he came to promote was actually an attack on much of what the Missouri Synod and the Synodical Conference stood for, an objective faith.  The field of "Exegesis", according to Koehler, was supposed to breathe a new vigor into the life of a supposed "spiritless" orthodoxy, a "dead formalism" as one follower called it.  The notion was raised that the process of "exegesis" was sorely lacking, that new efforts were needed to understand the Bible, as if the Church was adrift in uncertainty.  Much has been written about Koehler and why he was deposed as professor by the Wisconsin Synod – search "Koehler" at essays.wls.edu:8080/ (Edward Fredrich's essay is perhaps the best.).  But the notion of the primacy of "exegesis" still lives on among many Lutherans.  Although Koehler claimed some support from George Stoeckhardt (HWS, p. 212), yet he admits that it was Stoeckhardt who wrote the letters of formal protest (p. 212) against his "exegetical clarification", against his misuse of the term "analogy of faith".  Dear God!  as I read the works of the later Koehler and the followers of his weaknesses and errors, I needed an antidote and I found it in Franz Pieper's Christian Dogmatics books.  The Christian religion is not about always questioning what we believe (faith) but about being absolutely certain of it, about sustaining and defending it.  And especially those who followed after Koehler, the so-called Protes'tant Conference, show how dangerous a little leaven can leaventh the whole lump. (Gal. 5:9) It is a shame the that Wisconsin Synod's history and its so-called "Wauwatosa Theology" is so tied up with the book written by deposed Prof. J. Ph. Koehler!

A Tale of Two Synods, and A Fiction

Past. Peter M. Prange:
Stöckhardt speaks
“at the mind”,
not the heart?

      In case anyone doubts that some (most WELS theologians and teachers?) hold that J.P. Koehler taught a superior exegetical theology than Stoeckhardt, Pastor Peter M. Prange (now of Kenosha Lutheran Academy-Kenosha) said the following in his essay J.P. Koehler, The Exegetical Task at the 2006 Bethany Reformation Lectures (BLTS/LSQ 47-1, p. 45):

“The reader will instantly notice a marked difference [between Koehler and Stoeckhardt]. Stöckhardt has copious quotations from other exegetes; Koehler has practically none. Stöckhardt spends much more time on the fine points of grammar and syntax; Koehler deals much more with the interrelatedness of Paul’s thought and the application of its saving truths to our lives as Christians. Stöckhardt reads as if he’s delivering a lecture aimed principally at the mind; Koehler sounds like he’s delivering a sermon aimed principally at the heart.”

So, according to Pastor Prange, to get at the meaning of the Holy Spirit by His words, by "merely setting forth what is expressed in Scripture", is not aimed at man's heart? This assertion that Stoeckhardt's writing is directed "principally at the mind" and not at the heart is fiction. Stoeckhardt lets the Holy Spirit, through His words, "aim at the heart". But I will grant to Pastor Prange that Koehler "deals much more with … the application of its saving truths to our lives as Christians".  The actual case is that Koehler does not lay the foundation for the assurance, the absolute certainty of salvation for the Christian, as does… George Stoeckhardt. Prange (in his 2006 essay) and Koehler promote "A Call to Reinvigorate the Science of Biblical Hermeneutics", a new "exegesis". I am unable to distinguish their distinctively new "exegesis", from eisegesis ("interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases"), or from the apostasy of Germany's renowned theologians.  It was exactly against this false notion of Prange and Koehler that I had to fight for my soul's salvation against Larry Darby and his attack on UOJ. — (Note: The Steadfast Press book Grace upon Grace of Stoeckhardt sermons recently published is at an unbelievably low price of $12.50 –paperback.)

 

Prof. Joel L. Pless:
“Stöckhardt was
confessional,
orthodox,
thoroughly Lutheran”

A Stark Contrast...

      To counter Prange's attack on Stoeckhardt, in the same 2006 lectures, WELS Prof. Joel L. Pless said of Stoeckhardt's exegesis:

• p. 13: Stoeckhardt’s view and understanding of the Holy Scriptures can be readily understood to be orthodox Lutheran ... Stoeckhardt’s view of Scripture is readily recognizable as confessional and orthodox Lutheran.
• p. 15: Stoeckhardt was truly a master exegete of both Testaments. ... his hermeneutical principles can be legitimately described as thoroughly Lutheran.
• p. 20: The main focus of his exegetical method is commenting on the doctrinal content of the verses, with often brief references to what other commentators have remarked on the meaning of the verse being studied, followed by Stoeckhardt’s often polemical rejoinders. Stoeckhardt then often supplied a brief application of the verse at hand.
• p. 22: Stoeckhardt’s method was continually guided by a burning desire to make the text of Scripture plain.

Prof. Pless wonderfully counters Prange.  These statements by Prof. Pless on Stoeckhardt's exegesis is in stark contrast to that of Pastor Prange.  The contrast is no small matter.  If Pless is correct that Stoeckhardt's exegesis was "thoroughly", "confessional and orthodox" Lutheran, then Stoeckhardt taught the absolute certainty of salvation, no doubts whatsoever.  But if Koehler's exegesis truly shows "a marked difference", then just what did Koehler teach? (Hint: "the application to our lives as Christians, i.e. "Faith-Life")  —

      And What Would Luther Say? about the emphasis on the application of the Bible to "our lives as Christians" à la Koehler, Prange, "Protes'tant Conference", etc.?  Martin Luther said:

“Doctrine is heaven, life is earth”
            Objective        <—>     Subjective
             Stoeckhardt      <—>     J. P. Koehler

So much for the fiction of Koehler's "exegesis" over Stoeckhardt!   Nonsense!  I reject all the teachings of this "new exegesis" for it would mix its aberrations with the truth, thereby confusing the truth!  But, Dear God!, "Doctrine is Heaven, Life is Earth".  I am absolutely certain of my salvation, in part because Luther, Walther, Pieper, and Stoeckhardt and others in the Old Synodical Conference (including the Wisconsin Synod!) held my nose to the very words of Holy Scripture (objective!) and said: Believe this!  My life is nothing apart from believing 2 Cor. 5:19 — or the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification! – I will take from the Old Synodical Conference what Koehler claims for it: the "dogmatism", "rusty thinking", "closed minds to new insights", "no understanding of exegesis", no "clear conception of how to handle language"! (HWS pp. 212-213).

      Others are being brought to testify against Pastor Peter M. Prange and his dream of Koehler's exegetical supremacy. The first will be Martin Luther, to refute an exegesis of John Philipp Koehler on Koehler's primary Bible verse, Romans 12:6, regarding the "Analogy of Faith". That will come in the next Part JPK2. 

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

Koehler 1: Doctrine & Life — Faith & Life (Luther); “coma” of Missourians (2017)

Part JPK1: Koehler not true exegete, not a Stoeckhardt; protest to WELS; 

Part JPK2: Luther vs. J. P. Koehler on Rom. 12:6, "analogy of faith"

Part JPK3: Pieper's "Use and Abuse of Analogy of Faith" (LuW essay, p. 321)

Part JPK4: John Gerhard On Interpreting (GDrv) §§ 75-78 , § 62, p. 76-77, 30. (Note: § 78 is directly against Prof. Joel Biermann. This series will be followed by one on a lecture by Prof. Biermann starting with JB01.)

Part JPK5: Koehler–dangerous path; Stöckhardt–”old paths”

Cy4: Cyclopedia slashes Pieper entry: 1954 to 1975: restored

      This continues from Part Cy3 in a series (Table of Contents in Part Cy1) identifying the drawbacks of today's online LC–MS "Christian Cyclopedia". — While studying Dr. Surburg's criticisms of the newest Cyclopedia, I discovered a disturbing aspect that parallel's some of Surburg's findings. Although editor Lueker claimed in his "Preface to the Revised Edition" of 1975 that "articles from the previous [1954] edition were carefully reworked", many were in fact severely abbreviated. A glaring example of this is presented below by reproducing the 1954 edition's entry for "Franz August Otto Pieper". I have highlighted in yellow shaded text the material that was omitted from the 1975 edition, and therefore also today's "Christian Cyclopedia". I have also added hyperlinks to all the source materials:

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

 

Pieper, Franz August Otto. B. June 27, 1852, at Carwitz, Pomerania; graduated at St. Louis, 1875; pastor at Centerville, Wis., 1875—76; Manitowoc, Wis., 1876—78; prof. at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo., 1878—87; D. D. (Northwestern College, Watertown, Wis.; Luther College, Decorah, Iowa); President of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo., 1887—1931; President of Missouri Synod, 1899—1911; d. June 3, 1931.

Pieper’s outstanding theological contributions were in the field of dogmatics. True to his conviction that the person who himself clearly understands a doctrine can and should present it clearly, Pieper always strove to present Biblical doctrine clearly. His scholarly treatment of textual criticism, exegesis, history, etc., may be seen in the footnotes of his Christian Dogmatics, Pieper kept the practical purpose of theology in the foreground, so that the doctrines presented appeal not only to the mind but also to the heart.

Pieper gave special attention to the doctrines of grace and inspiration. “It is, to be sure, to his (Pieper’s) and Walther’s credit that the sola gratia, the lifeblood of the Lutheran Church in all ages and the core of her message, was more and more effectively worked out as a dogma (theoretisch) among Lutheran churches of our land and that clarity and purity (Sauberkeit) of theological thought was furthered.” (M. Reu.) Pieper’s many articles on inspiration attest his lifelong interest in the sola Scriptura.

As President of Synod, he practiced his conviction that “in the Church nothing is mere theory.” He was the optimistic and enthusiastic leader of Synod during a period of intensified activity along every line of church work. His knowledge was put to work for the Church with the conviction that true “Christianity … represents a life, not a system of creedal formulas or a compend of religious teaching” (Dau). His manner of preaching was clear and enlightening, and the language of his sermons simple and noble.

Pieper wrote able polemics against rationalistic tendencies in the Lutheran Church (Kahnis, von Hofmann, Luthardt). He was editor of Lehre und Wehre; wrote Christliche Dogmatik; Conversion and Election; Zur Einigung; Das Wesen des Christentums; Die Grunddifferenz in der Lehre von der Bekehrung und Gnadenwahl; A Brief Statement of the Missouri Synod’s Doctrinal Position; Ich glaube, darum rede ich; Unsere Stellung in Lehre und Praxis; Das Fundament des christlichen Glaubens; Die rechte Weltanschauung; Der offene Himmel. EL [Erwin L. Lueker]

L. Fuerbringer, “F. Pieper als Theolog,” CTM, II: 721 ff. 801 ff.; W. H. T. Dau, “Dr. Francis Pieper the Churchman,” CTM, II:729 ff.; T. Laetsch, “Dr. Pieper als Prediger,” CTM, II:761 ff.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  End of entry  - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      All that extensive highlighted praise and information of Franz Pieper from 1954 was gone in 1975. Perhaps Prof. Lueker thought that Pieper was too "biased" and wanted to devote the freed up space to other more worthy subjects, such as "Piepkorn, Arthur Carl". The only information of significance that Seminex Professor Erwin Lueker added to the 1954 entry in the 1975 edition was that Franz was the “Brother of A. [August] O. W. Pieper and R. [Reinhold] Pieper.” It may be said that also the entries for these two brothers were likewise severely abbreviated, even the entry for Ludwig Fuerbringer. You won't find the above highlighted information on today's LC–MS flagship "Christian Cyclopedia", but it is freely available on the Internet Archive! As Prof. Surburg exclaimed: "Hold on to your 1954 version and the 1927 version." — More examples will be presented in a future Part Cy5…. But before that, I may present the full essay that Surburg wrote 10 years later on Walther's Hermeneutics.

Cy3: Surburg: supplement to Rediscovering the Issues book

      This continues from Part Cy2 (Table of Contents in Part Cy1) presenting Dr. Raymond Surburg's CTQ Book Review of the 1975 Lutheran Cyclopedia, the basis of today's LC–MS "Christian Cyclopedia".— As I read Surburg's article, I was surprised at the number of entries that he focused on. I took considerable time to fully understand his points. He was certainly an authority with deep knowledge of the theological scene 50 years ago.  — Excerpted from Concordia Theological Quarterly, April, 1977 (vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 101-102). 

Book Review

[by Raymond F. Surburg, concluded]

“Pentecostalism”

While the revised Lutheran Cyclopedia has an article on “Pentecostalism” [1954 ed.; 1927 ed. comment is best.] which describes what traditionally was the position of this movement and defined the churches espousing this erroneous kind of theology, there is no articles on “Neo-Pentecostalism,” which since 1961 has affected the main-line denominations of Christendom, including Roman Catholicism, Episcopalianism, Presbyterianism, Lutheranism, and other Protestant denominations. Neo-Pentecostalism has divided and continues to divide churches and is one of many problems plaguing Protestant and Lutheran churches.

“Historical-Critical Method”

Since the historical-critical method is the big dividing issue today in The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, it would have been extremely helpful to have had a discussion in this reference volume of the difference between the historical-grammatical method [2000 ed.] and the historico-critical [2000 ed.], but the definitions given are exceedingly brief and do not inform the reader wherein the difference between the two methods consists. 

“Biblical Commentaries” and Hengstenberg

The article on “Commentaries, Biblical” (pp. 187-188 [by F. W. Danker, “Walkout” professor]) [2000 ed.] definitely favors the critical approach to Scripture. The writings of Hengstenberg, outstanding conservative Lutheran theologian of the nineteenth century, are belittled by citing F. W. Farrar’s judgment, namely, the exegetical methodology of Hengstenberg “was retrogressive.” [p. 188] The ICC Commentary [p. 188] which contains many extremely liberal volumes is cited “as authoritative, though some volumes have been superseded by fresh investigation.” Conservative commentaries, those of [Herbert C.] Leupold and [Theodore] Laetsch, are not mentioned among commentaries not in sets. [Why no mention by Surburg of Prof. Paul E. Kretzmann's even better, more conservative than Leupold, Popular Commentary?]

With 250 individuals contributing, some of whom are now associated with Seminex and men sympathetic to the so-called moderate theology, it is not surprising that the 1975 revision does not portray the same consistency toward the Bible and its writings as was the case with its predecessors of 1927 and 1954. Hold on to your 1954 version and the 1927 version if you own them or can purchase them. [Now everyone has free direct access to refer to these earlier, and sometimes better, versions.] Living theologians and church leaders are not mentioned; only those who are dead rated inclusion in this reference work. The many cross-references make this a very useful volume. Despite the foregoing criticism and others that might be made, the revised Lutheran Cyclopedia contains much valuable information and is a volume every pastor will want to have in his library for handy access to data normally scattered through many books. Considering current book prices, the price asked for this volume is not too high.

Raymond F. Surburg

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -   End of entry  - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    As I read Surburg's comments on the entry for the “Historical-Critical Method”, I thought of the full treatment in chapter 3, “The Historical-Critical Method”, in Rediscovering the Issues by Timothy H. Maschke,  former chairman of the Department of Theology at Concordia University Wisconsin. As Prof. (emeritus) Maschke stated on p. 77: 

"Although historical criticism was being laid to rest in official publications of the LCMS [?], the historical-critical method remains a dominant method in most other denominations and seminaries, to say nothing of public universities."

Another resource would be to search "Historical Critical Method" in the 1977 Board of Control book Exodus from Concordia.

      Surburg could have criticized Lueker’s claim in his “Preface to the Revised Edition” [p. vi] that “Special efforts were made to improve objectivity. …unevenness and bias in some entries of the previous edition.” It may be noticed that the charge of “biased” was also made by Drs. Adam Francisco and Scott Keith against F. Bente. One of those who “pointed out…bias in some entries of the previous edition” could have been Prof. Martin Scharlemann, who re-wrote the section on “Hermeneutics”. Scharlemann avoided the 1954 edition’s assertion of an errorless Bible. That would be made apparent when ten years later, after this CTQ article, Dr. Surburg praised C. F. W. Walther in a 19 page essay for the book Walther, the American Luther. A presentation of that full essay will be presented in another blog series. — Another glaring example of a severe abbreviation follows in the next Part Cy4.