Quenstedt's great statement on Sacred Scripture

           In the January 1926 issue of Lehre und Wehre (Doctrine and Defense), Franz Pieper's “Foreword” quoted the orthodox Lutheran theologian Quenstedt on Holy Scripture.  It is certainly decisive in stating exactly the Lutheran, and Luther's, doctrine of Scripture. Quenstedt writes (page 8):

“The canonical Holy Scripture in the basic text is infallible truth and free from all error; or what is the same: in the canonical Holy Scripture there is no lie, no falsehood, no error, not even the slightest error, be it in matters, be it in words, but all and the individual things reported in it are absolutely true, whether they concern doctrine or morals, whether they concern history, chronology, place description or naming. No ignorance, no carelessness or forgetfulness, no error of memory can and must be attributed to the writers of the Holy Spirit in writing the Scriptures.”

Let every Christian of today cast off all teaching which begins to cause doubt about Holy Scripture – it is the devil's mask.

Gospel vs Law, or vs Bible: LCMS false dichotomy – Part 1 of 3

      What is a "dichotomy"?  Merriam-Webster defines it thus: "a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities". This is a useful tool to unravel the teaching in today's LC-MS institutions.

      Franz Pieper taught that

“There are ... but two religions ... the religion of the Law, or of man’s own works, and the religion of the Gospel, or of faith in Christ” (Christian Dogmatics, vol. 1, p. 10, 19)

So Pieper's teaching has the Christian "dichotomy" of Law versus Gospel.  And although God's Law in the Holy Scriptures is to be taught in the Church, yet it is only faith in the Gospel that can save.  This is popularly known as the teaching of "Law and Gospel". Another version could be stated

"Gospel versus Law".

This dichotomy is clearly taught in the Bible – Ephesians 2:8-9 and Galatians 2:16 come to mind.  Luther clearly taught it, for example in his sermons (see here).  All Christian doctrine, so far as it is Christian, teaches this.

      Although it would seem that the LC-MS teaches this, yet they also teach something else.  In 1986, Jacob A. O. Preus III (son of J.A.O. Preus II, former LC-MS president), wrote the following in his doctoral thesis, >> p. 133 <<:

“The Lutheran confessional understanding of the inerrancy of Scripture is significantly different from that found among many Reformed or fundamentalist theologians. … The inerrant Bible, therefore, is not the object of faith, but Jesus Christ and His vicarious satisfaction are the object and the source of certainty of faith. It is therefore from the perspective of faith that the Confessions view Scripture as being without error.”

One may understand the following "dichotomy" from this assertion:

"Gospel versus Bible"

So faith in the Gospel saves, not faith in the Bible.  Preus claims that this is the "Lutheran confessional understanding", but offers no explicit evidence from the Book of Concord directly stating this dichotomy.  So he separates "Christ" from the "inerrant Bible" and creates a dichotomy of these two to create his "Lutheran confessional understanding", an assertion that I will call a False Dichotomy. The Lutheran Book of Concord never creates this dichotomy. There is no dichotomy between these two.  Momentrix explains further what a "false dichotomy" does:

"This fallacy is common when the author has an agenda and wants to give the impression that their view is the only sensible one. Readers should always be suspicious of the false dichotomy.

Franz Pieper warned against this "false dichotomy" in Lehre und Wehre 1890 (emphasis mine):

"To fight for the doctrine of justification [i.e. the Gospel] and for Holy Scripture and the Christian religion amounts to one and the same thing.… Furthermore, as regards the understanding of Scripture let me say: Theologians who err in regard to the doctrine of justification are sitting not in Scripture, but before a closed door, no matter how diligently they may study and quote the Bible. To those who do not understand the doctrine of justification the Bible is merely a book of moral instructions with all manner of strange side issues."

Dr. Preus would certainly not admit to erring on the doctrine of Justification.  So then why would he make this substitution:

"Gospel versus Law" – Biblical dichotomy (Gal. 2:16) is transformed into

"Gospel versus Bible" – Preus/LC-MS dichotomy (false dichotomy).

Preus's low view of Holy Scripture in essence takes the Bible's focus of the Law's ineffective nature to save and substitutes the Bible's ineffective nature to save, a foreign teaching to Christianity, the Lutheran Confessions, Luther, Walther, and Franz Pieper. Could it be that this false dichotomy indicates a weakness in the proper distinction of Law and Gospel? — In the next Part 2, we find that this teaching is not isolated in the LC-MS. 

- - - - - - - - -  (After the break below read the statement of Dr. Robert Preus on this matter:)  - - - - - - - -

Schrift 11: #4: INERRANCY! LUTHER! Bible in a bag? Gerhard Maier’s denial; Kramer's defense

[2025-05-14: updated link to Luther's writing on the Koran; 2019-09-22: added ref. to Engelder book; 2019-04-27: added quote to Peter Nafzger quote w/ link; 2019-03-15: added to comments on "deductive" and Fred Kramer; 2019-03-14: added more on charges of "deductive" (or Aristotelian) reasoning to Gerhard Maier section in "Read more" section; 2019-01-22: added "Addendum" at bottom on Dr. Fred Kramer's defense]
      This continues from Part 10 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C.F.W. Walther's major essay on  the Inspiration of Holy Scripture in the Missouri Synod's chief theological journal, Lehre und Wehre. —  One of the most hotly contested doctrines in the last 150 years is the inerrancy of Holy Scripture.  But just listen to Luther...

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

Translation by BackToLuther; all highlighted text, text in square brackets and in red font are my additions. Underlining follows Walther.
(continued from Part 10)

Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32, February & March p. 42-43; 65: "Foreword" by C.F.W. Walther

IV. The Scripture is free of error.

“I have stated, that one does not ask how the saints have lived and written, but how the Scriptures indicate that we ought to live. The question is not about what has been done, but about how it is supposed to be done. The saints could err in their writings and sin in their lives, but the Scriptures cannot err.” (“Scripture on the Misuse of the Mass”, 1522. XIX, 1309 § 6 [StL 19, 1072-1073, § 6, LW 36, p 137) [Confessional Lutheran 1960 p. 56 quotes this same passage, Paul Burgdorf- editor]

“This is my answer to those also who accuse me of rejecting all the holy teachers of the church. I do not reject them. But everyone, indeed, knows that at times they have erred, as men will; therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they give me evidence for their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred. This St. Paul bids me to do in 1 Thess. 5:21, where he says, “Test everything; hold fast what is good.” St. Augustine writes to St. Jerome to the same effect, “I have learned to do only those books that are called the holy Scriptures the honor of believing firmly that none of their writers has ever erred. All others I so read as not to hold what they say to be the truth unless they prove it to me by holy Scripture or clear reason.” (“Reason and Cause of all Articles, So Unlawfully Condemned by the Roman Bull”, 1520. XV, 1758 § 16 [StL 15, 1481, § 6, LW 32, p. 11  – NOTE: McLaughlin also quotes this passage in his “Inspiration” essay: “I do not reject them…”]. For the latter saying confessed by Augustine that Luther repeats is in his book “On the Councils and the Church”, 1539. XVI, 2635. f. § 21 [StL 16, 2159 f. § 21, LW 41, 47] (page 43)

In regard to Muhammad's alleged own confession, that what is to be read of him in the Koran is partially in error, Luther writes: “For it will be for me (oh well, for no rational man) that no one will ever persuade me that a man (except that he is an irrational man) should be able to believe with earnestness a book or a writing of which he would be certain that a part (let alone three parts) would be lies; as well he would not know which part would be either true or not true, and so would have to buy it in a bag.” (“Faithful Warning of Mahomet's or the Turk’s Horrible Doctrine and Faith, etc.”, 1542. XX, 2830 f. §2; StL 20, 2274-5 §2; NOT IN LW; [2019-09-22: quoted in Engelder, The Scripture Cannot Be Broken, p. 77.] ) (page 65)

“This is my answer to those also who accuse me of rejecting all the holy teachers of the church. I do not reject them. But everyone, indeed, knows that at times they have erred, as men will; therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they give me evidence for their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred. This St. Paul bids me to do in 1 Thess. 5:21, where he says, “Test everything; hold fast what is good.” St. Augustine writes to St. Jerome to the same effect, “I have learned to do only those books that are called the holy Scriptures the honor of believing firmly that none of their writers has ever erred.” (Defense and Explanation of All Articles, so damned by the Roman Bull, 1520. XV, 1758, §16; [StL 15, 1481,.§16; LW 32, 11]) [Confessional Lutheran 1960, p. 56, quotes this same passage of Luther]

= = = = = = = = = =   continued in Part 12  = = = = = = = = = = =

LCMS Bible?

Indeed, Luther explicitly taught the "never erred" doctrine (Inerrancy)... over and over again. I had to laugh at his joke that if one really believed that the Bible contained errors (i.e. denied Inerrancy), as with liquor, one would "have to buy it in a bag"!  That is a good Luther joke to tell the LCMS teachers who want their members to "believe" the Bible while they explicitly deny or question its inerrancy (e.g. David Scaer here & here).

      In Part 7, Walther stated:

Luther's building blocks,
Lutheran builders:
Gerhard, Calov, Quenstedt

“It is true, however, that Luther did not formulate a theory about the doctrine of inspiration anywhere in his writings, and that he never professionally dealt with this doctrine and systematically developed it.” 

Walther did not, as Marquart and Preus did, rely on the one explicit expression in the Lutheran Confessions, in Luther's Large Catechism, where Luther stated “all men, may err and deceive, but the Word of God cannot err”.  No, Walther admitted that indeed, Luther did not "systematically develop" the doctrine of Inspiration.  Now I am certain that Walther was aware of Luther's statement in the Large Catechism.  But he did not use that single citation, but rather relied on the preponderance in all of Luther's writings of this teaching. —
      Walther is far from finished in developing this thesis.  He is going to address several aspects of this doctrine that Scripture is "free from error".  In the next Part 12... Walther cites Luther on "no contradictions".

A Recent German Defender of Inspiration?... or not?

      One might wonder that there are no noted teachers in Germany in recent times who even remotely uphold the teaching of Inspiration.  But then one discovers books by Gerhard Maier which begin to be a defense.   Prof. Eugene Klug praised Maier's earlier book, The End of the Historical-Critical Method (1977, CPH; German original 1974) in which the author clearly seems to defend against this "method".  Unfortunately in a later book... (continued in "Read more »" section below)

Schrift 7: Hijack Luther? Luther's building blocks for Lutheran Orthodoxy; Jn 10:35, LCMS "laughingstock"

[2024-09-29: updated link to Burkee book; 2019-05-29: added another reference (in red) on Luther's reliance on John 10:35; 2019-03-14: added note in red on Prof. Jungkuntz of CTCR below]
      This continues from Part 6 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C.F.W. Walther's major essay on  the Inspiration of Holy Scripture in the Missouri Synod's chief theological journal, Lehre und Wehre. — In this segment, Walther continues his narrative on Luther and the Bible, and clears away all foggy thinking of today's modern theologians.

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

Translation by BackToLuther; all highlighted text, text in square brackets [] and in red font are my additions. Underlining and bold follow Walther.
(continued from Part 6)

Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32, February 1886, p. 34-36: "Foreword" by C.F.W. Walther

Far from it, that such tremendous testimonies of faith (page 35) from Luther in the divinity of all of Holy Scripture should discourage the modern-believing [moderngläubigen] theologians. Nay, with Luther as their predecessor, their authority to obscure their fall from the Bible and mislead the believing Christians in their faith, they declare such sayings of Luther, like those cited, to be heroic, hyperbolic, “thwarted” by opposite expressions (Kahnis), sayings [apophthgemata], which one should not press.

Luther but assumed that inspiration was taken for granted, but “without a theory about it to set up” (Luthardt) and “without further discussion of the relationship of both factors in the development of the Holy Scripture acting together” (of the divine and the human) “and without limitation of the scope in which the Scripture is inspired” (Cremer). But these gentlemen know very well that Luther already came upon his doctrine of inspiration; they also bear witness to this themselves. Therefore it was not necessary to oppose the Papacy with an elaborate, systematically ordered “theory” of inspiration. Already in 1519 Luther says exactly what he must concede to the papists in this respect, and to what he accuses them of. In his well-known exposition of the 22nd of the First Psalms 22 on the words: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.” (Ps. 22:18 [Lutherbibel - Ps. 22:19]), with reference to John 19:24. “They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be,”

Luther writes as follows: “They confess all this, which the Lord Christ says, John 10:35: “The Scripture cannot be broken”, and their power, might and authority must be unchecked, which one must not contradict, nor deny or negate. 1)  They confess it and say it consistently and peacefully,

"Guide: divine Scripture"

——————

1) Therefore Melanchthon, in his Preface to the Augsburg Confession, without fear of contradiction, could also call that doctrine the only right one which is “guided by divine Holy Scripture” when he writes there: “Therefore, in obedience to Your Imperial Majesty's wishes, we offer, in this matter of religion, the Confession of our preachers and of ourselves, showing what manner of doctrine on the basis of the divine Holy Scriptures (ex scripturis sanctis et puro verbo Dei) has been up to this time set forth.” (Book of Concord, Müller, p 36, § 8. [Book of Concord.org here; Triglotta p. 39]) Thus, in the struggle against those who actually denied the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, the worst papistical zealots were on Luther's side.

To give just one instance of this, when Erasmus attributed a mistake of memory to the Evangelist in Matthew 27, Dr. Johann Eck wrote in a letter addressed to him in 1518: “By those words you seem to imply that the evangelists, like people in general have written, and have written this down relying on their memory, neglecting to look at the books, and, because of this, made mistakes. Hear, my Erasmus, do you think that a Christian will patiently accept that the evangelists have made mistakes in the Gospels? If the authority of the (page 36) Holy Scripture wavers, what other part will then be without suspicion of errancy, as Augustine concludes with such a beautiful argument? You also say that they have relied on their memory as if they had written what they had previously read from and kept in their memory, asking them, they who were commanded not to even think about what they should say before kings and princes, [Matt. 10:18] but who should be led by the Holy Spirit into all truth! [John 16:13] And such testimonies, you say, have not been borrowed from books; as if, as we do now in this way make books from other various books and authors, they too have put together their writing! Far be it, to suspect this of the disciples of the Holy Spirit and our Savior Jesus, those pillars of our faith that were not instructed in human wisdom! He accepted them as academically uneducated and ignorant, but made them the greatest scholars.” (Cited by Quenstedt in his Theol. didactico-polem. I, c. 4. p. 2. q. 5. fol. m. 117)

(page 36)

all with each other: ‘Let us not divide’, but soon, when one wants to go further and conclude further, then the soldiers make a great laughingstock out of Scripture with such freedom and audacity to gloss and to distinguish, that is, to interpret and to differentiate, that they diminish, reduce, and even nullify the whole of Scripture’s force and authority.”  (IV, 1763, § 245. Cf.. pp. 1763 - 1769. [On Psalm 22:19  – StL 4, 1306 f. § 245; not in Am. Ed.])

It is true, however, that Luther did not formulate a theory about the doctrine of inspiration anywhere in his writings, and that he never professionally dealt with this doctrine and systematically developed it.

17th Century Lutheran Orthodoxy
Builders using Luther's blocks

But as in the subject of several other doctrines, Luther had already provided the necessary building blocks to build also the doctrine of inspiration, that then the dogmatists of the 17th century have composed it into a harmonious whole. There is no essential aspect in the doctrine of inspiration of our systematicians that could not be substantiated by Luther's clear statements.

Let  us then, for the following main aspects of the doctrine of inspiration of our dogmatists, obtain the evidence from Luther's writings.

= = = = = = = = = =   continued in Part 8  = = = = = = = = = = =

John 10:35: “a great laughingstock”, papists & the LC-MS

Prof. Martin Franzmann: "There are none"

      One of the great jewels of Walther's citations of Luther above is where he points out that the teaching of John 10:35 was supposedly agreed doctrine by the papists.  But Luther saw through their duplicity, that their "agreement" was superficial, that when one wanted to "conclude further", i.e. to teach doctrine, then the "soldiers [papists] make a great laughingstock out of Scripture."  Today the LCMS no longer uses this Bible verse, as Luther, Walther, Pieper, Engelder, and Klug did. No, one searches in vain among today's "papists"… the teachers and leaders of the LCMS who are much worse.  The noted ELCA theologian Dr. Martin E. Marty revealed in a Sept. 27, 1972 Christian Century editorial (text) that a “stalwart conservative exegete”, in answer to the Synod president's question in 1959: “Which texts do prove this doctrine, then?”, said:

“There are none.”

Dr. Marty did not reveal the identity of this LCMS exegete in 1972, but did so 30 years later to author James Burkee as reported in his 2011 book Power, Politics and the Missouri Synod, p. 45. The “stalwart conservative exegete”, who denied the simple meaning of John 10:35, was the revered LCMS exegete Prof. Martin Franzmann († 1976). — More will be said about Franzmann in a future segment in this series.

Franzmann's "exegesis" in 1959 that stripped away the simple meaning of John 10:35 was confirmed in 1964 in Concordia Theological Monthly by Prof. Richard Jungkuntz († 2003) in his essay “An Approach to the Exegesis of John 10:34-36”.  But Luther said the papists at least held to the wider meaning of John 10:35, as it reads.  Not so the LCMS. [2019-03-14: 1965 LCMS Convention Proceedings, p. 252, included overture 2-48 M to relieve Dr. Jungkuntz of his post on CTCR.]

Prof. Frederick Danker: LCMS “Jester”
      Especially descriptive of the opponents of the Reformation is Luther's charge that the papists made "a laughingstock out of Scripture". But today, the "soldiers" who make "a great laughingstock out of Scripture" are the teachers of LCMS pastors. In the book published by Prof. Frederick Danker († 2012) No Room in the Brotherhood, p. 61, he gives his account of an exchange with a committee assigned to examine his teaching. Here is an excerpt of this account:

“As for the story of Jesus’ walking on the water, ... I assured the committee that if they had had a camera on the occasion they would have broken it. ... The committee, however, appeared to have no interest in exploring the depth meaning of the biblical accounts, and I heard the Lord in good humor say to me, ‘I did, but I won’t invite them to try it.’”

Would any supporters of Danker today, such as Prof. James W. Voelz (archive 1, 2), Graduate Professor of Exegetical Theology at Concordia Seminary (CSL), want to suggest that Frederick Danker did not mean to make the committee members laugh at his "broken camera" comment? Would any defenders of Danker suggest that he did not mean for his readers to laugh in jest (sneer?) at the examining committee members? (Voelz holds also Martin Franzmann in high regard for "the hermeneutical task" (here, p. 235))

====>>> Let the reader judge!... whether a plain reading of John 10:35 – "and the Scripture cannot be broken" – means what it says (and the way Luther took it to mean)... or not.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

      In the next Part 8, Walther gleans the chief "building blocks" laid down by Martin Luther himself for those teachers who followed him...
= = = = = = = = = = =  =

[2019-05-29: In Luther's Works, Am. Ed. vol. 26, p. 457, on Gal. 4:30 Luther writes: "This sentence is legitimate, and it is irrevocable; for 'Scripture cannot be broken' (John 10:35)."]