AG1b: Lutheran Doctrine: The Word of God, Hermeneutics short course (put Bible in the furnace?)

      This continues from Part AG1a (Table of Contents in Part AG1a) in a series presenting Walther's essays to the Western District that supported his theme "That Only Through the Doctrine of the Lutheran Church is All Glory Given to God Alone". — Continuing the 1873 Western District essay: In Walther's Thesis III, part 1, he gives a somewhat briefer treatment of the Word of God than he did in several other writings, so this may serve for those wanting a short course on Lutheran hermeneutics. Most LCMS historians overlook this subject in Walther's 1873 essay, including Prof. Raymond Surburg. Only Prof. Thomas Manteufel makes brief mention of it in his 2004/2005 Pieper Lectures essay “C. F. W. Walther and the Doctrine of Scripture in the Early History of the Missouri Synod”. — From the official report pp. 41-52:

Notable Quotes:

Thesis III, 1: The Word of God

42: "Luther did not, indeed, leave a scientific system of this doctrine; but if you only read how he speaks of the Scriptures, …[he had the] same faith which Gerhard and Quenstedt and Calov" [Cp. with 1886 writing.]

42: "Here our Church confesses that every word, every phrase, every repetition of any word, every abbreviation, the whole way of speaking has its origin in the Holy Spirit, who has inspired everything,"

43: "whoever commits himself to the symbolic books…and does not believe this doctrine is a wretched scoundrel."

43: "It is not Isaiah, not Moses, not Paul who speaks, but it is the Holy Spirit who speaks"

42-43: Apology of the Augsburg Confession: "Do they think that these words [passages of Scripture] fell inconsiderately from the Holy Ghost?"; "In short, this passage shows that the doctrine of the inspiration of Holy Scripture, as it was presented by our old dogmatists in the seventeenth century, already lies in the symbolic books."

44: Modern theologians say Scripture contains errors: "some historical, some astronomical, some physical, some mathematical, some chronological."

45: "every man can take everything from Scripture…He needs no pope, no council, no church, no pastor"

45-46: The Popes diminish God's honor "by making the authority of Scripture dependent on the authority of the church alone" [Prof. Joel Biermann makes Scripture dependent on "Tradition". Also see recent Vatican  news of  "Mariology, not being governed by Scripture Alone"]

46: The Apocrypha: "are not to be regarded as Holy Scripture, but only to be read carefully". [See other blog post "Walther on the Apocrypha: "bad crumbs" (Purgatory)" for more on this.]

47: "if Scripture, which God made, were an imperfect work, then God would no longer be God."

47: "we do not mean to say that the Bible is a person, but that it judges just like a person"

48: Erroring theologians say "all heresies have arisen from the Bible." [Cp. Piepkorn and Biermann speak like this: “biblicism” produces “Jehovah’s Witnesses”, “Mormons”]

48: "Luther was not a prophet and apostle who could not have been mistaken. … We therefore place Luther's translation below the original text." [Against Prof. Cameron Mackenzie's attack on Walther, that Walther  "carefully avoided any reference to sinful indulgence or weakness" in Luther.]

49: Reformed say "yes" when Lutherans say "The Bible is God's Word, literally inspired by the Holy Spirit" But if Lutherans apply this to 'This is my body; this is my blood'… they [Reformed] make excuses." [See this blog post.]

50: "For the Lutherans, Scripture is the sole norm, rule and guideline of all faith and life. Catholics, on the other hand, place tradition and the authority of the Church above Scripture. [See this comment on current Mariology in Roman Catholic Church.]

50: "…for the Lutheran doctrine is nothing more than a repetition of what is written in the Bible"

51: "we say so confidently and cheerfully to the whole world and to all sects, 'You are wrong, we are right,'"

      We have already covered the theology of Profs. James Voelz and Joel Biermann elsewhere.  In a similar way as Biermann, Rev. Dr. John Bombaro, a prominent LC–MS pastor, said the following in a 2013 essay concerning those who he called "biblicists", those who believed that "the Bible, down to the details of its words, consists of and is identical with God’s very own words written inerrantly in human language":

"the dictum of Frederick Nietzsche seems to obtain: 'Convictions are more dangerous enemies of the truth than lies.' Enemies of the populace, of course, must be sequestered if not eliminated, especially when such repellent and bigoted religious content indoctrinates otherwise innocent children."

"Must be sequestered"? "Eliminated"? "Repellent and bigoted religious content"? These are the pronouncements of Rev. Dr. (Pastor) John Bombaro against what Walther taught. One cannot think of a more dangerous theologian for Christians than Dr. Bombaro. He is the current senior pastor at St. James Lutheran in Lafayette, Indiana. How would Walther respond to Dr. Bombaro? 

"You are wrong, we are right."

In the next Part AG1c…

Prof. Joel Biermann and the Bible: “biblianity”? (Part 1)

      What is actually taught in the seminaries of the LC–MS today? I came across a discussion of this point regarding a certain professor at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Prof. Joel Biermann (see here). There are videos of at least some of his classroom lectures on Concordia's own website, and some of those have been uploaded to YouTube, making it easier to navigate and access the actual words that he spoke. One particular lecture was called out for its provocative content, his "Systematics III 05" class lecture published in 2016. The video may be viewed from Concordia's website, but the better way to view it is from its upload to YouTube, until it is taken down by the uploader Pablo Velázquez or YouTube. (It appears at this time that this lecture has been viewed more than all other uploads of Velázquez.) So our initial question can at least be partially answered by viewing this 1 hour 20 minute video. 

      The provocative nature of the lecture can perhaps best be characterized by a statement made at the 7:07 mark:

“It’s not bibliantity, it’s Christianity.”

Our professor was addressing the question of how one begins to discuss the Christian faith with one outside the faith.  But it is the way that he phrased his statement that makes it a false dichotomy, "a premise that erroneously limits what options are available" so that "it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true." (Wikipedia) It appears to place Christianity in opposition to believing the Bible. Biermann confirms his low view of the Bible when he says of his own preaching, at the 33:23 mark:

"But I quote a Bible verse maybe once in 10 sermons."

Why quote the Bible even that one time?…isn't that one time a case of "biblianity"? Could it be that Biermann considers himself as the source of Christian truth, instead of the Bible? — This is what is actually taught in the classrooms of today's LC–MS, these are the actual words of a prominent teacher of their seminarians. This teaching is what will be the teaching of their future pastors. This likely is the current teaching of the majority of today's LC–MS pastors. It must be this way since this lecture has been publicly available for 8 years and there has been no public outcry against it in the LC–MS.

      But the Bible does not speak like Prof. Biermann, it does not make use of false dichotomies:

John 1:1 – “…and the Word (i.e. 'biblianity') was God,”, 

or Greek: “and God was the Word.”

Neither do the Lutheran Confessions:

"…the Word of God alone should be and remain the only standard and rule of doctrine, … to which everything should be subjected." Formula of Concord (SD Rule & Norm, 9; Triglotta p. 855):

And what about 2 Timothy 4:2:  “Preach the word”.

      In 9 out of 10 sermons, Prof. Biermann chooses not to "be subjected" to the Word. O, but he says that he preaches "Christ!" — That the Missouri Synod in Walther's day did not teach like Biermann has been documented many times on this blog, so I will not quote Walther against him. But I would quote a opponent of Walther, from the old Iowa Synod, who surprisingly strikes at the heart of Biermann's teaching on Holy Scripture… in the next Part 2.

- - - - - - - - - - -  Table of Contents  - - - - - - - - - -

Part 1: Prof. Joel Biermann and the Bible: “biblianity”?

Part 2: Fritschel on LC–MS's Biermann: is he a Christian?

Part 3: Biermann, Piepkorn and… Jehovah's Witnesses?

"Even today" or "also today"? Korey Maas on Rome & Bible, and on Martin Luther

      Dr. Korey Maas, an LC-MS theologian, is the Chairman and Associate Professor of History at Hillsdale College.  He authored a helpful article "On the Sufficiency and Clarity of Scripture" in the January 2021 number of Concordia Theological Quarterly. It is an essay to help Lutherans when they have their "faith shaken if and when they encounter some fairly standard objections." Luther is consulted along with other orthodox theologians of the past.  I was quite pleased with this essay, but two statements mar this otherwise helpful essay: 

1. Rome and Holy Scripture:

      In the very paragraph that he quotes the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this topic, he goes on to state (p. 52-53):

“…even today Rome essentially concedes that Luther was correct in understanding her position to restrict 'authentic' interpretation [of the Bible] to the papacy.”

Dr. Maas, who chooses his words carefully, chose to use the word "even": "even today".  The Cambridge Dictionary describes what "even" here means: “We use even to add emphasis or more information to a surprising or unexpected thing”. Another way of expressing Dr. Maas's statement is to say that "It is surprising that today Rome essentially concedes…her position to restrict 'authentic' interpretation to the papacy.”  But why would he be surprised that Rome still teaches that the Holy Scriptures are to be interpreted by the Pope?  The Roman Catholic Church has taught this since the Council of Trent. So why would Dr. Maas weaken his defense of Lutheran doctrine on the sufficiency of Holy Scripture in the same article that he defends it? (Could it be the high standing of Vatican II that is held within the LC-MS?)

      What Dr. Maas should have stated was “…also today Rome essentially concedes … her position to restrict 'authentic' interpretation to the papacy.” No surprise here.

2. Martin Luther:

      On the same p. 52, Dr. Maas stated: 

“Because it is well known that Luther himself often spoke in unhelpfully exaggerated and hyperbolic terms to get his points across…”

I was a bit surprised by the forcefulness of Dr. Maas's criticism of Luther.  Ostensibly he uses it to forestall charges of "Luther worship".  But let us examine this.  

      The Apostle Paul spoke of “dung” in Philippians 3:8: "[I] do count them but dung, that I may win Christ"; and Christ spoke in strong terms against the Pharisees (Matt. 3:7: “generation of vipers”), etc. to “get his point across”. More examples could be multiplied. So where does it come from Dr. Maas’s critical remark against Luther?  Is he saying Luther was unhelpful because his “point” was not valid?... or just because he spoke in what he calls “exaggerated” and “hyperbolic” terms? — Is he referring to Luther’s frequent grouping of Jews, Turks, and Papists?  If so, how would he say that this grouping is “exaggerated and hyperbolic”? Don't all of these groups deny the Holy Scriptures as the source and norm of true faith? — Is Dr. Maas saying that the Pope is not the Antichrist because that is “exaggerated” and “hyperbolic”? Many would say that Luther's assertion is "well known", "unhelpful", “exaggerated", and “hyperbolic”. — Is Dr. Maas stating this to satisfy some at Hillsdale College who object to Luther's polemical writings? Is he not raising a "fairly standard objection" that could cause Lutherans to have their "faith shaken"?

      Dr. Maas's statement could have just as easily come from a Roman Catholic theologian. Was it really necessary to use this statement to make his point about Luther's objection to Rome's teaching on the Pope's authority to interpret Scripture? A good antidote to Dr. Maas's characterization of Luther would be Walther's and Pieper's defense of Luther's polemics here. Dr. Maas’s “exaggerated and hyperbolic” characterization of Luther is unhelpful for his otherwise helpful essay… “On the Sufficiency and Clarity of Scripture”.

50 years ago, Prof. Klug sounded the alarm: “silence is not only questionable but culpable”

      A year ago the LC-MS celebrated what they called their 175th anniversary.  Of course, that only applies to the Old (German) Missouri Synod. —

      A little over 50 years ago, the faculty of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, published a pamphlet that caused one professor in the LC-MS, from Springfield, Illinois, to rise up and loudly warn against it. In June 1973, 50 years ago, in an obscure group of "Book Reviews", appeared an explosive 8-page book review of this St. Louis faculty pamphlet. It was published in the journal The Springfielder. In 2003, CTQ Editor Prof. David P. Scaer stated in his eulogy for the author of that "Book Review", Prof. Eugene E. A. Klug (CTQ 67:3/4, July/October 2003, p. 195): 

“Dr. Klug played a prominent part at the 1973 Denver [sic: New Orleans] Convention of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod in defining the synod's theology in the face of its new definition espoused by the faculty of Concordia Seminary, Saint Louis. Just before that convention, he provided an extensive critique of that faculty's theological position, Faithful to Our Calling, Faithful to our Lord in The Springfielder (37:1 [June 1973], p. 67-74.)”

One may read what Dr. Scaer is referring to in the 1973 New Orleans Convention Proceedings, p. 37, and pp. 133-139, and especially pp. 136-138. 

      Because Prof. Klug's "Book Review" is so pivotal in the history of the LC-MS (perhaps even more so than that of Pres. J. A. O. Preus) during that tumultuous time, I am publishing a polished OCR text version of it with added hyperlinks and highlighting.  But before that, I present a few choice quotes from the pen of Dr. Klug:

• …the vortex of the cauldron that caused synod's pot to boil over and was threatening now to blow things sky high.
• …the faculty had need to account for in a responsible way at this serious juncture in synod’s history, and that they have failed to do
• superficial and subtly inadequate theologizing
• Much of the old familiar language is still there, but with new, unfamiliar, and unwelcome theology.
• …then silence is not only questionable but culpable
• many pastors are willing to let the dust settle as it may, indifferent to what’s going on and how it will come out.
• throwing overboard the only principle which Lutheran theology has ever recognized as authoritative and final in establishing all articles of faith, the Scriptural Word of God
• “Is the faculty position different from what Missouri taught previously? Of course it is.”
• No call for a doxology “of praise and wonder” can hide the spirit of agnosticism which hides behind the veiled language
• The issue turns on this question, whether the Missouri Synod will remain what she was till now, a Confessional evangelical Lutheran church!

Below follows Dr. Klug's full essay:

A DOCX file of the above may be downloaded here.

One may read more of the history of what resulted from Dr. Klug's momentous essay here. — May  this 50th anniversary re-publication of the essay of the dear Prof. Eugene Klug be a guide for readers in judging their own teachers of theology today! Amen!

Can only reading the Bible convert anyone?

      The following short blurb appeared in Der Lutheraner and caused me to rejoice at its testimony by the Old German Missouri Synod.  Ask any LC-MS pastor today the question above and you will at best get an equivocal answer.  Not so by Der Lutheraner, vol. 8 (August 4, 1852) p. 198-199:

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

Conversion through reading the Bible.

At the beginning of the 17th century, a Jew named [Christian ben Meir Biberbach] Gerson lived in Recklingshausen in Westphalia. Besides the sin of usury, which completely dominated him, there lived in his heart a bitter enmity against Christianity, which often gave vent to blasphemies against Jesus. He, too, seemed to be under the judgment of hardening, with which the unfortunate Israel has been punished for 1800 years after the rejection and cruel murder of its Messiah. But what happened? Once a poor Christian widow came to the usurer to borrow some money from him against high interest. But she had nothing to pledge for it but a beautiful copy of the New Testament Scriptures in Lutheran translation. Gerson finally accepted the pledge. But when he saw that it was the book of the Christians, an eagerness arose in him to know what foolish things might be written in it. He takes two other Jews with him and reads the holy book with them. At the beginning, all of them spill out terrible blasphemies about what they have read. But Gerson, the deeper he gets into it, becomes more and more restless. He feels emotions in himself that he never felt before. He looks up the passages of the prophets in which, according to the testimony of the evangelists, Jesus of Nazareth is prophesied as the Messiah of the people of Israel and of all the nations of the earth. “There I found,” he himself wrote in a book he later published on the Talmud [Des jüdischen Talmuds fürnehmster Inhalt], “such a light that I have to thank God for it.” He was overcome by truth. He therefore went to Halberstadt, where he took lessons for a year from a godly preacher and was then baptized. But after God had shown him mercy and had so graciously saved him from great hellish darkness, the desire arose in him to become an instrument through which others could also share in this grace. He therefore studied theology in Helmstädt, taught many distinguished persons the Hebrew language, which he understood thoroughly, published several writings to expose the Jewish errors and finally died as a pastor in the principality of Anhalt, September 25, 1627.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

     I would repeat a statement, from a previous blog post, by Prof. Peter Nafzger of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, son of Samuel Nafzger, from his book Towards a Cruciform Theology of Scripture, p. 111): 

"Luther would also refer to Scripture as a ‘means-of-grace-word.’” Nafzger immediately follows this with the comment: “But this was not his normal way of speaking. He usually emphasized the need for the oral proclamation [over reading?] of the Word, as well as Paul’s comment that faith comes through ‘hearing’".

Prof. Nafzger explicitly wants to teach that "hearing" the Word excludes the reading of Scripture. But Merriam-Webster includes the following in its definition of "hearing": "to be generally known or appreciated" which can also be achieved by only reading. Or does Prof. Nafzger think that his book can only be "heard" if it is audibly heard, and not read?

Gospel vs. Bible? MacKenzie says no; "fundamentalist" straw man; ironies (Part 3 of 3)

[2020-03-30: added pictures, and note on Prof. Lane]
     This concludes from Part 2 (and Part 1), a short series unraveling the confusing teaching emanating from LC-MS teachers since the Walkout of 1974. — In this segment we get some welcome relief from a current professor at CTS-FW, Dr. Cameron MacKenzie (↗).  This blog has harshly criticized Dr. MacKenzie for his 2011 CTQ essay supposedly in honor of C.F.W. Walther.  

And so it was quite surprising to read MacKenzie's essay "The Source of Biblical Authority: Gospel or God?" in the 2017 CPH book Defending Luther's Reformation: Its Ongoing Significance in the Face of Contemporary Challenges.  I made note of several passages from this essay (all emphases are mine, red text is my comments).
1) Page 104 :

"The Bible is powerful to save because of the Gospel. However, in Luther’s thinking the authority of the Scriptures does not come from the Gospel but instead that authority guarantees the Gospel. We know what the Gospel is because the Scriptures tell us."

2) p. 105 – the source, the foundation, of the Gospel:

"Although the writing of the New Testament followed the first preaching of the Gospel, the apostles and evangelists intended their written works as norms for subsequent preaching. In short, we know today what the Gospel is because we find it in the written Scriptures."

3) p. 106 – MacKenzie brings out the true Luther on the source of Scripture's authority:

"…Luther relied on the Scriptures to define the Gospel and did so by means of particular passages or proof-texts, we might say. Clearly, the implication of this procedure was that a person should know that this is the Gospel because the Scriptures teach it concretely in specific places and with particular words."

4) p. 107 – on a layman armed with Scripture:

“… Luther wrote against Eck and defended the proposition: 'A simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council without it.'”

5) p. 113 – Luther on a so-called "divine-human" authorship of Holy Scripture:

"Luther did not ignore the human authors. In fact, he referred to them often, but he regarded them as instruments of the Holy Spirit who was speaking through their words. 'The Scriptures, although they too are written by men, are neither of men nor from men but [are] from God.'" [Did MacKenzie get this Luther quote from Walther?]

6) p. 118-119 – on "biblical fundamentalism" and "Fundamentalists":

"It is… quite another to launch an attack on those who hold to the infallibility and inerrancy of the Scriptures.… it raises questions about what he [Timothy Wengert, co-author with Robert Kolb] thinks of Luther's belief in the infallibility of the Bible. Was Luther also guilty of importing a definition of truth into Scripture when he said things such as “The saints could err in their writings ... but the Scriptures cannot err”… Do statements like these display a “fundamentalist” attitude? Furthermore, because of its divine origin, Luther also contended that Scripture could not contradict itself: “It is certain that the Scriptures cannot be at variance with themselves.”… As do many modern fundamentalists, Luther affirmed a six-day creation".  [I wonder that Profs. David P. Scaer and John T. Pless call MacKenzie a "fundamentalist" behind his back!]

IRONIES
There are so many ironies in this wonderful essay that I can only begin to cover them on this blog. I would ask Prof. MacKenzie the following pointed questions:

1) Should you not be contending against professors at your own Concordia Theological Seminary-Ft. Wayne instead of an ELCA professor? Profs. David P. Scaer (doctor evangelicus) and John T. Pless ("a Lutheran approach to the Scriptures in distinction from Fundamentalism") are quite out-spoken in their anti-Fundamentalist position on "biblical fundamentalism".

- - - - - - -   read the balance of ironies and conclusion in the "Read more »" section below   - - - - - - -

2) Although you rightly used Luther to support your position, and you call on several theologians for the same, yet why did you not also reference Walther and/or Pieper as they taught this just like Luther? Are they unmentionable in today's LCMS? Since Walther was so strong on Holy Scripture, why then did you state in "honor" of him in 2011 that "Anyone who has read just a little bit of Walther knows that his theological method routinely involved citations from Luther on doctrinal issues". Why do you honor Walther this way? Was Walther not true to Luther when he cited him? Shouldn't you now be questioned in the same way that you questioned Walther?

3) Did you know that in the same book as your essay there was another essay, one by Prof. Jason D. Lane, Concordia-Wisconsin who stated (p. 155): "For a corrective to some of Pieper’s arguments and critique of his tendency toward Fundamentalism, see Hermann Sasse" (Lane references a retracted writing of Sasse, "Letter 14"). Should you not be also "corrected" by Hermann Sasse?

4) Shouldn't you be contending against your Pres. Matthew Harrison? In his "Prelude" to his book of Sasse's Letters to Lutheran Pastors vol. 1, p. lxxxvi-lxxxv, he encouraged his readers to "find themselves growing in… the certainty of the Gospel', while admitting that 'Sasse never was comfortable with the Missouri Synod's doctrine' on Scripture". Isn't that practically impossible?  How do you reconcile this with your essay that asserts that Scripture's "authority guarantees the Gospel"?

5) Did you know that a co-essayist with one of your references, Armin Buchholz, said this about Luther in East Asia, that his "law and gospel dialectic [can be a corrective] to the fundamentalist view of Scripture in general"? Isn't this "law and gospel dialectic", à la Werner Elert, the teaching of your LC-MS against the "fundamentalist view of Scripture", just like Wengert?

      Why go on?  No, Prof. MacKenzie, your theology in this essay is not the teaching of the LC-MS, as much as you attempt to show otherwise in your 2017 essay to be "defending Luther's Reformation".  It is not the teaching of today's LC-MS as I have clearly demonstrated in Parts 1 and 2, and elsewhere.  And I must tell you that when you are no longer a professor at your seminary, you will be relegated to the same "dust bin" as your former colleague Prof. Eugene Klug. You will be called a "fundamentalist". You will be forgotten… but not by Christians desperate for the truth of the Gospel "in accordance with the Scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3-4).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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