Copernicanism – Intro (for “Josh”); Table of Contents

     Today marks the first anniversary (from 2/1/2015) of the LC-MS/CTCR online publishing of their report "In Christ All Things Hold Together - The Intersection of Science and Christian Theology", (Blog intro, web page, download) On page 20, it gives all teachers in the LC-MS not only an allowance but essentially a directive "to reject the geocentric paradigm in favor of a heliocentric one".  Any teacher who violates this rejection is officially on notice.  I will return to this document later.  But in "honor" of this publication, I present the following series of blog posts.  In reality this series is dedicated to "Josh".

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

    This series of blog posts was prompted by 2 events that occurred recently:

1. correspondence arrived from a very astute young person regarding the matter of Geocentrism.  I will call this person “Josh” although that is not this person’s real name; and,
2. while proofing Franz Pieper’s Christliche Dogmatik, Vol. 1b, I arrived at his footnote regarding Copernicanism on pages 577-578 (English edition pages 473-474).  

Without the emailed note from “Josh”, I probably would have bypassed this subject as I had already covered it sufficiently in my first 2 blog posts.  “Josh” is the main reason for this series, along with the young boy of my youth.  But Josh’s letter (by email) not only contained some surprises, it also showed that this youthful writer was quite perceptive in reading my prior posts on “Geocentrism”. —  

    Josh said he was a member in the LC-MS, not long out of higher education, accepted the Copernican system, but considered himself to be truly following Christian doctrine, was well aware of Luther’s position supporting geocentricity and the old Missouri’s anti-Copernicanism stand.  He had been taught in the LC-MS that it could be taught from Scripture that Scripture does not literally teach geocentrism.  (We see that the LC-MS/CTCR statement now formally teaches what had actually been taught for a long time.)  But Josh had been researching this matter for some time (he did not ridicule or counter me!) and he had a very direct question for me.  

    What question?  Josh detected a possible weakening in my position regarding Geocentricity as I reported Franz Pieper’s teaching.  The writer noted that in my second blog post I stated: “Pieper did not doubt the verity of the Copernican Theory, he knew it was wrong where it taught that the earth was not the primary planet in the universe.”  He then wondered that either I (or maybe even Pieper) had softened Walther’s strong stand against Copernicanism.  What did I believe?  And indeed, as I read the letter, I recalled that I did have a few moments of doubt about Pieper’s own position.  This moment of weakening then almost overtook me this time, for I have not been without temptations to drop all this “Geocentricity” stuff and just fall back on what Walther calls an “optical” viewpoint of Joshua’s Long Day.  Why?  Because I have a degree in engineering from a well known state university.  That means I have had considerable science training… indeed I have what I would call a “love” for science.  I truly enjoyed the teaching on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and Entropy.  I also believe it is the Reformation that spawned the great outbreak of science ever since that century.  So naturally I enjoy learning true science!

    And what about Pieper?  Here was the difficult part for me – it seemed as I had earlier read him that he may have weakened Walther’s teaching, as his final words did not seem to directly affirm Walther.  … I had some very anxious moments!  Why?  Because as a young boy I BELIEVED the account of Joshua and the Sun Standing Still!  I BELIEVED IT!  I BELIEVED THE SUN STOOD STILL BECAUSE THE BIBLE TEACHES THIS!  So to soften on this point of Scripture would mean that I would have to be able to tell that believing young boy (of my youth) that I was naive!  And the faith that God granted me as I returned to my Christian faith (a faith that I do not deserve) yelled out NO!  Do not go that way!  Stay with what the Scripture teaches!  And Luther and Walther were right there with that boy of my youth!  Indeed, it had to be that the truth of Joshua 10:13 had to give me a priori confidence in its truth because God said so!  I could not rely on science to confirm it… it must be true first because God said it.  And if science did not confirm it or would reject it, then that science was only so-called “science”, or “science falsely so-called”. (1 Tim. 6:20).

    And so I again studied Pieper’s teaching anew to see if my fears were correct.  And I realized my earlier fears regarding him were unfounded, and his teaching revealed truly Christian counsel.

    But before I publish my translation from the German original of Pieper’s Dogmatik on Copernicanism, I want to touch on one of the first websites a Google search presented me: Dr. Danny Faulkner of AnswersInGenesis.

⇒ To “Josh”:

You shared with me more than I have described above, but I hope in the ensuing series some things will be clarified for your consideration on this matter.  Perhaps you might even smile at the pseudo-name I have chosen for you.  Also be aware that I am not only responding to you, but to the “schoolboy” of my youth.

[Please note: I am pausing my project of proofing Pieper’s Christliche Dogmatik books to address the above subject that has come up.  I will return to that project after this series.]

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Table of Contents (to be updated periodically)

Prolog (Walther's sermon) and “no negative comments”

Part 1 – Intro (this post)

Part 2 – Dr. Danny Faulkner

Part 3 – Pieper’s teaching in his Dogmatik

Part 4a – Deutsche Blaetter (Die Gartenlaube) on Lisco-Knak Affair of 1868

Part 4b – Die Gartenlaube on Lisco-Knak Affair of 1868

Part 5 – Drs. Gary North and Michael Martin Nieto - "science" against Geocentricity

Part 6 – Walther's Eastern District (1868) writing against Copernicanism – full version

Part 7 – Luther's Table Talk on new Astronomy – 2 versions with new English translation [w/ 2018 addition]

Part 8 – Robert Schadewald's "Plane Truth", fight against Geocentrism (and Creationism)

Part 9 – Malcom Bowden's You Tube videos

Part 10a – World wide furor over Pastor Knak's confession of Holy Scripture (German theologians)

Part 10b – World wide furor over Pastor Knak's confession of Holy Scripture (England & America)

Part 11 – J.C.W. Lindemann's 1873 Astronomical Debate pamphlet – full text in English (and German)

Part 12 – Synodical Conference on Copernicanism in 1886, and divinity of Holy Scripture

Part 13a – Gerardous Bouw PhD – science refutes Copernicanism, defends Geocentricity
Part 13b – Gerardous Bouw– Scriptural stand, some aberrations
Part 13c-1 – Bouw: past geocentrists- any Lutherans? (Schöpffer)
13c-2 – Bouw: past geocentrists- any Lutherans? (Knak)
13c-3 – Bouw on: Pasche…, LCMS, WELS, ELS, McLaughlin (also C.A.T. Selle)
Part 13d – Bouw’s history recent geocentrists– any Lutherans?
Part 14 – Knak and Pieper — remembered (Fuerbringer's memories)
Part 15 – Wernher von Braun, space program, modern scientists (Copernicanism? Christianity?)
Part 16a – Missouri Synod 1898 – conference deliberations on Copernicanism; also Der Lutheraner 1878
Part 16b – Missouri Synod 1878 – Der Lutheraner: Copernicanism & Inspiration
Part 16c – LC-MS 2016: back door on Inspiration, Infallibility of Holy Scripture
Part 17 – Historians of science; Math-The Loss of Certainty
Part 18a – Schöpffer's List– German scientists question Copernicanism (von Humboldt)

Part 18b – Schöpffer: German scientists question Copernicanism (Encke, K. von Raumer, Brandes)
Part 18c – Schöpffer: King, Lamont question Copernicanism (King Ludwig I, Lamont)

Part 18d – Schöpffer: Gauss doubts, Fontenelle dreams: Copernicanism, Part 18d
  Part 18e – Schöpffer: beaten down, rises again (attacked by Mädler, F. von Raumer)
Part 18f – Schöpffer: found by old Missouri, few historians; Stimson's account
Part 18g-1 – Dr. Alexander Frantz, another pastor in Germany against Copernicanism (philosophers)
Part 18g-2 – Dr. Frantz: mud, wolf, fish on stilts, cuckoo's egg- Copernicanism
Part 19a – Pastor F. E. Pasche: Prof. J. Schaller's testimony (from old Wisconsin Synod)
Part 19b – Pasche's Christliche Weltanschauung (Worldview); Lindemann Jr.; Gräbner; Penrose
Part 19c – Pasche's Die Bibel und Astronomie (and many Lutheran theologians against Copernicanism)

Part 19d – Pasche's 50 Reasons book [added in 2023-11-09]
Part 20 – Luther & Walther: quotes on science & religion
Part 21 – Synodical Conf 1886– Divinity of Scripture: Docetism or Pipe organ?; on Sasse
Part 22 – Carl Gottlob Hofmann - warning against Copernicanism
Part 23a – Wallace H. McLaughlin vs Copernicanism; Bible Inviolate
Part 23b – Wallace McLaughlin: true “Missourian”
Part 24 – George Stoeckhardt – Defender of Inspiration
Part 25 – Warfield letters to Pieper: on Walther, Luther, Inspiration
Part 26a – Walther on Copernicus’s epitaph and his faith (Walther's striking statement on him)
Part 26b – Copernicus’s epitaph (Non parem…)
Part 26c – Copernicus’s faith
Part 27 – Pieper on reports of Einstein relativity theories; Becker's ridicule

Part 28 – Conclusion: Copernicanism, science… & Justification; Ginzburg's envy

    Still to come: several old (German) Missouri teaching sources against Copernicanism: Der Lutheraner, Lehre und Wehre, J.C.W. Lindemann (senior and son Friedrich), A.L. Graebner mysteries, Pastor F.E. Pasche; Pastor Knak’s stand against Copernicanism (Germany 1868) and fallout; German/English/American ridicule of geocentrists of 19th century (including Andrew Dickson White of Cornell); Martin Luther’s Table Talk; today’s “science” commentators: Bob Schadewald, Glenn Branch - NCSE;  today’s Christian commentators, i.e. Owen Gingerich, etc.; Wernher von Braun and space program; various creationist organizations & “fundamentalists”, Baptists, etc.; Malcolm Bowman and his YouTube videos; Drs. Gary North/ Michael Martin Nieto; Drs. Gerardus Bouw and James Hanson and their Biblical Astronomy/Geocentricity; Carl Schöpffer, 19th century German scientist, also Dr. Alexander Frantz; Wallace McLaughlin; Einstein's Relativity Theories; Synodical Conference; Profs. Tappert and Arand, Recent historians of "Early modern period", their assessment of "Copernicanism", Copernicus and his faith?,... and current LC-MS/CTCR statement on Science and Theology...

In the next post Part 2, I cover an article by Dr. Danny Faulkner against Geocentricity...

Walther for troubled Christians today; Sun's orbit

     This blog post repeats a portion of a sermon C.F.W. Walther delivered for the 7th Sunday after Trinity and was published in his book of sermons Gnadenjahr or Year of Grace.  My purpose for bringing this will become clear in an upcoming series.  But more about that soon...
     The whole sermon may be found here (beginning on page 230) or read directly here (see last 2 paragraphs on page 233).  What follows below is only an excerpt (from Pastor Donald E. Heck's translation)... for a reason.

= = = = = = = = = = = =

     HOW GOD YEAR AFTER YEAR PERFORMS THE. MIRACLE OF MAKING MUCH OUT OF LITTLE

     He who believes that God only idly watches the course of the world, who therefore lacks the confidence that there is a divinely wise, righteous, and gracious Providence who rules and regulates everything in the world, who therefore supposes that animate and inanimate creatures and hence he himself also are the playthings of a blind chance, such a faithless person is certainly most unfortunate.
...
     ... For if the sun would not hold just that position which it has held for almost six thousand years, and if it would not have just that orbit which it has, it would destroy more than it gives life to. If the sun would have been closer to us, it would have in a short time burned the earth into a huge brick; on the other hand, if its orbit would be further away, the earth would soon freeze solid in an eternal winter.
     Now how does it happen that for the past six thousand years the sun has never wandered away from its boundless path? how does it happen that sometimes it rises higher, sometimes, goes lower, but at a definite point regularly turns about, so that the necessary change of seasons takes place upon our earth?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = 

     I would encourage the Christian reader who could use some Christian comfort to read this sermon in its entirety... I did.  No Reformed preacher (and certainly not C.S. Lewis) could match Walther when preaching or speaking on The Providence of God.
     Ah, but what was one of the examples Walther used in this sermon? ... reading the section in bold above, Walther preached on the movement of the Sun in its orbit about the Earth.  What?  ... I thought... oh, well, you know... what today's "science" teaches as objective truth on the movement of the Earth about the Sun... or whatever.  But will any Lutheran preacher today use the same example as Walther did?... hmmm —
     So why bring this specific sermon to the fore today?  The last part of the excerpt above gives the clue, for this is an introduction to a series of blog posts on...

Stoeckhardt on Missouri-4: Cosmology

This continues from Part 3, highlighting a major convention essay (in English translation) by George Stoeckhardt: The Missouri Synod (Table of Contents in Part 1).  In this part 4, I address one aspect of the Inerrancy of Holy Scripture, quoting Stoeckhardt against today's theologian for the LC-MS – Hermann Sasse:

G. Stoeckhardt: Missouri Synod, page 255: They [leaders of Protestant Christendom, Neo-Lutherans] think the Bible contains also matters of lesser importance, and these are of human origin. e.g., what Scripture says about sun, moon, and stars, what it relates about the history of nations, that is purely human. That's where you will find human errors, mistakes, and contradictions.

Hermann Sasse, “Additional Notes Concerning Holy Scripture” Scripture and the Church edited by Jeffrey Kloha p. 170: The third instance of the human limitation of the Scripture concerns the world-view of the holy writers. Where they speak of nature, of the sun, moon and stars, of heaven in an astronomical sense, and of the earth and its component parts, the Scriptures speak of the things in the way that they appeared to people of antiquity, not as they appeared to men of later centuries, and not as they are in themselves.

Prof. Jeffrey Kloha was particularly pernicious in his attempt to exonerate Hermann Sasse's erroneous teaching on Holy Scripture, long before the current "plastic text" controversy (see here).  Both Kloha and Sasse hate the theology of Walther and Pieper, and Kloha has openly stated that the LC-MS should disavow the Brief Statement of 1932.  I have news for Prof. Kloha: why bother?  The Brief Statement already has only lip service given to it anyway...  it's a great way to continue to deceive the laity, like the statue of Luther on the grounds of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis...

Stoeckhardt does not go into great detail on all the points where modern theology either denies outright or is not sure about the Creation account and Geocentrism.  But he says this to refute it (p. 255):

True "Missourian"

Our synod has all along protested against this view of Scriptures. It has maintained that the Bible is totally inspired by God and so is in all its parts infallible truth. But this is now called "Missourian separatistic doctrine". And many a controversy has arisen over this. Whoever in Germany does not accept this new doctrine or is not at all pleased with it does not belong in the church [in Germany] any longer. – G. Stoeckhardt

The year was 1894, but now in 2014, the statement concerning Germany then can not only be said of America, but also about those who would today call themselves the "Missouri Synod", at least to the extent the LC-MS allows room for evolutionism and an anti-Christian cosmology among its teachers, in violation of the Scripture teaching.

In the next Part 5a, I quote Stoeckhardt against Berthold von Schenk.

"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.

Geocentrism & Copernicus - more on Walther's teaching

[August 20, 2015 - added reference to
For reference, see my previous post on Geocentrism and the teachings of the Missouri Synod.  I have since found where Walther spoke even more directly on the Copernican System.  It was in his convention essay for the Eastern District, 1868. It is found in the book Essays For The Church – C.F.W. Walther, Volume I, 1857-1877 (CPH, 1992), pages 185-186.  This was taken from the 1868 Eastern District Convention essay, see here for download of original.  During a presentation on the Primary and Secondary Fundamental Articles of Faith and Nonfundamental Articles, a question was raised about the Copernican System and the Bible verses Joshua 10:12-14 where the sun revolves around the earth.  To this Walther answered:

This is a part, not an article of the doctrinal structure. Now, if someone cannot see that Holy Scripture wants to teach this here and in other passages, he can indeed still be a believing Christian. However, one who believes that the author of the Book of Joshua meant to write about the sun’s orbit but was himself in error in this matter, he makes the foundation of all doctrinal theology, Scripture itself, uncertain and therefore attacks the foundation. But one who thinks that Joshua is speaking optically, as the Copenicans also do when they say, “The sun is rising,” “The sun is setting"- one cannot condemn him.

In this connection the question was again raised whether it can be admitted that the Bible speaks optically.
Answer:

This teaching, whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth around the sun, is not an article of faith, but at most only an object of faith, a part of the doctrinal structure of Holy Scripture. [But] because such (optical) language is unworthy of God, in that He would then be using a human way of speaking that contains an error, one must regard such a person as being in error but not as a heretic. But on the other hand it is also certain that such a person is setting up a dangerous hermeneutical principle, in that, you see, this statement is not only given to Joshua to say, but is also used by the author of this [book of] Scripture in the same way in verse 13—a principle whose consequences make the Bible unreliable for him....

An awful lot of today's Christians are "making the Bible unreliable" by believing anything other than what the Bible actually says.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
July 7, 2012 Addendum:
I must thank Matthew L. Becker,[updated 2020-02-26] Associate Professor of Theology at Valparaiso University, for highlighting the unbelief of even a teacher of "theology" at a "Lutheran" university.  He says it best for today's modernism in his blog of December 23, 2010 where he says:

While I had my doubts about Pieper's view of the Bible, the world, and theology already in seminary (who wouldn't, given that he doubted the verity of the Copernican Theory and thought that Einstein's theories of relativity would eventually vindicate a geo-centric biblical cosmology?!)

Yes, Professor Becker, there are a lot of people who have doubts about the Bible because of so-called "science" that refutes it.  But Jesus answers you directly:

It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! Luke 17:1

And Becker is wrong on another point – Pieper did not doubt the verity of the Copernican Theory, he knew it was wrong where it taught that the earth was not the primary planet in the universe.  Why?  Because he believed God at His Word, the Bible.