L. Rast–Pt 3c: Pieper- Link (Sola Scriptura)

This post continues from Part 3b in a series (Table of Contents in Part 1) that reviews several essays of Prof. Lawrence A. Rast Jr., president of Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana (CTS-FW).  This Part 3c continues a review of an essay that Rast made on Franz Pieper, "A Connecting Link..." – the sub-sections titled "Sola Scriptura" .  The 27-page essay, one of several essays, can be downloaded here (1 MB PDF file).

With the refreshment from Pieper's essay on "Inspiration of Scripture", I can go on with this painful review...

----------------------------------------------------------------
(cont'd from Part 3b)
***  A review by BackToLuther of  ***
Franz August Otto Pieper (1852-1931): 
“A Connecting Link ...” 
by Lawrence R. Rast Jr.
37th Annual Reformation Lectures, (download here==>> LSQ 45:1, pgs 5-31)

Sola Scriptura (pgs 13-16)

In this section, Rast quotes Pieper from the Brief Statement and from an 1893 essay published in The Presbyterian and Reformed Review "Luther's Doctrine of Inspiration" (see my last blog post).  The notable feature of this section is how Rast reports this and who he reports it to.
1) How Rast reports on Pieper:

• "from Pieper"
• "In this text Pieper believed..."
• "Pieper offered his perspective..."
• "his understanding of the Bible"
• "Pieper maintained his position..."
• "Indeed, Pieper's reading of Luther leads him to claim..."
• "the bottom line is that for Pieper..."

Rast can positively state what Pieper said and believed, what doctrines Pieper held.  He shows that he is well read, that he may even be able to read German and Latin.  He knows how to find things in the writings of old Missouri.  But as I read his essay, I kept writing in the margins:

But what do you believe, Dr. Rast?  You keep saying what Pieper believed, but you seem to leave out what you hold for the truth...  you seem to be holding yourself at a careful distance...

So... what do you believe, Dr. Rast?

2) Who did Rast deliver this essay to?
If one reads the many writings of Dr. Rast, he has many audiences.  He writes for the Concordia Theological Quarterly; he wrote a contributing essay for the book honoring Prof. David Scaer – All Theology Is Christology.  But who are the people that Rast delivers this essay to? ... on Franz Pieper?  This essay where he said:

Indeed, Pieper’s reading of Luther leads him to claim that “inspiration extends also to all chronological, historical and scientific matters that are contained in Scripture.”

Was it a room full of LC-MS theologians and others who listened to Alistair McGrath, an Anglican, speaking on Reformation Day to Lutherans?  No.  —  Was it an audience like the readers of the book All Theology is Christology that honored Prof. David P. Scaer (and Richard John Neuhaus)?  No.  —  So what audience could he deliver this essay to, where the audience would not snicker... or even heckle him?  Who are these people in the audience?
==>> They are former fellow members of the defunct Synodical Conference, the ELS and WELS... the synods that separated from Rast's synod, the LC-MS... the separated synods that were railed against by the new (English) LC-MS for their faithfulness to the doctrines of Christianity, faithfulness to Scripture.  Unfortunately, the detrimental influence of the LC-MS has been so pervasive that even these separated brethren are also losing their moorings to the doctrines of the Reformation – Rast's presence at their "Reformation Lectures" show it.

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

At the top of page 16, Rast says of Pieper:

What is rather striking is the consistency of language across more than forty years. 

Why is it striking to Dr. Rast that a theologian should be consistent for so long?  Rast also noted in the other essay "Collecting Autographs..." how long (three decades!) that Pieper had not changed his teaching on Scriptures.  Again, why is it so surprising – except that maybe Dr. Rast is a member of modern theology that is "carried about with every wind of doctrine"? Ephesians 4:14

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

A digression: A pastor of the ELCA and "Sola Scriptura"

An ELCA pastor who contacted me privately last year (on the subject of "geocentrism") publishes on his church's website "Scripture Alone" (also "Grace Alone" and "Faith Alone").  He calls himself a "Lutheran" even glorifying the Reformation heritage.  He also ridiculed my blog posts on Geocentrism, Luther on the Jews... called me "Franzie baby" and a coward for not revealing my full identity (and more ridicule).  He would not address the Doctrine of Justification that I raised with him.  I wonder if Dr. Rast's own teaching of "Sola Scriptura" is not unlike that of this ELCA Lutheran pastor?
==>> Listen, Dr. Rast, to what this ELCA pastor wrote to me – he and I agree on this:

The LCMS has forgotten its history and what it use to believe. I know of no LCMS pastor who is a geocentricist today. 95% will have never heard of it even though that it is right in Pieper. [i.e. Pieper's Christian Dogmatics]

I will agree with this ELCA pastor (a student of philosophy) on this much, that the LCMS has forgotten what it use to believe.  But we disagree on the extent of forgetfulness.  He will use the gauge of "geocentrism"... while I use the gauge of Universal, Objective Justification, i.e. the Gospel... a teaching for which his ELCA is practically dead.  But can Dr. Rast even point out how the ELCA positively does not hold to "Scripture Alone"?
- - - - - - - - - End of Part 3c - - - - - - - - - -

In my next post Part 3d, I have reserved a whole blog post for a special edition.  I will reproduce an extract of Rast's essay, one of the most memorable testimonies ever given for Prof. Pieper... by a student of Pieper.

Walther as Theologian – Part 13:Conversion and Election I & II

Continued from Part 12.  Table of Contents will be in Part 1 when all installments are finished.

Because Walther and Pieper quote from theologians of past centuries, it can be a bit difficult to follow these essays in certain places.  But God has provided the resources of today's Internet to put much of the resource material at our fingertips.  The added hyperlinks will give direct or indirect access to most of the German theologians and Latin terms here mentioned.

Highlighting is my own.  Underlining is in original.

Hyperlinks within this document should be opened in a new tab (or window).

     A second installment below is being combined with the above as Pieper continued on the subject of "Conversion and Election".  It hammers home the "insoluble mystery" of the question that comes up in everyone's mind: "Why one and not another?".  With our modern mind, this unsolvable mystery does not sit well for we think that we are masters of knowledge and can figure out every mystery.  But it is not so with this mystery.
     This second installment begins the explanation of and defense against the teaching of intuitu fidei or "in view of faith" – the center of the great controversy in American Lutheranism.  And it was C.F.W. Walther who personally rescued the Church from this pernicious, perennial error.


    Prof. Franz Pieper carried Walther's defense against the error of intuitu fidei until the day he died in 1931.  Franz Pieper could ferret out all opponents who had "a certain degree of outward conformity to the Lutheran way of speaking" but who did not hold to the true Lutheran teaching of an insoluble mystery.  There are a lot of those today among our modern theologians.  Does anyone think that this error has been settled in American Lutheranism today?  Think again for today's ELCA teaches the same as their ancestors from the old Ohio Synod and Iowa Synod. Then learn from the master theologians Walther and Pieper on the true Christian teaching.  And let no one say this is a minor matter – it is a matter is spiritual life and death.
(Further quotes and comments may be added at a later time)

The next post is Part 14 – Conversion.

"Came across your blog... interesting stuff", a criticism

     I received a private message from a correspondent a couple of days ago:

"Just came across your blog, lots of interesting stuff."

Hmmm... another spam comment...  I'll just mark him as "spam" and be rid of him..... oh, wait, he goes on and says:

"I liked the material on Old Missouri and geocentrism."

Oh, this is definitely not a spam message...  I wonder who this is, he mentions "Old Missouri" and "geocentrism".  Could it be a Lutheran who is perhaps strengthened by the pure Christian teaching of Luther, Walther and/or Pieper?  Could it be?  He goes on:

"I enclose an English translation of a piece by Lindemann against modern astronomy.  My German isn't great, but I had a member of the congregation translate it for me."

OK, sir.  You have an interest in the topic of "geocentrism".  I also do and the article you sent me is an English translation of J.C.W. Lindemann's booklet that C.F.W. Walther commented on.  Actually, I'm not so interested in Lindemann's booklet, but what Walther's comments were.  Why?  Because I am absolutely certain that what Walther says is truly Christian.  Lindemann, although he upholds the Biblical teaching of geocentrism, may be weak on the true Gospel.  It was Walther who kept his brothers, including Lindemann, strong in the true Christian faith because he taught the pure Doctrine of Justification.

     But then the correspondent said this:

"Only one criticism.  It is unworthy of a Christian to post under a pseudo-name.  Always be brave enough to use your own name."

Ouch!  This statement touched me...  I'm not proud of using a pseudo-name instead of my real name.  Amazon praises its reviewers when it puts "Real Name" next to a reviewer's name.

     Then the correspondent identified himself – he is a pastor of a Lutheran congregation and he identified the name and city of his congregation.  However, he did not identify what synod he was from ...  hmmm, a bit odd to me, since he just told me I should be brave and identify myself.

     So in today's world of instantaneous, ubiquitous knowledge, I searched the Internet for his congregation and, Oh! ... my correspondent is a member of the ELCA, or the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America.  What?  He says my blog has "interesting stuff", but did he read Pieper's comment on the forebearer of his ELCA synod, the Ohio Synod, which taught that the old Missouri Synod taught heresy?  Did he read in my Timeline of the Downfall of the LC-MS how a member of the ALC committee (Buehring) on June 26, 1946 complained of the LC-MS forcing the Brief Statement on ALC men, like a "potato stomper"?

     Does my correspondent not see that my blog is not about "interesting stuff" but rather about spiritual life and death?  Does the correspondent not see what Pieper saw when he said that the forebearers of ELCA, the Ohio/Iowa/ALC synods, were "reaching for our souls" during discussions on fellowship?

- - - - - - - - - - - 

     You just called me a Christian... but what Christian?  Pieper said the following when writing of Walther's teaching on the Doctrine of Justification:

"All praise of Christ, of grace, and of the means of grace, without the right doctrine of justification, is nothing."

Nothing.  Nothing?? What Doctrine of Justification?  Universal, Objective Justification (the Gospel). 

Dear ELCA pastor ==>> Do you preach this Gospel, that even before the hearers believe, there is salvation, that they are already justified, God is already reconciled to them,... even before they believe?  As Walther says:

"Yes, there are not a few Lutherans who think that doctrine should be treated very lightly lest the hearers become too secure."

- - - - - - - -

     He called me a Christian.  He would probably call Martin Luther a Christian, but why?  His synod and the LC-MS condemn Luther, yet they probably make at least some use of Luther's Small Catechism in some instructional classes for its youth.  What are your youth supposed to think:  "You teachers condemn Luther, and yet you want us to learn from him spiritually?"

- - - - - - - -

     And so, dear ELCA pastor, to you I'm just pseudo-name BackToLuther... from the old (German) Missouri Synod.  I cannot accept your admonishment because I have to question your motive.  If I am to be admonished by someone, it will be especially by a Lutheran pastor or teacher who admonishes me from an unquestionable motive, who teaches the true Gospel as Walther and Pieper taught, and that Jesus commands his followers:

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.  Matthew 10:32 

     No, this blog is not for those who would collect old writings as "interesting stuff", but rather for the sake of their soul.  I have over 30 feet of book shelf space of old Lutheran writings, over 40 megabytes of scanned, OCR'd and translated materials from old (and not so old) Lutheran material.  I had accumulated perhaps the greatest library of true Lutheranism in the world – in my basement.  And then it finally hit me... I don't have to do this anymore.  I have the truth of Christianity in my lap... it is enough.  I have Pieper's Christian Dogmatics, and Walther's Proper Distinction of Law and Gospel, and most of Luther's writings.

     Who will speak for Christianity, not just Lutheranism, today? 

·        Franz Pieper, the 20th Century Luther. 

·        C.F.W. Walther, the American Luther. 

·        Martin Chemnitz, the Second Martin. 

And...

Martin Luther,

the one whom nearly all "Lutherans" in the world today, including your ELCA, condemn.

Who Am I? To you, dear ELCA pastor, I'm just BackToLuther.

Pieper: Ohio's great error (old ELCA) – on Justification

I have read somewhere of interest to find out exactly what the Ohio and Iowa Synods taught (old American Lutheran synods)...   and what were their errors?  The Ohio Synod of Columbus, Ohio was one of several American Lutheran synods that merged into the ALC synod in 1930, and then into today's ELCA synod.  It should be noted that the Ohio Synod was one of the original members of the Synodical Conference in 1872 (with the Missouri Synod) even though the Wikipedia article on the Synodical Conference does not mention it.  And these Ohio and Iowa synods were identified by Professor Theodore Graebner in 1938 as the ones that had the right Doctrine of Objective Justification, along with his LC-MS.
But unfortunately the Ohio Synod broke away from the Synodical Conference because they held to doctrinal errors, chiefly the Doctrines of Justification and Election.  Franz Pieper spoke of the great error of the Ohio Synod in the pages of Lehre und Wehre in June 1889 (vol. 35, pgs 195 - 196) [2019-10-21 fixed link].  Here is what he reported:

Ohio. It is a great deception that the Ohioians and all synergists still speak of justification by grace through faith for Christ's sake, by which they cover themselves and alas! also inexperienced Christians with their utter waste of the central doctrine of Christianity. For the origin of faith is not merely at the mercy of God, but also by the good behavior of man as the Ohioians teach, faith itself includes a human achievement or a work of man in himself, and justified "through faith" then means  justified in so far as through a partial work of man.  Of a justification by grace in the biblical sense, there can no longer be talk of.  As Luther says, "Justification, which is done by grace, that suffers no work or no merit."   "And St. Paul thrusts" (with the "by grace" of Romans 3:24) "to the ground both the Pelagians with all their merits, and the Sophists with their few or small merits".  (The Bondage Of The Will. Dresden edition, page 300) [see section 149 (CXLIX) here].  So this subject has been discussed by all sides in the last fight.  But now there is something new to report.  For some weeks the Ohioians therefore fight expressly against the doctrine of justification as heresy, which they confessed at the first meeting of the Synodical Conference in 1872 with the whole Synodical Conference.  (Report of the first meeting of the Synodical Conference, 1872, page 43 ff.)  Will this possibly help to open the eyes of at least some of those under the unfortunate seduction of the spirit of error?

This is the error that modern Lutherans (such as Prof. T. Graebner in 1939 and today's Prof. David Scaer) want to ignore and overlook.  I have given the following quote many times before, but I want to rub your nose in it, today's LC-MS.  Here is what your Professor Theodore Graebner said in 1939:

One of the statements in the A.L.C. declaration has been criticized as hiding a denial of objective justification – when this doctrine is accepted by the American Lutheran Church (because it has accepted our Brief Statement) and when both Ohio and Iowa Synods for generations past have taught correctly this same doctrine.  As long ago as 1872 and as recently as 1938 the public doctrine in the areas here placed under suspicion has been the plain doctrine of Scripture as we teach it ourselves.

All the women and homosexual pastors in today's ELCA (and NALC) cannot roar louder against the true Doctrine of Justification than Professor Theodore Graebner did in this quote.  Theodore Graebner, the great Editor of the Lutheran Witness and chief popular spokesman for the LC-MS in 1938, set himself on a mountain top, way above C.F.W. Walther, way above Franz Pieper, and roared:

The fathers of the old (German) Missouri Synod were wrong!  ......  I am the one who knows the Doctrine of Justification!  I am the one who knows the central article of Christianity!  Listen to me!

And unfortunately today's LC-MS did.

Not so for the old (German) Missouri Synod.  From the perspective of old Missouri, the Ohio Synod was already beginning to return to the Roman Catholic (Sophist) doctrine and would not be so surprised (but would be saddened) that the descendants of the Ohio and Iowa Synods, the ELCA, would sign the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification with the Roman church.  The old (German) Missouri Synod believed the Bible.  Do you?

If by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. Romans 11:6

2 out of 7: LC-MS low score on Walther (Part 7 of 7 - Scaer)

This post (Part 7) concludes the series of commentaries on the 7 essays from the 2011 Concordia Theological Quarterly "celebrating" the Bicentennial of the birth of C.F.W. Walther.  See the table of contents for the full listing.

7) David P. Scaer – Walther, the Third Use of the Law, and Contemporary Issues

This essay presents the same old grind of "celebrating" Walther's Bicentennial when actually they are an affront to Walther and his teaching.  Let me begin this commentary with quotes of words and phrases that Scaer uses in his essay:

• "third use of the law"
• "antinomianism"
• "Gospel reductionism"
• "the law's positive aspect" in providing specific guidance in how Christians are to live
• "ethical matters"
• "compromise the law"
• "serious attention ... to defining the law"
• "the paradise understanding of the law reemerges"

Scaer laments what is going on in the world today and particularly in the ELCA, with its ordination of women and homosexual pastors.  But then he makes a striking statement (page 335):

... the law-gospel paradigm as articulated by Walther ... (did) support these practices.

Scaer essentially blames Walther's teaching of the "law-gospel paradigm" for the ELCA's ordination of women and pastors!  Wow, what a "celebration" of Walther's teaching!
Scaer ends his essay with the following:

(page 341-342) Recent ELCA decisions [homosexuality, women pastors and "contemporary issues"] can be seen as offenses in the light of natural law and specific biblical prohibitions, but ultimately must be seen as offenses against Christ.  Again, this leads to the conclusion that the most significant deficit in Lutheran definitions of the third use of the law is the christological component. Current crises bring up the question whether the gospel is God's last word.  Yes, perhaps in the sense that what Christ has done comes alive in the lives of Christians. Consider these words of Jesus,  "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (Jn 15:13). That's gospel and the third use altogether.  Now, I am not so sure that the first and third uses of the law produce the same ex­ternal results.  At the end time the first and second uses of the law will pass away and only the third will remain. Maybe this is what Paul meant: "So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love" (1 Cor 13:13). 

This writing is a most confusing exposition of Law and Gospel.  Scaer attempts to hide his focus on the Law by pointing out the error of the Reformed which is to use the Law to produce good works.  But he repeatedly goes back to the Law and what he calls its "christological component".  But the Bible clearly says

John 1:17 – For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

As a contrast to Scaer's focus on the Law and ethical matters, here is Franz Pieper's teaching on the use of the Law in his Christian Dogmatics (volume 3, page 237-238):

The Formula of Concord states this truth repeatedly and lucidly. It says: If the Christians had only their new man, "they would do of themselves, and altogether voluntarily, without any instruction, admonition, urging or driving of the Law, what they are in duty bound to do according to God's will; ... But the Christian, considered in concreto, as he exists in this world, is not yet entirely a new man; he still has the old man dwelling in him. And in this respect, according to his old man, the Christian still needs the Law in all its uses, no matter how these uses are divided or designated.  ... Luther answers : "According to the spirit the believer is righteous, without any sin, has need of no law whatever; according to his flesh he still has sin.... There all manner of filth still clings to him, and evil concupiscence, worry about his daily bread, fear of death, avarice, anger, hatred; the filth always remains beside his faith, for him to contend with it and sweep it out. Now, because this is still in us, Scripture in this respect rates us as of a kind with the unrighteous and sinners, so that according to our flesh we need the Law as much as do they." (St. L. IX:881, not in Am. Ed.)

Scaer wants to make a show of the different uses of the Law (or third use of the Law), but not Pieper (or Luther).  Why is that?  It is because he is a teacher of the heterodox LCMS that is hesitant in its teaching of the Doctrine of Universal, Objective Justification, or the Gospel.  He wants to blame the Gospel for the downfall of the ELCA.  But the real situation is quite the opposite for it was the new (English) LCMS that fell on this central doctrine and so left the predecessors of ELCA (Iowa and Ohio Synods) to fall further from the true Gospel.  And without the true Gospel, they joined hands with the Roman Catholic Church in their "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification".

Scaer dreams that he understands Historical Theology when he says (page 336-337):

...influences flowing from Missouri's Zion on the Missis­sippi could reverse course and flow north into ELCA seminaries. Well, according to Carl E. Braaten, this is what happened, and details are provided in his Because of Christ, Memoirs of a Lutheran Theologian. ...but in Braaten's opinion theological anti­nomianism was at work. "The theology that backed up the 'paradigm shift' at LSTC was antinomian or a close relative."  All this laid on the shoulders of former LCMS clergy who found their way into his church.

This is why today's (English) LCMS wants to be thought of as the true descendant of the old (German) Missouri Synod... so they can blame old Missouri's doctrines for the theological ills of our modern world.  Carl Braaten is correct in blaming the LCMS for the ills in the ELCA, but not for the reason he states.

No!  It is you, modern (English) LCMS, that is largely at fault for the fall of virtually all of external Christianity!  It is you that is at fault, not because of those who walked out of the LC-MS to form Seminex, but because of your loss of the Doctrine of Justification!  Jesus said

Matt 23:37 ...how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

No!  It was Walther's teaching of the proper distinction of Law and Gospel that upheld true Christian doctrine.  Today's LCMS is lost in its own "law-gospel paradigm".

Pieper: "Nein, Nein, no, no!" - a shot through decades of true church history

A major part of true church history in the 20th Century was related to the doctrine of Election and a dispute over it.  The Bible teaches an Election of Grace by God, not because of any faith on our part (Latin: intuitu fidei), and not election to damnation (Calvinistic doctrine).  The parties involved were Norwegian Lutherans, other American Lutheran church bodies and several professors from the Missouri Synod, including Dr. Franz Pieper.  My 1998 website www.franzpieper.com discusses the confusion by some parties involved.  When the majority of the Norwegians joined in a merger with the other American Lutheran churches, they violated this doctrine and therefore their action in essence falsifies and limits God's grace in Christ.  However there was a small Minority of Norwegian Lutherans that did not join the merger and so remained faithful to the Word of God.
The man largely responsible for showing the true teaching throughout all this period was Dr. Pieper.  In the book A City Set On A Hill (page 275), Theodore Aaberg revealed what Dr. Pieper said when it was reported to him that the Majority would not fight for the truth any longer:

... then Pieper jumped up from his chair and waved his arms while he exclaimed:

"Nein Nein, no, no!...

the fight can not cease until Opgjør (the Norwegian agreement based on false doctrine) is extinguished.  Only as a fighting unit would it be permissible for the Synod to join the new body...."

(page 276)
Dr. Pieper: It is the duty of the minority to do away with "Opgjør" ... and to win over the majority...

These are the actions of a true Christian teacher in horror that former brethren in the faith were following false doctrine. This is no small item of church history, but a major factor in the makeup of today's American Lutheran church bodies.  The merged church is now called the ELCA, a body that is "Lutheran" in name only and not Lutheran in it's teaching.

So as we look "Back To Luther", we will see the fathers of the Missouri Synod standing in the way and jumping up, waving their arms and saying:
"Nein, Nein, no, no!" Don't go the way of error but stay with the Grace of God in Christ, stay with the Word of God!  Stay on the sure and certain Rock, the true Gospel!