Missing CTM motto: preaching is paramount, but not in newer editions of Book of Concord

[2023-08-15: note added in red at bottom.]

      The newer editions of the Lutheran Book of Concord have been shown to be deficient elsewhere.  But another example of this has been pointed out to me recently.  The very first issue of the periodical Concordia Theological Monthly (or CTM) in 1930 contained a 3-part motto, one of which was in the German language.  Below is the image of the Contents page of Volume 1, No. 1 with the German motto highlighted: 

     The highlighted German text on the right comes from the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, Article 24 (Of the Mass), paragraph 50.  However this text was only in the German version, not in the Latin version. But there it is, as one of the mottos chosen to appear every month on the title/contents page. — The German text is "Es ist kein Ding, das die Leute mehr bei der Kirche hehaelt, denn die gute Predigt."  In the English of the Triglotta it reads: 

"There is nothing that so attaches people to the church as good preaching." 

In McCain's edition, it reads (p. 228):

"There is nothing that keeps people at church more than good preaching." 

So we see a real benefit of Bente's Triglotta is that it merges the German with the Latin, giving a more complete version. The sad thing is that both the Tappert and Kolb/Wengert editions which replaced the Triglotta, because they do not follow Bente's lead, leave out important parts of the German edition. And while McCain's edition follows the Triglotta, even it did not include the full quote from the German which reads:

"There is nothing that so attaches people to the church as good preaching. But our adversaries preach their people out of the churches; for they teach nothing of the necessary parts of Christian doctrine; they narrate the legends of saints and other fables." 

Why McCain's edition left out the remaining highlighted portion is a mystery.  — This a problem within the LC-MS, where certain factions want to place the Lord's Supper as the chief part of the worship service, demoting the importance of the preached sermon.  These are the Romanizing followers of the German theologian Wilhelm Loehe.

      So while the Old Missouri Synod was being transformed into a different church body in 1930, later called the "LC-MS" in 1947, yet even then it was recognized that proper preaching was of paramount importance. This is confessed in the Lutheran Confessions, even if it is not in their current Kolb/Wengert edition of the Book of Concord.

[2023-08-15: It may be noted that Dr. Jack Kilcrease still makes reference to Bente's Triglotta, not to Kolb/Wengert's Book of Concord - see his 2020 CTQ essay "The Challenge of Karl Barth’s Doctrine of the Word of God", p. 67 ff.]

Mark’s Gospel– no Long Ending? Cut from Concordia?; "Docetic" Orthodoxy?

[2025-04-13: updated several links; 2024-09-27: updated links to Triglotta;2023-08-14: updated links to bookofconcord.org; 2020-04-09: added note in red on grape juice vs. wine]
      A number of writings have appeared concerning a recently released Concordia Commentary by James Voelz and Christopher Mitchell, Mark 8:27-16:20 (CPH 2019). A negative Amazon review by Kelly D. Smith ("Good Exegesis but Author denies Scripture") provides a pertinent quote from the chief author of this Commentary, Dr. James W. Voelz of Concordia Seminary.  Mr. Smith states (emphasis mine): "Voelz, in his own words, believes, 

'Mark 16:9-20 should not be adopted as the genuine ending of the Gospel according to Mark and its exclusion from the Second Gospel should occasion no difficulties for Lutherans who have committed themselves to the confessional documents of the Book of Concord.' (page 1237)"

Mr. Smith has done a service to the Church by publishing this quote.  It opens up the question for all Lutherans as to what impact a loss of Mark 16:9-20 would mean to the Book of Concord, or the "Lutheran Confessions".  Others have written to defend against Voelz's denial of this "Long Ending" (LE), but I want to provide the reader with an online clickable index to the exact portions that would have to be omitted or changed from the Lutheran Book of Concord. I am including in the following table not only the hyperlinks to the BookOfConcord (Triglotta) references, but also the page numbers of the currently sold English printed versions of the Lutheran Book of Concord:

Verse	Description (w/ link to BookOfConcord.org)		Triglotta (w/ link)	McCain 2005-06 2005	Kolb- Wengert
Mark 16:15	CA XXVIII Ecclesiastical Power 7; (Augsburg Confession) “…the power of the Keys, or the power of the bishops, according to the Gospel, is a power or commandment of God, to preach the Gospel, to remit and retain sins, and to administer Sacraments. For with this commandment Christ sends forth His Apostles, … Mark 16:15: Go preach the Gospel to every creature.		85	58 84	93
	FC SD V Law and Gospel 4: (Formula of Concord)“… when Christ after His resurrection commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel in all the world, Mark 16:15”		952	554 582	582
	FC SD XI Election 28: “… it is Christ's command that to all in common to whom repentance is preached this promise of the Gospel also should be offered Mark 16:15”		1073	606 636	645
Mark 16:15 ff.	LC Preface 20” (Large Catechism) “… our Sacraments, which Christ Himself instituted, Baptism and the holy body and blood of Christ, namely, the text which Matthew 28:19ff and Mark 16:15f record at the close of their Gospels when Christ said farewell to His disciples and sent them forth.”		579	339 384	359
Mark 16:16	AC IX: 1-2 Baptism: “Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation”		47	35 61 (teach  that Baptism is necessary for salvation)	42 (necessary [“to salvation” omitted.])
	AP XXIV [XII] Sacrifice of the Mass 18: (Apology [Defense] of the Augsburg Confession) “… God here[in Baptism] offers and presents the remission of sins, etc., according to the promise, Mark 16:16”		389	222 248	261
	SA III VIII Confession 7: (Smalcald Articles) “For even those who believe before Baptism, or become believing in Baptism, believe through the preceding outward Word, as the adults, who have come to reason, must first have heard: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, even though they are at first unbelieving”		495	280 307	322
	SC Baptism: (Small Catechism) “Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Mark: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”		551	339 365	359
	LC Short Preface, Baptism 21: “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”		579	358 365	385
	LC Baptism 4-5: “… in St. Mark 16:16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”		733	423 449	457
	LC Baptism 23: “… this also we cannot discern better than from the words of Christ above quoted: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”		737	425 451	459
	LC Baptism 31: “Now here we have the words: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”		739	426 452	460
	FC SD XI Election 39: “Therefore the meaning is not at all the one referred to above, namely, that the elect are to be such as even… do not truly believe in Christ, Mark 16:16”		1075	608 638	647
Mark 16:20	FC SD VIII Person of Christ, 27: “ … not only as God, but also as man [has dominion and] rules from sea to sea and to the ends of the earth…  as the … apostles testify, Mark 16:20”		1025	586 616	621

      Is it not strange that the LC-MS, which promotes its sacramental theology, would also remove one of the foundational Bible verses that support it – one of the verses that constitutes what Luther calls the "outward Word"?  Hmmm... maybe the LC-MS is not so "sacramental" after all?  (The LCMS also now teaches that the use of grape juice, instead of wine, is not forbidden in the Lord's Supper, contrary to orthodox Lutheran teaching. Confessing, p. 887, fn 131; cp CTQ 1981, v. 45,1, p. 77-80, 🔗, CTM 1939, v. 10,5 p 321-330, 🔗); Pastor and People, p. 57-58) [2020-04-09: see also BJS essay by Karl Weber, "Fruit of Which Vine?".] —

Is Orthodoxy "docetic"? Not the LC-MS…
      Of greater importance in this controversy is the doctrine of Holy Scripture promoted by the teachers of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod today.  Prof. Voelz does not teach the Divinity of Holy Scripture. (see here)  He and his LC-MS officially teach that the Bible is divine and human.  He explicitly charges those who hold to the full Divinity (e.g. Luther, Walther, etc.) as "docetic" (see this blog post, What Does This Mean?, p. 242 [Internet Archive]).  This charge is meant to be comparable to the other "Docetism" heresy of early Christianity.  But that heresy was not about the Holy Scripture, it was about the Person of Christ. Voelz holds to a low view of Holy Scripture indicating his (and the LC-MS's) theology and exegesis.  It is exactly the charge by German theologians against orthodox teaching in Walther's day, against the old Synodical Conference.  So it is no wonder that he makes his assertion of "no difficulties for Lutherans" because he would have Lutherans believe and follow him, as a high scholar, rather than to "bow or kneel before… words" as Luther instructs his hearers to do.

No, neither Dr. James Voelz nor his LC-MS are worthy to be listened to in this matter.  I will listen to the Reformers, I will listen to the Lutheran Confessions.  I will only listen to those who "believe, teach, and confess" the Divinity of Holy Scripture (i.e. sola Scriptura): 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21.
= = = = = = =  After the break below, read Paul E. Kretzmann's Commentary on this matter:  = = = = = = =

Lutheran shibboleth: SOLA fide– Luther & Triglotta (Part 2a)

      This continues from Part 1 (Table of contents in Part 1) which announced the complete 1921 Concordia Triglotta unveiling on Google Books this year.  Now I want to present the subject covered by the Triglotta (the Lutheran Confessions) that began my research which led me to that discovery.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
      While continuing my project on Pieper's Christliche Dogmatik (now hyperlinking all Baier-Walther references), I ran across his short treatment of the doctrine of “by faith alone” or the familiar Latin phrase “sola fide” (Christian Dogmatics 2, p. 532-534, Christliche Dogmatik 2, p. 641 ff.).  Pieper brings to bear one of Luther's great Reformation sayings that caused me to just freeze… and thank God for the Reformation!  But what was it that Luther said?
      During the discussions surrounding the presentation of the Augsburg Confession, Philip Melanchthon reported to Luther the following from Augsburg in 1530:

“[Johann] Eck finds fault with the word sola. He does not condemn the doctrine in itself, but says that the unlearned would be offended by it. I forced him to admit that we are right in ascribing righteousness to faith.”

Since Johann Eck was the chief spokesman for the Papists, Luther knew him very well and so answered the naive Melanchthon:

“You write that you made Eck admit that we are justified by faith. If you had only gotten him not to lie!” 

The above exchange is unfortunately not to be found in Luther's Works American Edition… what a shame.  Pieper then speaks for Luther by explaining Eck's "grace":

“Eck was very willing to say that a man is justified “by grace and by faith,” understanding grace to mean not the gracious disposition of God, but “infused grace,” that is, good works.”

Melanchthon’s erroneous judgment of Eck on “justified by faith” is in St. L. 16:1401 (WA Br 5, 554, #1691), Luther’s answer to Melanchthon on Eck’s “lie” in St. L. 16:1403 (WA Br 5. 576, #1699). See my Luther's Letters, p. 245-246; Reu, The Augsburg Confession, Part 2, p. 386-387 for a near full English translation. —  For the past 2 weeks or so, I have paused my work and just gloried in this statement by Luther.  Justification is accomplished sola fide, only by faith.  And the Church of the Roman Anti-Christ will not follow what the Holy Scriptures teach on this, even to the point of deceitfully agreeing to the words but not the meaning.  This is how Franz Pieper drove home the great teaching of the Reformation to his Concordia Seminary-St. Louis students.  This is why Martin Luther is the only Reformer of the Church.
      Franz Pieper then refers to several writings, but I will highlight just two of them:

(1) Luther's essay titled “On Translating, An Open Letter” where he gives his "cutting reply" and an explanation for his use of the word sola (or "solum") in Romans 3:28 (1545 German text):

“However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of language when I inserted the word "solum" (alone) in Rom. 3 as the text itself, and St. Paul's meaning, urgently necessitated and demanded it.  He is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine in this passage – namely that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law.  In fact, he rejects all works so completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God's law and word, do not aid us in justification.” — [This text was translated for Project Wittenberg by Dr. Gary Mann in 1995 and was placed by him in the public domain.  You may freely distribute, copy or print this text, providing the information in this statement remains attached. — Here are all sources: St. L. XIX, 968, esp. 978-982;  WA 30, II, pp. 632-646;  Project Wittenberg English translation, (search “So much for translating”), archived copy;  Am Ed. 35, 175-202, esp. 195-202.] 

It was distressing to me that after extensive research, I could find no English translation of Romans 3:28 that followed Luther's German translation: "allein durch den Glauben", "by faith alone".  Why is that?  However you will find the word "alone" in the Lutheran Confessions – see the next item.

 (2) Article IV of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, paragraph 73:

“The particle alone offends some, although even Paul says, Rom. 3:28: We conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law. Again, Eph. 2:8: It is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. Again, Rom. 3:24: Being justified freely. If the exclusive alone displeases, let them remove from Paul also the exclusives freely, not of works, it is the gift, etc. For these also are [very strong] exclusives. It is, however, the opinion of merit that we exclude. We do not exclude the Word or Sacraments, as the adversaries falsely charge us. For we have said above that faith is conceived from the Word, and we honor the ministry of the Word in the highest degree.”

Concordia Triglotta
(in Google Books!)
p. 140-141

     And Oh!...  while researching all online resources, I discovered to my great joy that the beloved printed Concordia Triglotta was now fully available in Google Books (and HathiTrust 2-pg spread), not just "snippet view" or "limited search".  I could now not only hyperlink references to the great BookOfConcord.org website, but now everyone will be able to see not only the English translation, but also the 2 source languages, Latin and German, on facing pages as they were printed =======>>>>>>>>

by the old (German) Missouri Synod in 1921.  Now everyone, the whole world that has access to the Internet, can read how the Lutheran Confessions have it written down... that Justification is "sola fide", by faith alone.  Every Lutheran, indeed every Christian (including me!), should study Luther's complete writing of "On Translating" in the above reference and the Apology's explanation of this "main point of Christian doctrine" in the 3-language Concordia Triglotta HERE.  It is the heart of the Reformation! 

1910 Catholic Encyclopedia

1910 Catholic Encyclopedia

      Pieper calls on this reference work under the sub-heading “Faith, Protestant Confessions of” (here) to show how this doctrine has never left the center stage, as the RC Church speaks of the “obnoxious word sola (alone)”.  This doctrine, the "sola fide", is by no means settled in today's world.  It is just as much in contention "here and now" as in the days of the presentation of the Augsburg Confession in the year 1530.

      We see that Franz Pieper, Martin Luther, and the Concordia Triglotta are all in agreement.  And how the world rages!  It isn't just the Roman Church that wars against it.  In the next Part 2b, I bring a small sampling of this contention over the doctrine of… SOLA fide!

New CPH book- Church Fellowship-3: Graphic; BoC edition?

This continues from Part 2 reviewing the information on the new upcoming addition to CPH's Walther's Works series – Church Fellowship.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I see that CPH's 30-second elevator pitch on this is:

"In the first one volume edition, discover C.F.W. Walther’s works on Lutheran identity and unity in doctrine and practice on the basis of Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions."

"The first one volume edition"
What does this mean?  Are they referring to the "2-volume" edition of Essays for the Church from 1992?  Does it mean "Don't expect more than 'one volume' to this edition?"  ...


Cover graphic

Why is this symbol used on the front?  It seems to follow a pattern at CPH – that of substituting for all matters of theology a sign of Holy Communion.  The book For the Life of the Church likewise has a graphic of a communion cup.  Certainly Walther wrote about the doctrine of Holy Communion, but neither of the base materials for these 2 books suggest this graphic to be on the cover of Walther writings.


Rather it would be better to have symbol of the Bible, the basis for all of Walther's theology...  like the old (German) Missouri Synod put on the title page of Walther's Gospel Sermons.  You know, like the word picture that the Bible gives:

The sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God – Eph. 6:17

I'm sure CPH has graphic capabilities to produce something emphasizing the Bible, but why must they emphasize Holy Communion for Church Fellowship?   Isn't prayer fellowship also a part of Church Fellowship... maybe a set of praying hands to emphasize that it is "syncretism" to pray with sects (and Jews, Turks, and papists)?.  Surely CPH doesn't mean it's OK to pray with others they are not in doctrinal agreement with... you know, like the 9/11 example set by David Benke, ... oops, isn't he a D.P. in the LC-MS?

Which translation of Book of Concord?
There was a surprise statement on the copyright page regarding which of the 3 English translations they would use for quotes from the Lutheran Confessions or the Book of Concord:

Quotations from the Lutheran Confessions are from Concordia Triglotta, copyright © 1921 Concordia Publishing House

I figured that a current book from CPH would use McCain's Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions book (on sale for $20 now!), a modern English translation based on the Triglotta's English version.  But no, they are actually quoting from the almost defunct version, the one from the old (German) Missouri Synod.  I wonder why McCain praised John T. Pless's book which uses the syncretistic Kolb-Wengert edition and then turns around and then uses neither Tappert's Book of Concord (the Triglotta killer) nor Pless's preferred Kolb-Wengert edition.  But if Paul McCain thinks that I am being facetious on this, then he would be wrong.  For I found that I like his smoother English than Dau's English.  But I have to admit that I do prefer the Triglotta... the Golden Triglotta (as named by Franz Pieper) because it is the most easily to be looked up online at BookOfConcord.org by Norm Fisher.  I suggest that the reader (if not done already) purchase both the Concordia Triglotta and McCain's edition.  (The Triglotta for handy reference to old Missouri's writings and McCain's edition for ease of reading).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In the next Part 4, I will comment on the endorsements and "Praise" for this book and Walther's Works at CPH.

Concordia Triglotta vs. unionistic eds.- Ironies (Part 3)

This continues the previous post Part 2 (of 5) reviewing the newly available book Concordia Triglotta.  (See Table of Contents here)  A translation of Franz Pieper's essay on the appearance of the original book will follow shortly.

But before I begin this, I would say that the 1921 essay by Theodore Graebner is not without some benefit as he points out the type and amount of labor that went into this project.  The size and scope was massive!... over 70,000 changes of English wording, hundreds of thousands of references in the indexes.  It is difficult to comprehend such a project without the benefit of computers.  I suspect that the Missouri Synod did more than just pass a resolution in 1917, but gave large sums of money for this effort.  

But what is of more importance is the wording used for critical phrases encompassing the doctrines of the Bible.  And here I believe that it was especially Friedrich Bente, more so than W.H.T. Dau, who made sure the sense of the English read true to the original Latin (and German).  There had been earlier English translations and also later English translations – General Council (Jacobs), Tappert, Kolb-Wengert.  And now available is McCain's new "Reader's Edition of Lutheran Confessions, largely an updated Triglotta English version.  But none except the Triglotta had editors/translators as capable as Friedrich Bente who would have ensured that the true Lutheran doctrine was upheld in English.   Perhaps Paul McCain's "Reader's Edition" has some benefit in updating the English wording slightly.  I use McCain's "Reader's Edition" only occasionally as a comparison to the original Triglotta.  I should add that the online version BookOfConcord.org is happily based on the Triglotta.  Also notable is the fact that it includes the text of the German edition, notable for probably OCRing old black letter fraktur font.  Unfortunately it does not include the text of the Latin version.

1) Tappert Edition
The title page of this book reveals that this was a unionistic endeavor:

Translated and edited by Theodore G. Tappert in collaboration with Jaroslav Pelikan, ..., Arthur C. Piepkorn.

Pelikan and Piepkorn were teachers in the LC-MS at that time – 1959.  Tappert was in some other American Lutheran synod outside the fellowship of the Synodical Conference... it doesn't matter which one.

It pains me to see that in 1982 Prof. Kurt Marquart used the insufficient and defective Tappert edition when the Triglotta was readily available to him.  How is Tappert insufficient?  In Article IV of the Apology (or Defense) of the Augsburg Confession, sentence 2:

Of Justification

Tappert edition (1959, pg 107)

Triglotta, pg 121 (Bente/Dau)

——————–––––––––––––––––– In this controversy the main doctrine of Christianity is involved; when it is properly understood, it illumines and magnifies the honor of Christ and brings to pious consciences the abundant consolation that they need.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––– But since in this controversy the chief topic of Christian doctrine is treated, which, understood aright, illumines and amplifies the honor of Christ [which is of especial service for the clear, correct understanding of the entire Holy Scriptures, and alone shows the way to the unspeakable treasure and right knowledge of Christ, and alone opens the door to the entire Bible], and brings necessary and most abundant consolation to devout consciences,

Do you see the difference?  Bente and Dau did not ignore the wonderful German language superlatives that are not in the Latin version.  The Tappert edition ignored the authoritative German words – that the Doctrine of Justification:

1. is of especial service for the clear, correct understanding of the entire [ganze] Holy Scriptures
2. alone [allein] shows the way to the unspeakable treasure and right knowledge of Christ
3. alone [allein] opens the door to the entire Bible

And Prof. Marquart used the Tappert edition in the worst possible place – his translation of the founding essay of the Synodical Conference from 1872, Justification, Objective and Subjective : A Translation.  It is my intention to present my own translation of this pivotal document in my blog soon... and so correct the sad misunderstandings of Prof. Marquart.

2) Kolb-Wengert edition

Prof. Roland Ziegler, in his essay in 2002 The New Translation of the Book of Concord (pages 147-151), addressed the most glaring examples of the sorry results of this unionistic production.  Paul McCain finally realized that Prof. Ziegler was on to something... and even presented a good (and lengthy) blog post in 2006 [archived, full screenshot here]  on the problems with this unionistic book.  But now we see that Prof. John T. Pless still uses the unionistic Kolb-Wengert edition ("K-W") even in his new book to be available December 2013 (available now in Kindle edition)!

• ==>> But Publisher McCain, your blog post is a bit ironic, isn't it?  Isn't Robert Kolb a great teacher who is highly respected in today's LC-MS?  Doesn't your vindication of the editors of the Concordia Triglotta (you made "the same decision made by editors of the Concordia Triglotta") condemn your own LC-MS including the unionistic Robert Kolb?
• ==>> But Publisher McCain, you call your new book by Prof. John T. Pless "a new classic", but Pless still uses the Kolb-Wengert edition in your brand new CPH book Martin Luther - Preacher of the Cross?... Isn't it ironic that Pless's book can be "a new classic" and at the same time use a unionistic production of the Book of Concord?

I think my head is spinning...   the ironies in today's LC-MS never end!  But there was a teacher in the former old (German) Missouri Synod who presented no ironies... just pure Christian (Lutheran) teaching.  His name was Franz Pieper and he wrote the authoritative introduction to the new (in 1921) Concordia Triglotta.  So in the next Part 4a, I begin presenting a translation of Pieper's full article introducing the Concordia Triglotta – the Lutheran Book of Concord in 3 languages.