Schrift 12: #5: No contradictions; 6. Bound to every letter; Arndt falters; Voelz ‘doubts’

[2019-02-18: added missing underlining; 2019-01-20: modified ref. to LW 26;2019-01-08: correct sentence below with red text.]
      This continues from Part 11 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C.F.W. Walther's major essay on  the Inspiration of Holy Scripture in the Missouri Synod's chief theological journal, Lehre und Wehre. —  Walther delineates practically all the various objections to Inspiration.  Another favorite one is that the Bible contradicts itself', but we find Luther calling out a former fellow, and very intelligent, reformer on this sometimes subtle error. Then the importance of even the letter and "tittle" of Scripture are given their due – "it all matters". (All quotes are selections made by Walther from Martin Luther's writings. If quotes available in Am. Ed. of Luther's Works, they were used – see notes in [ ].)

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

Translation by BackToLuther; all highlighted text, text in square brackets and in red font are my additions. Underlining follows Walther.
(continued from Part 11)

Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32, March, p. 65-66 "Foreword" by C.F.W. Walther

V. The Scripture is nowhere in contradiction with itself.

“What deceived the good Oecolampadius is the fact that scriptural texts which are contradictory must be reconciled, and one passage must receive an interpretation which will accord with another; for it is certain that the Scriptures cannot be at variance with themselves. But he did not notice and consider that he would be the one who alleged this variance in the Scriptures and who ought to prove it. He simply asserted it and proclaimed it as if it were already sealed and delivered. This is where he stumbled and fell. If they would stop and think, however, and take care to speak nothing but God’s words, as St. Peter teaches [1 Pet. 4:11], and it they would leave their own assertions and assumptions at home, they would not create so much misfortune. This saying, ‘The Scriptures are not self-contradictory,’ would not have misled Oecolampadius, for it is grounded in God’s Word that God does not lie nor does his Word deceive.” (“That These Words of Christ, 'This is My Body' Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics,". XX, 994. f., § 82-83 [StL 20, 798 § 82-83; LW 37, 50-51]) [see also: 1) McLaughlin’s Inspiration essay "good man Oecolampadius"; 2) Confessional Lutheran 1960 p 56-7] (page 66)

“You may scream antagonistically all you want, that the Scripture is contrary to itself, that righteousness is attributed to faith in one place, and to works in the other. Albeit it is impossible that Scripture should be against itself; it is only, however, that the ignorant, coarse, and stubborn hypocrites see it so.” (Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians., 1535. VIII, 2140, § 285 [StL 9, 356 § 285 ; LW 26, but alternate text used by Jaroslav Pelikan ~ p. 266-7! Alternate passage see LW 26:295 ; BTL translation, on Gal. 3:10])  [see also Confessional Lutheran 1960 p 57]  

“I myself have a hearty dislike of myself and hate myself because I know that everything that the Scripture says is true, except that there can be nothing greater, nothing more important, nothing more pleasurable, nothing joyous, and that should make me drunk in the highest joy; because I see that Holy Scripture agrees in all parts and throughout and in this way speaks one and the same thing so that one cannot doubt in the least as to the truth and certainty of so great a matter, etc.” (Short Exposition on the Prophet Isaiah,  1532. VI , 268, § 188 [StL 6, 177,§ 188; NOT in LW 16, different text]) [see also Confessional Lutheran 1960 p 57, partial translation]

“There are many passages in Holy Scripture that are contradictory according to the letters; but when that which motivates them is pointed out, everything is all right.”, 1539. XVI, 2668, § 75 [StL 16, 2185, § 75; LW 41, 54) [see also: 1) McLaughlin’s Inspiration essay "in conflict with each other"; 2) Confessional Lutheran 1960 p 56-7]

“We  have sufficiently founded the article of our faith in Scripture — hold on to it, and let not yourself be turned from it with glosses and interpretations according to reason, whether it rhymes or not, but if one wants to smear it with something different, from reason and your thoughts, so say: Here I have the bare Word of God and my faith, there will I remain, and not any further think, ask, or hear, nor brainstorm how this or that is to rhyme, nor hear you, whether you are similarly to bring forth another contrary text or sayings out of your head, and slobber on it with your drool, for it will not be against itself in some article of faith, whether it is against itself in your head and does not rhyme.” (Sermon on the Christian Armor and Weapons, 1532. IX, 452, § 34 [StL 9, 828 § 34; NOT in LW; not in Lenker v. III])

VI. Infinitely much depends on each letter and tittle of Scripture, and the whole Church is bound to all of them.

“By one letter, yes, by a tittle of Scripture, there is worth more than heaven and earth. Therefore we cannot suffer that one wants to depart from them also in this, even in the least thing.” (Detailed Exposition of Galatians, dated 1535. VIII, 2661, § 126 [StL 9, 650, § 126; LW 27, 41 - slightly different text.)

“God forbid that there should be one jot or tittle in all of Paul which the whole church universal is not bound to follow and keep!” 1)  (The Babylonian Captivity of the  Church, 1520. XIX, 22 § 22, [StL 19, 20; LW 36, 25])

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

1) Far be it, far be it, that any dot in the whole of Paul that the entire universal Church is not bound to follow and keep. (Opp. lat. varii argumenti etc. Francofurti ad M. 1868. Vol. 5, 27.) [Latin text]

= = = = = = = = = =   continued in Part 13   = = = = = = = = = = =

From a changing LC-MS (Arndt 1926)...

      A well known book by Prof. William Arndt († 1957) addressed the "no contradictions" teaching.  In 1926 he authored Does the Bible Contradict Itself?: A Discussion of Alleged Contradictions in the Bible (HathiTrust full view, CPH latest edition).  I remember this book well as I was coming back to my Christian faith in the 1990s.  It helped me to believe the Bible.  However since that time, I discovered where Arndt later became willing to compromise his own earlier stand by joining with other Lutherans who were not firm in defending all aspects of Inspiration.  And a closer reading of Arndt's book reveals some weakness. On page VI (Hathi), after quoting 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, John 10:35,  Prof. Arndt adds:

"These declarations must be true, the Christian says to himself, because they are contained in the life-giving revelation of God. He that sent His only Son to die for us surely is not leading us astray ...."

While these are pious sounding statements, yet they go beyond just resting on "Thus saith the Lord", or "It is written".   They weaken the authority of Scripture itself as they begin to rely on reasoning.  Christ rebuffed Satan with his statement "It is written..." (Matt. 4:10). On the road to Emmaus, Christ taught about Himself from "Moses and the prophets", from "all the Scriptures" (Luke 24:27) Several of Arndt's students referred to him as their justification for denials of various aspects of Inspiration. Now my weak faith cannot stand equivocation on this doctrine and I must stay with Luther, Walther and Pieper – teachers who never wavered in the least. 

... to a dying LC-MS (Dr. Voelz 2019).

      Today, the most prominent teacher of "exegesis" in the LC-MS, Prof. Dr. James Voelz of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, writes (What Does This Mean?, p. 243, emphases mine)

“...we must affirm that ‘problems of historical accuracy, inner consistency of stories/pericopes, compatibility of parallel accounts, etc., are not easily resolved, though the narratives, stories, and accounts are the very word of a perfect God.’ Real difficulties exist and those who have doubts and uncertainties are not simply being obstinate or godless.”

Prof. Voelz may call doubters “not simply being obstinate or godless", but Luther, above, calls them "ignorant, coarse, and stubborn hypocrites”.  Isn't Prof. Voelz saying that he has "doubts and uncertainties"?... that he neither believes nor teaches nor confesses "Inerrancy" as Martin Luther clearly taught?

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

      Walther's "Foreword" to the 1886 Lehre und Wehre has not gone unnoticed by other theologians.  Franz Pieper quoted it in his Christian Dogmatics.  Robert Preus quoted from it.  The titles of the theses of this essay were translated by Prof. Thomas Manteufel (em.) and published in an essay he presented in 2004.  Manteufel's essay is much too important to continue without a wider availability.  So I am about to do something (perhaps recklessly) about that in a related "excursus" ... in the next post. —  Then this series will continue with Part 13.

Pastoral #3: Fritz's editions, unionism, deep fog; Mueller-Kraus edition

[2025-05-24: updated 3 links to Fendt's book; 2017-09-26: updated 2 photos]
      This continues from Part 2 in a series of blog posts related to the new 2017 Concordia Publishing House edition of Walther's Pastoral Theology.   See Part 1 for Table of Contents.

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

Prof. J.H.C. Fritz

      As mentioned in Part 1, the 2 editions of Pastoral Theology authored by Prof. J.H.C. Fritz (1932 and 1945) were not mentioned in the new 2017 edition of Walther's work. The Fort Wayne seminary bookstore used to sell copies of the 1932 Fritz edition – I purchased one in the 1990s. But I see that it is not shown as available any more (but call them). I decided to include Fritz's editions in my table of cross-references because they were the first ones published in English by Concordia Publishing House.  And they were the main source of pastoral theology to many in the intervening years.  There are some who are interested in the history of "pastoral theology" or "practical theology" in the LC-MS after it had transferred its main language from German to English.  I am one of the interested ones because I wanted to see where there were amendments or supplements to Walther's original.  I knew there had to be differences because the LC-MS gradually, steadily changed its teaching after the death of Franz Pieper in 1931.  And yet one will find that in the specific topics where Pieper referred to Walther's "Pastorale" in his Christliche Dogmatik, Prof. Fritz did not significantly deviate from Pieper or Walther -- my cross-reference table proved this to me.  But with some other topics, Fritz did deviate somewhat from "old Missouri".  

      It was not a straightforward task to compare Fritz's editions to Walther's original because he did not follow Walther's order.  Fritz says in his 1932 Preface:

“I did not limit myself to a literal translation of those portions which I took over from Walther's Pastoraltheologie; I rather reproduced the subject-matter either by a literal or by a free translation, inserting such thoughts as suggested themselves to me at the time of writing and as seemed necessary or desirable to add.”

An example of one of the "insertions" was on "Christian Stewardship" where he quoted extensively from one of Franz Pieper's convention essays (pp. 261-262, 266-267).  Indeed, Fritz informs us in his preface that he was indebted to "the sainted Dr. F. Pieper, under whom I studied Pastoral Theology while a student at Concordia Seminary".
       I spent considerable time cross-referencing to both of Fritz’s editions, even hyperlinking to copies of pages, so that true students of "pastoral theology" could see what the LC-MS used for many decades after it abandoned the German language.   I found that most of the points that Pieper highlighted in his Dogmatik were covered by Fritz.  Prof. J.H.C. Fritz’s work is perhaps most disappointing in that it only roughly follows Walther’s subject matter, excluding portions, adding to other portions -- topics not specifically addressed by Walther.  It was rather difficult to refer back to Walther’s work from either of Fritz’s works, 1932 or 1945.  This highlights one of the greatest benefits of the new 2017 edition which allows the reader to be exposed to the (mostly) complete pure Walther as he presented his material.  Another benefit is that there is no difficulty comparing the original German edition to this 2017 English edition as it even keys each page to the original page number – a very helpful feature!
      Now I want to address the one topic that reveals the downfall of the external Church in America in the Twentieth Century.  I will incorporate the story of two other professors of Concordia Seminary,  Prof. Fritz's associates, to fully illustrate this history:

Unionism

Unionism is one of the topics covered by Prof. Fritz that is not named specifically by Walther.  However Walther does speak clearly of church "fellowship" in several places in his book, leaving no doubt as to his teaching that condemns all forms of unionism.  (See also the 2014 CPH book Walther's Works: Church Fellowship.) -- In 1932, Fritz begins well with the following definition of unionism (p. 219):

“Joining in religious worship or in religious work or in both by such as are not in doctrinal agreement is religious unionism.”

Prof. W. Arndt

A few years later, in 1937, a close associate, Prof. William Arndt, showed similar firmness against unionism as he stated the following on the topic of prayer fellowship in his book Christian Prayer, p. 65 (quoted in Erlandsson Church Fellowship, p. 41):

"Whoever changes the teachings of Jesus thereby creates a division in the church and sets himself in opposition to all those who adhere to the doctrine of Christ. We have learned from St. Paul that we must avoid all such causes of division (Ro. 16:17). That naturally means that we can have no prayer fellowship with them."

Arndt: from "no prayer fellowship" to "Deep Fog"

But this firmness in doctrine and practice gradually broke down.  Through his extensive involvement in doctrinal discussions with the American Lutheran Church (ALC), in 1943 (CTM vol. 14, #11 November pp. 787-791), he came to write the essay "God Purposes To Justify Those That Have Come to Faith" which is an attempt to defend the ALC's statement of the same name.  Arndt admits (p. 787) that "Everybody can see that the sentence under discussion puts the creation of faith before the pronouncement of justification."  But compare this to Walther's words from Central District 1868: "…you often hear pastors preach, 'You are saved if you believe.' What they should be saying is, 'You are saved so that you might believe.'" Arndt here ignores Universal Justification and so his essay confuses the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification.  (See also this blog post on Arndt's error) Then in the summer of 1946, Prof. Arndt was again in the middle of further discussions with the ALC, and preceding official agreement, he said (Fendt, The Struggle for Lutheran Unity..., p. 79):

• 'In my opinion the meeting, if it is held, should be opened with joint prayer. A common document constituting a confession of faith has been drawn up by representatives of two church bodies, which document will be considered by both bodies when they meet in convention. If the representatives of these bodies cannot jointly ask for God's guidance when they meet, then I move in a deep fog as to the scope and meaning of joint prayer.

But there is no record of an opening prayer at the August 23, 1946 joint meeting. Evidently Dr. Arndt did not get enough support for that in his group.

How sad are these words of Prof. Arndt – "a deep fog".  But they fit the situation where one finds oneself departing from the clear Word of Holy Scripture.  Perhaps a modern word fits here – schizophrenia might be used.  I recall this same feeling for my own self when falling away from the Bible. —
      And we see that Prof. Fritz had just the year before, in the 1945 2nd edition of his Pastoral Theology, supplemented his 1932 1st edition definition of Unionism (highlighted, p. 211):

“Joining in religious worship or in religious work or in both by such as are not in doctrinal agreement, or, in other words, joint work or worship by which the truth is either denied or the appearance of denial, or at least of indifferentism, is given, is religious unionism.”

Th. Aaberg

The difference of wording has been identified by other members of the Synodical Conference as evidence of a change towards subjectivism in the LC-MS.  Theodore Aaberg of the ELS wrote in his book A City Set on a Hill, p. 158:

“Where previous to this, certain acts in themselves had been called unionistic, now it was not the act itself which constituted unionism, but whether or not it was done in such a way as to imply denial of truth or support of error.  This new definition of unionism found its way into an important publication of the Missouri Synod, Pastoral Theology, by John H. C. Fritz...”

Fritz to Graebner: Retract! 

Prof. Th. Graebner

"false picture"

I had originally thought that this judgement by Aaberg against Fritz may have been overly harsh.  Edward C. Fendt reported (Struggle, p. 82-83) the following incident in 1947 involving Profs. Fritz and Theo. Graebner which shows Fritz's desire to stand firm, even in the face of heavy unionistic pressure from a prominent associate:

When the Missouri Synod Committee on Doctrinal Unity met on May 8, 1947 the following entry in the minutes appears right after the opening prayer and statement of the purpose of the meeting by the chairman, Dr. Fritz:

• "A letter written by Dr. Graebner, in which he accuses our Committee of presenting a false picture on current relations with the ALC was read by Prof. Baepler. It was resolved to request Dr. G[raebner]. to retract this accusation in a letter to us and to his correspondents" (neither Dr. Behnken nor Dr. Arndt was present when this action was taken). 

Dr. Graebner did not retract.

We see that Prof. Fritz endured strong pressure from Graebner toward unionism and wanted this letter to be retracted.

Fritz's new definition ==> "Common Confession"

Unfortunately this firmness in the face of such intimidating unionism began to weaken and fall for it was Prof. J.H.C. Fritz who was the leading teacher from the Missouri Synod who in 1949 drafted the infamous "Common Confession" with men from the ALC.  For a penetrating analysis of the history surrounding this document, see Aaberg, p. 172-177; also see Wendland, Review of Common Confession [added 2017-03-05], Fendt, p. 136-138.  So we see the tragic consequences of Fritz's revision in  the 1945 definition of "unionism" which paved the subjective road to ruin.

      Further comments on Fritz's work are beyond the scope of this blog.  It is sad for me to again review the steps of the downfall of the old Missouri Synod to today's modernist, heterodox LC-MS.  But I view Prof. J.H.C. Fritz's Pastoral Theology books as not completely denying his teacher, Franz Pieper, or Walther's work.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Pastoral Theology (1990)
by Mueller and Kraus

      There was another book of "pastoral theology" put out by Concordia Publishing that escaped my notice until now, the 1990 (and 1996) editions of Pastoral Theology of Norbert Mueller and George Kraus.  I am sorry that I did not include it in my cross-reference table.  I suspect it has been the required reading for all LC-MS students of theology since its introduction.  Even the ELS bookstore sells this book!  (Why isn't the ELS in church fellowship with the LC-MS?)  I think I investigated this book 20 years ago and gave up on the LC-MS.  For my part, the work of Mueller and Kraus has little promise of shedding the errors of the modernist, heterodox LC-MS – otherwise Matthew Harrison and John T. Pless would not be so visibly promoting the new 2017 edition of Walther's work!

Pastorskoe bogoslovie
(Russian Pastoral Theology)

This book was also translated into Russian by the Lutheran Heritage Foundation in 1999 (search "Pastoral Theology" and Language="Russian").  This is a different version than the Drickamer 1995 edition... and certainly not nearly as faithful in doctrine and practice.  I wonder that the Russian Lutherans may already know the difference...

.
.
.
In the last Part 4, I comment further on the new 2017 edition of Walther's work.  At least 2 topics show a distinct change in the LC-MS from its former pure teaching of Bible truths.