Koestering's Life and Work of E G W Keyl, in English (another BTL book)

[2024-11-22: added link below in red to a slightly improved translation.]

     As mentioned previously, Concordia Historical Institute, in conjunction with CPH, has published an English translation of Pastor J. F. Koestering's 1865 book Auswandering…, in English The Emigration of the Saxon Lutherans in the Year 1838.  This book is rich in church history and spiritual counsel and boasts a revised translation by the excellent Matthew Carver.  This book is so good that I determined that Koestering's other history, his 1882 companion book on one of the fathers of the Old Missouri Synod, Pastor E. G. W. Keyl, Leben und Wirken des Ehrw. Ernst Gerhard Wilh. Keyl, should also see the light of day in English.  And when I read in Koestering's preface that he suggested that this later book, along with his earlier book, would enable the reader to "get an exact idea of the Saxon emigration", I was even more glad that I had pursued this project. 

 

Are Koestering's histories reliable… or not?

It is an irony that while the great Walter O. Forster, in his much promoted CPH book Zion on the Mississippi, impugned the reliability of historians Koestering and Hochstetter, yet the editor(s) of the above CPH book by Koestering makes no such criticisms against Koestering.  So which is it, LC-MS, is Koestering reliable or not as a church historian?  Is Forster "opinionated", as author Stella Wuerffel judged, or not?  Let the reader of both of Koestering's books judge for themselves! — Especially enlightening are Koestering's account of Pastor Keyl's relationship to the emigration leader Martin Stephan.

1848 in Germany: "evil Democrats and revolutionaries"

Koestering demonstrates his spiritual understanding of church history by explaining (on page 45) that the upheaval in Germany in 1848 perpetrated by "evil democrats and revolutionaries" was actually the means that God used — evil means at that! — to open up the freedom for a church body to be formed independent of the State in that country, as it is in America.  That is how the Lutheran Free Church in Germany was allowed to form.

Notable Quotes:

12: "…rationalism prevailed at all German universities"

12-13: "Most of the [German university] professors taught their students … how they could tear it [the Gospel] out of the people's hearts without noticing it."

33: Martin Stephan "knew how to deceive many, even the authorities, so that he always came out of many investigations as innocent."

39: "Stephanism had its origin in a wrong view of the office of preaching."

99: Pastor Keyl "was a truly orthodox, a genuinely Lutheran preacher and theologian"

133: "Once an apothecary came to Keyl, who was very surprised about the many books that Keyl's library contained." [Keyl had a very extensive personal library]

      I have retained all the emphasis of words in the original by underlining them. The translation is not perfect, especially at page breaks, yet it is quite readable.  Now I present Pastor Koestering's second great history, in English:

A PDF file may be downloaded at Internet Archive here; a DOCX text file here; a DOCX text file of the original German here.

[2024-11-22 download new improved translation without page breaks >> HERE <<.]

      I have not read through the complete book yet even though it is only 159 pages in length.  But I plan to do so as I study both of Koestering's histories of the Old Missouri Synod.  May other English speaking readers benefit from this great book.

Lehre und Wehre (Doctrine and Defense), in English, all 75 volumes (Part 1, LuW01)

      From CPH book Editorials from "Lehre und Wehre" (1981), Introduction by CHI Director August Suelflow, p. 6:

      It is an ambitious project to permit C. F. W. Walther (1811—87) to address English readers. Efforts to do so have occurred in the past from time to time. But this English edition constitutes one of the most significant contributions made to the study of the theology of Lutheranism in America within past years. The stereotype of Walther heretofore imposed upon him by those who were unable to read his German writings will now be significantly altered! It is to be regretted that a rich treasury of many other works from Walther’s pen still await a future project.

The great "regret" of Director Suelflow in 1981 is about to be satisfied, in the next Part 2. And it won't be just Walther in Lehre und Wehre but….

History 3: What others say; Walther commends; ToC-Table of Contents (Part 3 of 20+); a BTL Book

[2023-03-31: I discovered another refreshing endorsement of Hochstetter in Prof. Kurt Marquart who stated, among other things, in Logia 1997 vol. 6, no. 2, p. 35: 

"It is a pity that Hochstetter’s gem of a history has not been translated into English. Hochstetter had been Grabau’s assistant in Buffalo, and had started out with strongly clericalist, anti-Missouri convictions. If his well-informed account especially of the Missouri-Buffalo fracas were generally known, romantic illusions about Grabau as champion of strict Lutheranism would lose all their charms. Grabau tried, tyrannically and unsuccess- fully, to transplant a state-church system without the state-church."

Compare this with Pastor Todd Peperkorn's judgment of the same here.]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  -

      This continues from Part 2, a series publishing an English translation of Pastor Christian Hochstetter's 1885 480-page book entitled (abbreviated)

The History of the Missouri Synod, 1838-1884.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Historians favorable to Hochstetter's History

Ludwig Fuerbringer's 1936 CTM essay "Walther as Churchman" referenced Pastors Hochstetter and Köstering's histories (see this blog) as faithful narratives for Missourians to rely on – he offered no critical comments against these. — In the category of more recent LC-MS favorable theologians, along with Dr. Fred Kramer, is Dr. Cameron MacKenzie, who, while not expressly mentioning Hochstetter's work, refuted a claim of antagonist Walter O. Forster (Zion on the Mississippi, p. 523-25) concerning an account of Dr. Marbach, and so vindicates Hochstetter's History (Pieper Lectures, Vol. 10 (2006), "Call and Ordination in the Thought and Practice of C. F. W. Walther…", p. 36, n. 23). — A respected LC-MS historian, Lewis W. Spitz Sr. (1895-1996; CTSFW), in his "Preface" to his 1961 The Life of Dr. C.F.W. Walther, calls out, among others, Hochstetter's History as a trusted primary source.

      Another recent LCMS theologian referencing Hochstetter is CHI Director August Suelflow († 1999).  His book C. F. W. Walther, Servant of the Word, p. 144-145 states (emphasis mine):

“An important contribution in this area was made by Christian Hochstetter (1828-1905) [Find-A-Grave], who wrote a comprehensive history of the Missouri Synod. It was published in 1885, two years before Walther’s death. The book continues to be the most reliable source available from that time. Hochstetter had been a pastor in the Buffalo Synod, but joined the Missouri Synod in 1867 when his theological convictions shifted. Walther received a copy of the volume from Hochstetter and read it immediately, though with great trepidation because he was so personally involved with the Synod’s history. In a letter to the author of the book, dated July 31, 1885, Walther expressed his great satisfaction with the history:

"great service which
you have rendered…
you allowed the
facts to speak"

      ‘Now after I have completed reading with great interest and joy your history of our synod, and its doctrinal controversies, I am compelled to express my deepest and most sincere appreciation to you for the great service which you have rendered by it not only to our synod, but above all to the cause of truth. At first, I grant you, I dreaded to read your splendid book, because I myself occur in it so often. I was afraid of my own evil heart, which is so greatly prone to ascribe a little also to myself for what God has done to me out of incomprehensible mercy and for [how] he has used me as his most unworthy instrument. Finally, however, after God allowed me again and again to feel my incompetence for all good and my damnableness, I overcame my dread. ... [Y]ou allowed the facts to speak, facts which simply cannot be gain-sayed. ... When I was reading your book it struck me more vividly than ever before, that next to God’s incomprehensible mercy in making us poor sinners a memorial of His free grace, the true cause of our success is the conviction (given us by God) under all circumstances to remain with His truth and the heritage of the Reformation and not to sacrifice one iota of it, even if (because of that) everything erected would be brought to ruin again. That this conviction was also mine and remained mine to this hour, I cannot deny for the sake of God’s honor, who gave it to me. Cursed be every thought that seeks to claim for itself what belongs to God, but far be it, too, out of false modesty to deny what God has done in us.’ (Letter from Walther to Hochstetter, July 31, 1885; transcription by W. K. Wadewitz at Concordia Historical Institute.)”

So pronounces C. F. W. Walther on Hochstetter's History of the Missouri Synod. All who question Walther's spiritual judgment, the "gain-sayers", are in essence fighting against Holy Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions, and Luther's Reformation.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Historians unfavorable to Hochstetter's History

Forster's Zion on the Mississippi, old & new covers.
Generally viewed as conservative,
yet lacks spiritual understanding.

      There are several LC-MS historians and theologians who have criticized Hochstetter's History – none more severely than Walter O. Forster in his 1953 CPH book Zion on the Mississippi, a standard history in LCMS circles.  Forster repeatedly questions the testimony of several historians from the Old Missouri Synod, including Hochstetter and Walther. More importantly, he also questions their motives. He calls Walther "equivocal" (p. 303-304).  Forster gives the distinct impression that he, as the objective historian, questions Walther's honesty.  He uses phrases such as "fatuous assertions" (p. 303).  We saw above that Dr. MacKenzie refuted at least one of the spiritual judgments of Forster (on Dr. Marbach). An earlier blog post pointed out Forster's opposition to Walther's judgment of mediating theologians in Germany.
      At their worst, these unfavorable LCMS historians and theologians promote the thought that older historians such as Hochstetter could be accused of idolizing Walther, just as Pastor Martin Stephan had been. But we see that Hochstetter perfectly answers this accusation, which most Old Missouri historians faced, in an 1882 essay, p. 79 (translated):

"It must be noted that Walther does not make the spirits subject to himself but to the Word of God; but he knows how to teach it so emphatically and clearly that the truth must prove its irresistible power, that doubt must give way, while that which seemed difficult to some becomes easy and the uncertain finally becomes certain!". 

This accusation is far from the truth, for the convictions of these Old Missouri historians were made Rock solid (1 Cor. 10:4) by the Word of God, i.e. the Holy Scriptures. — The false judgments by LCMS historians is similar to a case related by August Suelflow in his book.  He reported (Servant, p. 116) on a story that the Confederate flag flew over Concordia Seminary during the Civil War period.  Suelflow continued:

"This false story has been printed as fact elsewhere, even as recently in such prominent works as Werner Elert’s Morphologie des Luthertums, [The Structure of Lutheranism, CPH 2000] Yet in his 1870 rebuttal, Walther once and for all stated:…"
 (bolding mine)

August Suelflow accepted Walther's personal testimony as the truth against a German scholar in this case.  I will follow Suelflow's testimony for the credibility of Walther, against that of LCMS historians like Walter O. Forster.  (Unfortunately Suelflow did not fully trust Walther's testimony against LCMS historians such as Forster.)

      But so as not to spoil the beauty of Hochstetter's History, I will try to refrain from too many polemics against the LC-MS's attempts to cloud, question and ignore it. Readers should just read Hochstetter's History for themselves and not just take other scholars opinions on it. Then they may judge for themselves whether this History, and others like it, deserve to be heard. (Dr Fred Kramer did, and rejoiced.) They may do this even without access to the primary sources at Concordia Historical Institute because this is Church History, and all Christians are called to judge for themselves in spiritual matters because they have God's Word – "The Sheep Judge Their Shepherds". — In the next Part 4, I begin with my publication of an English translation of... Pastor Christian Hochstetter's  †  History of the Missouri Synod  †.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  Table of Contents (tentative)  - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Part 1 – Lehre und Wehre (Schaller or Stoeckhardt) book review

Part 2 – Prof. Fred Kramer's "Preface" to his translation into English from the German original

Part 3 – Walther's recommendation; favorable & unfavorable historians; Table of Contents

Part 4a – Hochstetter's "Foreword": he came from outside on issue of Church and Ministry; Word of God rules
Part 4b – "Foreword", part 2 of 2; Hochstetter to Missouri on Predestination; God blessed… Missouri Synod

Part 5 – Chapter 1: Luther leaves Germany for America; Prussian Union→Emigration to America

Part 6 – Chapter 2: Stephan unmasked; Walther's Church & Ministry saves Emigration; Rast misjudges
Part 7 – Chapter 3: Ministry defended, Democratism overcome – spiritual priesthood, not ungodly lay rule

   Excursus: 1850, Walther's address on Romanizing: "zeal leads them beyond Lutheranism"
Part 8 – Chpt. 4: Wyneken–“thunder following lightning!”
Part 9 – Chpt 5: Older Synods, Methodists; better church histories of A.L. Graebner, F. Bente
Part 10 – Chp 6: Missouri’s 1st 2 years; Der Luth.; education, missions; “This is what the Lord has done!”
Part 11 – Chp 7: Loehe & Grabau: "beyond Lutheranism", fall on doctrines of the Church and the Ministry
   Excursus: LCMS & Harrison vs. Walther on "Church and Ministry"
Part 12 – Chp 8: Walther-Wyneken to Germany; reproved, response
Part 13 – Chp 9: Buffalo Colloquy; Luther's "sh*t ban"; ordination not a divine command
Part 14 – Chp 10: Loehe to Romanizing, millennialism, Antichrist error: Iowa Colloquy
Part 15 – Chp 11: Usury; 25th Anniv.;Synodical Conference; Ohio Synod falls on Election of Grace

   Excursus: Walther's "sharp polemics" against Stellhorn: on Election of Grace
Part 16 – Chp 12: Election of Grace Controversy, on Predestination; against Calvinism
   Excursus: 2 judgments of Walther: Prof. Mayes faults Walther, again (Gerhard's terminology)
Part 17 – Chp 13a: Germany supplies, fights; Election Controversy concluded: “they laugh at us…, in danger"
   Excursus: Germany–then & now: Friedrich Brunn & Martin Blechschmidt
Part 18 – Chp 13b: St. Louis: USA’s new Wittenberg; Walther's Sem. bldg addresses, greatest on USA soil

Part 19 – Chp 13c: Schwan's address; Hochstetter reviews (conclusion of book)
Part 20 – Hochstetter's obituary in Der Lutheraner (1905);  “mouth of Walther”
Part 21 – Full texts of the book, downloadable, in German and English
Part 22a – LC-MS critical of Hochstetter's History: Forster, Mundinger, Rosin

Part 22b – LC-MS criticism: Suelflow, Schmelder, Peperkorn, etc.

CHIQ's fiction against Pieper, also Cyclopedia; Walther & Scripture, Part 3 of 3

[2024-12-26: updated Labels; 2020-02-18: added Appendix on Prof. Jason D. Lane]
      This concludes from Part 2, (Part 1), a 3-part series on the importance of Holy Scripture in Walther's theology. It also follows Part 20 of my "Das Fundament" series on the same subject matter. — LCMS teachers and writers continually make the claim that Walther put the Scripture Principle in a lesser role than his teaching of the "formal principle" or the teaching of the Gospel, "justification by faith".  They do this especially to attack Walther's successor, Franz Pieper.

A recent example of this came in the Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly, Spring 2009, p. 31-51, in an essay by LCMS Pastor Dr. Richard Blythe (Senior Pastor, St. Paul, Trenton, Michigan), “The Missouri Synod and the Changing Definitions of Fundamentalism”.  On page 35 Blythe writes:

“Walther emerged as the leading voice in the Missouri Synod. … But it was during Francis Pieper’s era that the Synod’s theology on the doctrine of Scripture was emphasized.” – CHIQ, 2009.

This is an explicit charge that Pieper departed from Walther on the importance of Holy Scripture, overemphasizing it compared to Walther – a charge demonstrated to be pure fiction. Prof. Erwin Lueker († 2000), the well-known LCMS editor of the Lutheran Cyclopedia and the online Christian Cyclopedia, also made this same charge against Pieper in 1972 (CTM, April 1972, p. 210):

"In the first part of the 20th century greater emphasis was given to the ‘inerrancy’ of Scripture."

Lueker was referring especially to Pieper in this assertion.  But Pieper was rather following Walther's passionate defense of Holy Scripture, and teaching the true Lutheran faith as he did so.  Even Ludwig Fuerbringer's history of Pieper's theology, far from proving Blythe's assertions, rather proved the opposite. Now in 2009, Pastor Blythe (and Concordia Historical Institute) was only promoting what his teachers had taught him at Concordia Seminary and he finds himself teaching fiction like the "Walkout" crowd taught, along with Prof. Lueker.  They are all promoting fiction as… church history.

      But Prof. Carl S. Meyer († 1972), the great LCMS historian, is a little more honest with his readers than the above two.  His charge of "biblicism" against Walther was actually accepted by Walther in his time.  Walther accepts this label in its primary meaning – an adherence to the Scripture Principle, and it confirms that he was a true Lutheran, instead of his accusers. What?… Blythe (and his teachers), and Lueker, and Meyer were not true Lutherans in their church history?
      There is an unhappy conclusion that one draws from Walther and Pieper's teaching – that those who would deny the full Divinity of Holy Scripture, including Rev. Dr. Richard Blythe, and practically all teachers in today's LC-MS who rail against being called a "biblicist" or "fundamentalist", are actually putting their Christian faith in jeopardy.

==> Why would Concordia Historical Institute promote such fiction?
= = = = = = = = =  APPENDIX  = = = = = = = = =

2020-02-18: Add to the above list of those promoting fiction against Franz Pieper the name of Prof. Jason D. Lane (🔗), Assistant Professor of Theology at Concordia University Wisconsin. In the 2017 CPH book Defending Luther’s Reformation, Lane stated the following (p. 155):

"For a defense of Luther’s view of inspiration against modern criticism, see Franz Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, trans. J. T. Mueller (St. Louis: Concordia, 1950), 1:276-98. For a corrective to some of Pieper’s arguments and critique of his tendency toward Fundamentalism, see Hermann Sasse, Sacra Scriptura: Studien zur Lehre von der Heiligen Schrift, ed. Friedrich Wilhelm Hopf (Erlangen: Verlag der Ev.-Luth. Mission, 1981), 314-16."

Strangely Prof. Lane references a writing of Sasse that he "retracted". [2020-03-30] 

Orthodox Lutheran Conference vs LC-MS: in court under oath

      The LC-MS Christian Cyclopedia surprisingly gives a report by Rev. Wallace McLaughlin (WHM) on the Orthodox Lutheran Conference (OLC, see also here) which had separated from LC-MS.  It represented the case that there were actual changes in the doctrine of the Synod, and especially on foundational matters for the Christian faith. The following is a public record of a 1954 civil court case in connection with a congregation attempting to change their affiliation from the erring LC-MS to the OLC. It exposes a controversy that was created by the LC-MS's willingness to compromise its own confession with erring Lutherans.
      The court record was later published by Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly which admitted that the "statements were made in court under oath" and therefore are a matter of public record.  So there can be no copyright claim on these statements and I am therefore publishing them to the world, for the benefit of the Church. Because there are several pages of testimony, much of it between lawyers and the judge, I am embedding it so that it does not take up so much screen space.  To aid the reader who wants to skim through for the most important testimony, I have highlighted the most important sections of the testimony given by Professor Paul Kretzmann. 

      What were the issues?  Kretzmann testified on Romans 16:17, the Common Confession (see also here), and also the added issue of "engagement" for marriage.  Towards the end, there is testimony by Wallace McLaughlin on other points of differences but he was not allowed the time to elaborate, which is a shame.
      For those who are familiar with the manner of lawyers and court proceedings, this can be interesting reading, although it can be somewhat confusing – the tactics of the lawyers are not always clear.  What does seem clear is that the LC-MS did not want to allow the notion that its doctrine had changed, at least not publicly, so that the laity could judge their erring spiritual leaders. 

      The following is a scrolling window of the 14-page article:

      The follow is an excerpt of the chief points of Prof. Kretzmann's testimony that were the basis of the OLC's defense against the mediating LC-MS:

"We believe, in opposition to the Common Confession,
(1) that the entire Bible, word for word, is inspired by the Holy Ghost. That is on inspiration.
(2) We believe with respect to the salvation of mankind that that salvation was complete on Calvary and that all mankind is included in that plan of redemption by our blessed Savior.
(3) We believe with regard to the conversion of man that it is solely and entirely the work of the Holy Ghost without any effort whatsoever on the part of man. We believe with respect to the … the election unto eternal life that God from eternity in his own gracious will selected certain men out of the total of redeemed humanity for eternal life.
(4) We believe with respect to the church that in its essence the church is invisible. The Holy Christian Church, the Communion of Saints, and that there is no visibility to the church whatsoever although there are certain attributes of the church which are visible and those are the Word and the Sacraments.
(5) We believe with respect to church fellowship that there can be no church fellowship in the Biblical sense unless there is full agreement in all the doctrines of the Bible, both fundamental and non-fundamental."

      The external Synodical Conference brethren were also heavily involved at this same time in warning the erring LC-MS, but the testimony above was not from outside brethren but from those who had been inside the LC-MS… and then separated from it. — May this confession of the Orthodox Lutheran Conference, recorded in a public civil court, stand as a testimony against the LC-MS that desperately wanted to avoid having it on public record.  This is not the property of Concordia Historical Institute, it is public testimony.

Gerhard Forde: instructor to today's LCMS (2 of 2)

[2020-02-24: added reference at bottom to old blog]
     In Part 1, it was shown that the theologian Gerhard O. Forde questioned the foundational Christian doctrine of the vicarious satisfaction.  Forde's theology is thereby anti-Christian and unLutheran.  One would think that a synod claiming to be truly Lutheran would completely avoid Forde's theology because of this but that is not the case with the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.  Their new seminary textbook, to update Pieper's Christian Dogmatics, quotes him approvingly in many places, offering only minor warnings, e.g. on his Third Use of Law.

Forde in Samuel Nafzger's/LC-MS textbook Confessing the Gospel

      The following is my tabulation of the references to the works of Gerhard O. Forde, an ELCA theologian, in the new (2018) LC-MS textbook Confessing the Gospel:

Samuel H. Nafzger General Editor	Confessing the Gospel	Concordia Publishing 2018
Chapter title	Primary Contributor(s)	#  Forde references
Prolegomena	David A. Lumpp	5
Anthropology	Jerrold A. Eickmann, Jerald C. Joersz, Thomas E. Manteufel, Daniel L. Mattson, Joel P. Okamoto	5
Work of Christ	Henry A. Hamann	8
Christian Life	Milton L. Rudnick, Martim C. Warth	5
Election	Robert Kolb	3 =========== Total: 26

There are approximately 26 references to Forde's writings in this 2-volume textbook for seminarians.  Most references offer no warning against his theology but rather quote him with approval.  All of these contributors are either ignorant of Forde's error on the fundamental article of the Christian faith, or what is more likely, they are, to borrow Siegbert Becker's words, "deliberately and culpably blind" to it – they are willing to overlook Forde's teaching that the Vicarious Satisfaction "creates more problems than it solves".

      But the ultimate tragedy of the praise of Forde's theology comes particularly in the last chapter "Election" by primary contributor Dr. Robert Kolb.  In the 2018 CPH book Walther's Works: Predestination, [2020-09-01 see also this post] it is repeatedly pointed out that one cannot hold the proper doctrine of Election of Grace without holding to the Lutheran doctrine of Universal, Objective Justification, or what is the same, the Vicarious Satisfaction.  While the author of Nafzger's textbook chapter (Kolb or Nafzger?) quotes both C.F.W. Walther and Franz Pieper in his attempt to set forth the Lutheran doctrine of "Predestination" or "Election", he then amazingly immediately follows these quotes with the following (p. 1255-1256):

"The most important North American Lutheran to articulate the doctrine of election in the late 20th century was Gerhard O. Forde (1927-2005).… Forde thereby seeks to drive home for troubled consciences the comfort that comes from knowing that before the world began God chose those to whom he has delivered his promise in Jesus Christ, and those in whom he has created faith through that same promise."

Forde demonstrates his "smokescreen" vocabulary by supposedly offering "comfort for troubled consciences" while questioning the Vicarious Satisfaction, an impossibility – as the CPH Walther's Works book demonstrates.  For Drs. Robert Kolb and/or editor Samuel Nafzger to hold up Gerhard O. Forde in the face of Walther and Pieper (and Stoeckhardt) is to join in Forde's duplicity, and thereby sadly exposes the author/editor's mixed, confusing theology.

      It is even sadder that Prof. (emeritus) Thomas Manteufel, in a recent article for Summer 2019 CHIQ, attempts to justify the Nafzger-Kolb textbook by highlighting its references to Walther and Pieper, while ignoring the travesty of its reference to Gerhard O. Forde in the same writing! – I am truly sorry for the seminarians that now are taught with Nafzger's textbook, and more sorry for the Lutheran congregations who will have their future pastors taught under its "Lutheran approach", instead of Walther and Pieper. — For the reader interested in a in-depth debate on "Predestination" that clearly distinguishes truth from error, the 2018 CPH book Walther's Works: Predestination is the best there is. (2020-02-24: see also this blog)

Dogmatik: Walther - Convention Essays (& others); Part D

      This continues from Part C (Der Lutheraner) my project of listing Franz Pieper's references to Old Missouri Synod writings in his Christliche Dogmatik (Table of Contents in Part A),
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      This installment presents all references to synodical Convention Essays.  I have tabulated 30 of these, 18 having Walther's stamp.  Historians of old Missouri have sometimes slipped up on authorship or responsibility for some of the older essays.  Profs. August Suelflow and Kurt Marquart missed the fact that whenever C.F.W. Walther was in attendance at any synodical convention, that convention's essay bears the stamp of his responsibility.  So if the presenter or the formulator of the essay theses is published as Th. Brohm or F.A. Schmidt, etc., I have learned for my own part that it bears the stamp of Walther whenever he was present.  Perhaps the only exception to this is if the essayist was George Stoeckhardt or Franz Pieper where the essay would stand without "discussion".  So in the following tables, I made some judgment calls on whether to include an essay in Walther's list or not.  More on this below.
      I recall that when I first read Pieper's Christian Dogmatics 20 years ago that I was amazed at how many references he gave.  And because his subject matter was so rich in Christian doctrine, I longed to have access to these.  But they seemed to be so inaccessible and I prayed that somehow these would come to light again.  Now... almost all of these are available to some extent on my listing of Convention Essays blog post.

Prof. August Suelflow
Dir., Concordia Historical Institute

      In the preface to the now defunct books Essays for the Church, Vols. I and II, the Director of Concordia Historical Institute August Suelflow († 1999) said (p. 13 Introduction):

"Immediately after the six English volumes appeared [CPH - Selected Writings of C.F.W. Walther], the undersigned enlisted several men to complete translating the convention essays. All of them have now been completed after years of effort.... for a total of 11."

However, I would suggest Suelflow's tabulation is partially incomplete.  For example he did not consider the 1872 Synodical Conference essay (SCR1872) to be Walther's.  Also see my comments on the 1886 Synodical Conference essay.  But the more I studied the large collection of District Synod, Delegate Synod (Missouri Synod), and Synodical Conference essays, it became apparent that a large pool of essays should be considered as under Walther's responsibility, even if Walther is not listed as the presenter.  Even Director Suelflow admitted (page 13) that in these essays there was such a

"pervasive use of the passive voice (because of Walther’s modesty?), it sometimes even is hard to tell which comments are those of a questioner and which are Walther’s."

Despite some weaknesses, the translation work spearheaded by Director Suelflow of Walther's works has been a great gift to the Church.  And although CPH allowed Suelflow's great work on Walther to lapse, it has begun to have some of these Convention Essays to be republished in a revised format, e.g. Church Fellowship, etc. (CPH: When is the next one coming out??)

      Now I present all 34 references that Franz Pieper included in his Christliche Dogmatik work:

This Google Doc may be accessed directly >>  here  <<.

      As I again reviewed these essays, it struck me how important the 1860 Delegate Synod (Missouri) essay was -- scroll down the above table in Walther's listing.  Walther was present at this convention but Franz Pieper identified Theo. Brohm as the formulator of the Theses (C.D. 3, p. 191 n. 89).  But I say that this essay bears the clear stamp of... C.F.W. Walther.  And what was the subject matter? ==>> The Lutheran Doctrine of Absolution.  Here is Pieper's main takeaway from this essay:

ABSOLUTION: a special form of proclaiming the Gospel where nothing more and nothing else is given than every believer already has through the general preaching and promise of the Gospel.

I paused my project for awhile to take some time once again to review this doctrine in relation to Universal Justification.  Any readers who want to truly understand this most Christian doctrine should learn from the masters: Luther, Walther and Franz Pieper.
==>> Will some faithful Lutheran consider translating this important essay from the German into English?  The full German text is available >> here <<.  It would be an immeasurable treasure for the Church. (See also my Convention Essays blog for source material).
      In the next Part E are references to various books of Walther and other Old Missouri teachers.

"Why I Left the Missouri Synod"; weeping, robbed! (Part 2a)

[2019-08-06: added a 2nd link to Scharlemann at bottom in red]
      This continues from Part 1, an update and review of past blog posts.

—————————

50 Years Ago — Just Like Today

Siegbert Becker
"Why I Left the Missouri Synod"

       The real eye-opener in my review of old blog posts was to again read the biograghies of Prof. Siegbert Becker and his explanation for "Why I Left the Missouri Synod".  As I read his history published 50+ years ago of the fall of the LC-MS from its teaching on the inspiration of Holy Scripture, (and against Prof. Martin H. Scharleman) it seemed that I was reading about today's LC-MS and its current fall regarding the heretical teaching of Prof. Jeffrey Kloha.  One quote (p. 6 of 26) exposes just how bad things can get in the LC-MS, then and now:

"Students came to me weeping and saying that they did not know what to believe any more. They told me of girls lying on their beds sobbing for hours and so disturbed that they wanted to quit school and the church because they were being robbed of their assurance of salvation."

I like those words "weeping", "sobbing", "robbed".  Weeping and tears… just as C.F.W. Walther spoke of a lady in tears in a footnote to his 1886 Foreword in Lehre und Wehre where he reported on the Dorpat professors Volck, Mühlau, Harnack, etc. and their blasphemous disavowal of the inerrancy of Holy Scripture. (See also 1886 Synodical Conference.) On pages 2-3 Walther reported it was

"heard from Dorpat about the painful complaint that many have been confused and grieved. A lady had said with tears about the Bible: "I can not read it anymore!"

Becker's clear-headed assessment confirms a statement made by Franz Pieper in his Christian Dogmatics, vol. 1 (see this blog post):

"The fact that the denial of inspiration leads to the denial of the satisfactio vicaria was already realized in his [Delitzsch's] time..."

The new (English) LC-MS has robbed its youth, its people of the Bible – which is "their assurance of salvation".  I want to republish what the Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary republished [updated 2025-03-31] from the series originally published in Herman Otten's Lutheran News (now Christian News). Google Doc here.


I cannot leave this essay without calling attention to at least one quote from the dear Dr. Becker. In a letter to A. O. Fuerbringer, president of Concordia Seminary, Becker wrote:

M. H. Scharlemann

"...only those who are deliberately and culpably blind cannot fail to see it. If we let him [Martin H. Scharlemann, 2019-08-06 added link] continue his attacks on Scripture today, we will have no Christ tomorrow."

Concordia Historical Institute (CHI) ran a 5-part serial essay from Summer 2011 to Summer 2012 in their Historical Footnotes publication entitled “Dr. Martin H. Scharlemann: A Faithful Servant”. Purporting to tell us the story of "A Faithful Servant", it entirely ignored the famous report of Prof. Siegbert Becker and its wonderful rebukes of Scharlemann and President Behnken. At least CHI ended their series (p. 7) with the telling question:

“Will the real Martin Scharlemann please stand up.”

As I read Siegbert Becker's great testimony 50 years ago on the travesty within the hemorrhaging LC-MS, I could not help thinking of the recent testimony of a layman against a well-known LC-MS leader... in the next Part 2b.

Dogmatik uncovered topics: Usury-Pt 3, Kolb's distortion of Old Missouri on the "Wucherfrage"

This continues from Part 2 (see also Part 1) of my series exploring anew the original Christliche Dogmatik of Franz Pieper.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      I asked the question in Part 1 "What good is this Index (of Eckhardt) in the German language for the English-speaking world when one can obtain the more extended Index in the English Volume 4?"
 Answer: Not a lot ... except as I was preparing the text of Eckhardt's Index, by accident I ran across the subject of "Wucher" or Usury.  This surprised me as I had searched in vain for this subject in the English translations of Christian Dogmatics... "Usury" was not to be found there.  It also surprised me because I still consider the English translation to be quite reliable in its rendering of Pieper's original German text. – I have wondered at times why Pieper did not cover certain controversial issues in his Christliche Dogmatik series, issues such as Usury and Life Insurance where old Missouri had published essays.

      Especially the matter of Usury was of interest for me after reading an article by Dr. Robert Kolb in the Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly (CHIQ), Winter 1975, pgs 127-139.  The article was entitled “‘No Christian Would Dare Practice Usury’: A Walther Letter on Charging Interest”.  In Kolb's essay, after giving much information on old Missouri's writings on Usury, he stated the following:

In the early twentieth century the synod’s theologians tacitly rejected the condemnation of usury voiced by its early leadership, and the Synodical stance was accommodated to the American way of doing business. – Robert Kolb (emphasis mine)

In the "early twentieth century" the synod theologian was the President of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis – Prof. Franz Pieper.  Had Pieper "rejected the condemnation of usury voiced by its early leadership"?  Hmmm... it seems Dr. Kolb (then the executive director of the Center for Reformation Research, St. Louis) made quite a statement here... was it true?... did Pieper really reject Walther (and Luther) on Usury? ... Hmmmm...  something did not seem quite right in Kolb's account in CHIQ.

Pieper's Dogmatik, Bande 1, pgs 637-639
(omitted portion from English version)

      Now back to the topics I uncovered in the German version that were omitted in the English translation.  The "Wucher" entry pointed to Volume 1, page 637 which begins the footnote # 1570, a very long footnote spanning 3 pages (to pg 639)...   Here is a picture of the omitted German text ============>>>>>>>

Wow!  It is omitted from Volume 1, page 533 of the English version at the very end of the section #3 – "How the Divine Law is Made Known to Man".  It was quite surprising to me that this very large footnote would be entirely omitted... and it covered several other subjects besides "Usury" that were not mentioned in the English edition. Later posts will present these other uncovered topics...
      Old Missouri's position on these matters are largely scoffed at today.  But old Missouri was about following God's Word wherever it led, not about being popular.   But I wonder that the original translators, Dr. Theodore Engelder, Prof. Walter Albrecht, and Dr. J. T. Mueller somehow felt these controversial topics could safely be dispensed with.  Indeed Walther himself called these topics "secondary non-fundamental" articles, indicating the church did not "stand or fall" on them.  But just as importantly, neither were they indifferent matters which his opponents considered them to be, especially by the Iowa Synod,
      I want to present Franz Pieper's definitive "early twentieth century" comment regarding Usury:

Translation by BackToLuther. Highlighting is mine. Hyperlinks added for reference to sources. Texts in [] brackets are my additions.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

3. Over Usury see the quotations with Baier-Walther III, 358-366.  Furthermore: Theses on usury. With accompanying notes from Luther and other theologians writings. St. L. 1876 (Reprinted from L. u. W. 1866 pgs. 325 ff.). Report of the General Synod in 1869. Chemnitz deals very extensively with Usury in in his Loci, Ed. Wittenberg in 1623, II, 169 sqq, c. VI:.. De Usura [I believe this was omitted in J.A.O. Preus translation - section on "Poverty"]. This appropriate work of Chemnitz is very suitable, a lucid representation, and is communicated in a German translation in L.u W. 10, 171 ff. under the heading: "Martin Chemnitz on Usury".  Also in the Lutheran Church of America detailed proceedings have been carried out over the "usury question" [Wucherfrage]. The understanding was made somewhat difficult by the complicated terminology sometimes used in different senses.  One can read about this e.g. RE.2 XVII, 341 ff. under the title: "Usury, ecclesiastical laws regarding." [Wucher, kirchliche Gesetze darüber]  We have formed the following opinion on the progress of the proceedings within the Lutheran Church in America: That the lending without "rent" or "interest" was to be done for the poor or to those who are in need, was admitted on all sides. A difference emerged in the question of how it is to be held in the lending to the non-poor for the purpose of doing business.  This difference has different answers based solely on a single question. This question can be formulated by Luther’s procedure in the following way: Did the "hundreds" naturally "increase 5 [percent]" or not?  With the answer “No” to this question, Luther judges accordingly, that the a priori determination is to be that "rent" or "interest" is rejected; one must wait and see if and how much "luck" (Luther's expression) have the hundred had during the year.  With the answer “Yes” to this question – that the “hundred” have naturally increased five [percent] – consider it right that a priori five per cent or any particular amount may be required. This position is taken within the Lutheran Church in America, but at the same time explains in most cases that it is demanded by love that the stipulated "rent" or "interest" can not be claimed if the hundred has not actually brought the "five [percent]".  They reveal their fundamental principle of a natural increase of five [percent] and position themselves in practice on Luther’s fundamental principle that the five [percent] does not naturally attach to the hundred. Why Luther's proposition was not approved by this side from the outset is still a logical and psychological mystery with us to this day.  That Luther's statement is correct, each one can plainly be convinced of in this way, that he leaves a hundred for a year and checks on it after a year whether it has increased.  It is also important to note that we did not require the Scriptures for the correct judgement of the usury question in the sense indicated, but only an average use of natural reason that man has remaining, even after the Fall, thank God. —

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
I took great care in translating this section of Pieper because I have had correspondence with some who have grappled with the question of Usury today, as even I do.  And Franz Pieper gives the best "short answer" to be found for the Lutheran Church.  Who cannot find in this subject reason to flee to the Saviour for forgiveness of his sins?
      Now, where does this leave me with the comment by Dr. Robert Kolb above?  Kolb said: "In the early twentieth century the synod’s theologians tacitly rejected the condemnation of usury voiced by its early leadership..."  But this isn't true.  Why did Prof. Dr. Robert Kolb make this blatantly false statement?  Perhaps others led him to this conclusion, others like Carl S. Meyer, or someone else at Concordia Historical Institute.  But that is no reason to follow it.  This was not the first time I have found essays in the Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly that misrepresented old Missouri.  In fact, in my early days of scouring everything I could find about and from "old Missouri", I gradually came to the conclusion that this journal was notorious for distorting the spiritual heritage of its "early leadership" and its theologians from the "early twentieth century".  Indeed, I quit reading from CHIQ many years ago because I wanted the true spiritual message, not just facts and earthly history.—  Because of false statements like these, it is well to ignore the writings of Prof. Dr. Robert Kolb if one wants to get the true spiritual, Christian counsel.  Rather one should read from Franz Pieper.  Oh, but Franz Pieper even mildly chastises his own Missouri when he says:

Why Luther's proposition was not approved by this side from the outset is still a logical and psychological mystery with us to this day. – Franz Pieper

... "a logical and psychological mystery"?  Pieper uses two terms in his chastisement: (1)   "logical", or natural human reason, and "psychological", where Pieper's meaning is closer to a spiritual understanding, not the worldly understanding of that term.

Indeed: Luther • Chemnitz • Walther, and now Franz Pieper are the true teachers of the Biblical teaching on Usury... not today's LC-MS.

In the next Part 4, I uncover Pieper's comments on "Life Insurance"... are you listening Thrivent?