Excursus 1: Chemnitz on M.s errors: Philippism, “horrible heresies”

       This continues from Part 12 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C. F. W. Walther's 1876 essay “The ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon on the Part of Luther.” — This first "Excursus" brings testimony against Philip Melanchthon from a source that few, if any, LC-MS historians report: Martin Chemnitz, sometimes referred to as the "Second Martin". The following testimonies are admittedly well after Luther's death, but they show the result of Melanchthon's wavering theology from the period even during Luther's life:

      A. The first report I discovered came from the recent translation by James Langebartels of the Apology of the Book of Concord (CPH 2018), a book in part authored by Chemnitz:  

370: "Now even though Melanchthon changed his confession and doctrine in this article [Lord's Supper] and went over to them [Zwingians]…"

371:  opponents "candidly write that Luther, even though he [Luther] knew that Philip forcibly disagreed with him on both articles of the person of Christ and the holy Supper, nevertheless commended his Christianity, recognized him as a pure teacher, and did not allow him to be separated from him." [i.e. "carried" or "tolerated" him]

371: Philip's Corpus doctrinae "was deficient in the doctrines of free will, of the description of the Gospel, of good works, of the Lord’s Supper, and others." [NOW who is the one putting the "black hat" (see Part 5) on Melanchthon? Martin Chemnitz, The Second Martin!]

371: "As far as Philip’s Corpus doctrinae is concerned, it is undeniably true that it was never approved and accepted by all the estates of the Augsburg Confession, as they [Philipists] falsely write. There were always some, and not a few, who not only did not accept and embrace it but also contradicted it in certain points in public print and otherwise."

371: That is why the preface of the Book of Concord [Triglotta p. 27] points out for all of Christendom that Philip’s writings, as far as they agree with the norm of the Formula of Concord, are not to be rejected or condemned. It is sufficiently understood from those words that defects were found in his writings, which must be condemned according to the norm of Holy Scripture. The author of Apology of the Book of Concord speaks on the BoC’s "Preface"'s meaning – that it was irenically, actually, warning people to be on guard with Melanchthon’s writings. 

371: “That is why the preface of the Book of Concord points out for all of Christendom that Philip’s writings, as far as they agree with the norm of the Formula of Concord, are not to be rejected or condemned. It is sufficiently understood from those words that defects were found in his writings, which must be condemned according to the norm of Holy Scripture.” [See also Kolb-Wengert BoC p. 11 fn 25: “The final clause was added at the insistence of the Lower Saxon cities, the Pomeranians, and the theologians of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel, who wanted an endorsement of the works of Melanchthon and others but only as they conformed to the Formula or to the works of Luther.” Again, who is putting a “black hat” on Melanchthon?]

372: "But Philip—which unfortu­nately is obvious and cannot be denied—especially after Luther’s death, tore himself away from him in the doctrine of free will." 

373: "But there he [Luther] is not speaking about the Loci [of Melanchthon] which was later altered in a dangerous way, especially after Luther’s death." (See Bente, p. 226 f.; see also p. 448; Kolb, History and Theology, p. 280, speak of this Apology, but leave out Chemnitz's charges against Melanchthon's errors, leaving a gaping hole in their history.)

     B.  The other source of Chemnitz's testimony comes from a later essay by Walther dealing with the Election Controversy.  Most of this forceful essay defended against the use of human writings along with Holy Scripture as the source and norm of doctrine.  The use of human writings among the Evangelicals of the 16th Century was made by the Philippists, as also Bente (p. 105 or here) reported of Melanchthon. And because Walther's opponents at times appealed to Philip Melanchthon for their errors, he was forced to call out these errors.  Walther only had to quote Martin Chemnitz for this purpose. From the 1882 "Foreword" to Lehre und Wehre, vol. 28 (March 1882) p. 99-103 footnote:

“But after Luther's death, our church was to receive an ever more urgent call to renounce once and for all the practice of not relying solely on God's clear written Word to prove the truth of a doctrine, but to regard the sayings of human teachers, whether old or new, no matter how pious, as doctrinal decisions and to bind the consciences to them. Our church received this call through the so-called Philippism. As is well known, after Luther's death, Philip Melanchthon became so highly regarded in our church that even righteous men were held back in their knowledge and confession of the truth, and dishonest spirits, under the aegis of the Magister Germaniae, tried to smuggle horrible heresies [Ketzereien] into our church, pretending that these doctrines were doctrines of our Confessions, as the writings of their main author, the great Melanchthon, irrefutably show. *)

_________________

*) Let us here follow a twofold index of the errors that can be found in Melanchthon's later writings. When in 1579 a doctrinal dispute had broken out among the members of the ministry of Halle, caused by Philippists, the city council asked Martin Chemnitz for mediation to settle it, the result of which was a “contract” drawn up by Chemnitz, in which it says, among other things, as follows: 

“Secondly, with regard to the writings of Master Philip, because they contain a beautiful method and many good useful explanations, it should be held that these (as the Formula of Concord also says of these and other useful writings), insofar as they conform to the norm of doctrine [i.e. Holy Scripture], are not rejected and condemned; but the norm of doctrine they cannot be. For what is in the Locus [of Melanchthon] of 

[1] free will for incorrectness and deficiency can be rejected as clear as day (ad oculum). 

[2] The Locus on Holy Communion <page 100> is not properly and clearly explained, 

[a] whether one should remain with the words of institution, as they are, without tropes and figures; 

[b] again, what we received with our mouths in the Lord's Supper; 

[c] also of the enjoyment of the unworthy is not explained, but in the exposition of 1 Corinthians a metonymy is put in the words of the Lord's Supper, as the fasces [axe] is the kingdom; 

[d] also in Malachi's explanation towards the end, the rule regarding usage is thus set: ‘The taking actually contains the nature (rationem) of a sacrament in those who take it with faith’; 

[e] as also the sayings of the ancients about the Lord's Supper, once collected and edited by Philip, have been deliberately excluded from his works. 

[3] Thus also is conscious what is stated concerning Colossians 3 in the article of Christ's ascension and of His sitting at the right hand of God concerning the physical taking of place (locatio), and how the promises of Christ's presence in the church are referred to the divine nature alone. Indeed, it is also the doctrine of the communication of majesty in Philip Melanchthon's writings is not sufficiently different and correctly explained. And because such points in Philip Melanchthon's writings do not agree with Dr. Luther's doctrine, as he has led and argued from and according to God's Word, therefore they cannot be considered a standard, but should be subjected to the specified standard and read with such a judgment as in the Formula of Concord the disputed articles are explained, and should not be drawn, used, or led against it." (Fortgeschichte Sammlung von alten und neuen theologie Sachen auf das Jahr 1743. p. 32 f.)

Thus wrote one Chemnitz, who himself had been a student and great admirer of Melanchthon and had lectured on his Loci!”

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

Chemnitz wasn't the only theologian to enumerate Melanchthon's errors. Walther continues his lengthy footnote with quotes from an extensive listing by a 17th Century Lutheran theologian… in our next Excursus 2. But before that, Part 13. (In Part 20, we will see how modernist Lutheran historians attempt to refute Chemnitz.)

Reformation Day, 2015 (498th Anniversary); LC-MS, brown paper bags & Halloween

I grew up in a devout LC-MS family.  And how did we celebrate Reformation Day?  My mother took brown paper grocery bags and cut out holes for our eyes, nose and mouth and we went "trick or treat"ing in the evening.  I don't blame my mother for instilling Halloween instead of the Luther's Reformation in our young minds... I blame today's LC-MS.

So how can true Lutherans recognize that the struggle of the Church of the Reformation is no different than in Luther's day?  Leaders of the Roman Catholic church remind us of this regularly.  Here is another reminder among my other reminders (here, here and here).  As the reports of the "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" (JDDJ) spread, I recall reading (probably in Christian News), a news item that I had copied and taped to several places in my home office:

Asked by a reporter whether there was anything in the official statement contrary to the Council of Trent (The Roman Catholic Church's 16th-century response to the Reformation),  Cardinal Cassidy said,

'Absolutely not,

otherwise how could we do it?  We cannot do something contrary to an ecumenical council.  There's nothing there that the Council of Trent condemns.'

      The LC-MS is attempting to put itself at the head of the celebration of the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation to be held 2 years from now, but I think their teachers should all take brown paper grocery bags, cut out holes for their eyes, nose and mouth and parade through the streets of St. Louis... for the LC-MS is no longer the "Synodical Conference", no longer the old (German) Missouri Synod, no longer a church of the Reformation as it was.

But for true Lutherans, they should purchase and read the true account of the Council of Trent, the one by the chief author of the Formula of Concord, Martin Chemnitz: Examination of the Council of Trent.  Here you will read what His Eminence, Edward Cassidy, AC – President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity declared to be just as official today as it was when it was held in the Reformation century.  And so I taped a copy of the above news item to the spine of my copy of this book.

Yes, I think brown paper bags over the heads of the LC-MS teachers would be appropriate for their celebration of the Reformation, just as I did 50+ years ago today.

Luther's Uncertainty Monster: “honoring” Halloween

      Continuing my project of presenting the full text of Franz Pieper's original German edition of his Christliche Dogmatik (volume 2b is now mostly polished), I ran across Pieper's discussion on Luther's phrase monstrum incertitudinis, or the "monster of uncertainty".  This can be found in Volume 2b, at this location. This can also be found in the English edition, page 445.
      Pastor Martin Noland, a well known figure in today's LC-MS, disputes Pieper's writing and turns to a Jewish philosopher to find his ultimate "certainty".  But here is Pieper's teaching based solely on Holy Scripture – the following is my own translation from Pieper's German (emphasis in original):

In the Preliminary Survey it has already been shown that faith of its object, namely, the grace of God, is certain, and indeed is divinely certain, because the grace of God is the object of faith and the seizing of this object is a divine effect in the human heart. The monstrum incertitudinis [monster of uncertainty] can only teach that faith should take its object, i.e. the Gospel, and set in its place the Gospel and Law or the whole of Scripture, or that faith is not a divine action, but a human self-determination, human self-decision, moral act, proper human behavior, etc.  In fact, doubts can be found next to faith which remain in the hearts of Christians.  But this doubt arises from the flesh that still clings to Christians, and is not to be praised with the Papists and synergists as a virtue, but rather as a sin to punish and to fight, 1 John 5:10. "He that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son." (footnote reference: Chemnitz, Loci, De iustif., p. 270 f.)

We see in this that Pieper also draws on the writing of another Martin, Martin Chemnitz.  So Pastor Noland is not only refuting Franz Pieper but also Martin Chemnitz, the chief author of the Formula of Concord.
      My translation varies only in minor ways from the English edition, but is perhaps more forceful... as Pieper is at his best in presenting the truly Lutheran teaching of the Certainty of Salvation.  And the source of our certainty?... it is outside of us, it is "objective"... it is based entirely on God's certain promise that He had written down so that we might believe... and be certain.  Do you like to be called a liar?......  neither does God.
      This is how I console myself during the worldly "celebration"of Halloween... for I know who the real monster is, ... the real monster is far more deadly than any dreamed up monster of this world.  And 1 John 5:10 is the perfect Bible verse to recite to oneself to destroy this monster!  No amount of assurance that Pastor Noland dreams about can fight the true monster of uncertainty, rather God's Word is our sword of the Spirit (Eph 6:17).

LDJ–Pt 26 (p 75-77)—MacKenzie's shame, Walther's glory

     This continues from the previous Part 25 presenting a new translation of C.F.W. Walther's seminal essay in 1859 (see Part 1 for Table of Contents).  This Part 26 finishes Endnote [B] and continues on to Endnotes [C] and [D].  Walther relates Luther's experience before the great Holy Roman Emperor in the "Diets" of Germany:

On that he writes that the mighty emperor Charles, whose kingdom was so great that the sun did not set on his lands, and all the emperors and princes of the whole world should let stand our church and its basic doctrine [Justification]; and therefore he defies them before their eyes, without any other weapon than God’s Word. All world and church history gives us no example of similar courage.  

How was it that Prof. Cameron A. MacKenzie (of CTS-Fort Wayne, professor of Church History) could "praise" Walther (and Luther) on Walther’s Bicentennial... by essentially condemning Walther's praise of Luther?  Or is Prof. MacKenzie jealous of the rich measure of the Holy Spirit endowed to Luther... and Walther?  MacKenzie's essay is especially disgusting for its almost complete lack of any measure of the Holy Spirit.  I can hardly convince myself to repeat MacKenzie's awful statement:

"Walther is long gone and so is his whole approach to Martin Luther as hero." — Prof. Cameron A. MacKenzie

Maybe Prof. MacKenzie is thanking his "lucky stars" that he has such a wealth of knowledge that he can judge Walther and Luther!  So this essay by Walther apparently means nothing to Prof. MacKenzie, but it does mean something to all Christians, for it was C.F.W. Walther who uncovered again Luther's Reformation in our modern times, in spite of those like MacKenzie who would bury it again.  Could MacKenzie's teaching be exactly the "cold teaching" that Chemnitz warned the Lutheran Church about?  Ah, but maybe Walther is not "long gone" and maybe "his whole approach to Martin Luther as hero" never really went away... except in his LC-MS?  Could it even be that one of today's great enemies of the Gospel is ... MacKenzie's own LC-MS?
    Underlining follows Walther's emphasis in original.  Hypertext links have been copiously added for reference to original sources and on several subjects.  Highlighting is mine.

= = = = = = = = = = = =  Part 26: Pages 75-77 (1880)  = = = = = = = = = = = =

(cont'd from Part 25)

The Lutheran Doctrine of Justification.

[by C.F.W. Walther]

If we compel the doctrine of justifying faith in this way, it will [1880-75] become evident that the sects (Methodists, followers of [Jacob] Albright [Albrechtsleute, see Evangelical Association], etc.) are the bitterest enemies of the doctrine of justification, and that we will really begin to bear the reproach of Christ and will be [Essays1-56] persecuted as the most horrible seducers that ever walked the earth, just as Luther also testifies that blood was first shed on earth because of this doctrine and so indeed also the last will certainly flow over of it.  Both the Pietists of earlier times as well as the so-called “modern theologians” often show how hard this doctrine is can be seen in that they teach it purely in itself, but then in the application and the many warnings, – indeed not to access it before one has first found oneself especially prepared in many respects – they take back from aggrieved sinners all that was given, as if the thirsty one were first offered delicious grapes and then given a shock when he now wants to take them.  Where else does the resistance to the comforting doctrine of absolution come from, as today the opposition goes on and on, except since they have not grasped our main article?  God grant that our proceedings on this subject might be the trumpet to awaken the hearts of many also among ourselves, so that we may smite us on the forehead and realize how we ourselves are still so clouded over in it and how, though indeed by the grace of God we have been led on the right road from the beginning of the existence of our Synod, but still here are many previously unsuspected treasures. By our fathers at the time of the Reformation, God already had them drawn from the mine of the Word.  He does not show such a grace twice.  Therefore, if we do not want to draw from the them, and especially from Luther, so we will have to starve.  As God gives food to a child through its father, and it must perish if it does not want to take it from him: so God has entrusted the Bread of Life to our father Luther therewith to feed us.  If we despise this grace of [1880-76] God and want be a Luther ourselves, so we must waste away.

[C] One can see in Luther so purely what it means to have a solid heart, of which our unionistic time so does not know anything.  He confers all, however high, glorious, great and powerful they are, to the devil, as soon as they argue against our doctrine of justification, and namely, as he says, from “inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”  Such courage only a [one?]  [W1859-54] man can have, who who has been given a rich measure of the Holy Spirit.  Whom else can be found one who had, in addition to joyfulness of heart, such formidable earnestness and holy wrath?!  Remember that Luther wrote this when all papal powers had conspired to exterminate Luther and our church.  On that he writes that the mighty emperor Charles, whose kingdom was so great that the sun did not set on his lands, and all the emperors and princes of the whole world should let stand our church and its basic doctrine; and therefore he defies them before their eyes, without any other weapon than God’s Word.  The whole of world and church history gives us no example of a similar courage. Indeed the tyrants would have brought him to the stake if God had not held their hands, — if he would not have needed him as the Reformer. Everyone else would have been torn in such circumstances into a thousand pieces.  Luther himself was in spirit on the funeral pyre for nearly 30 years, whose death he would have endured with gladness and rejoicing: but it was not God’s will that he should teach by his death at first, but in and through his life.  But as he kept the field against his enemies only because the doctrine of justification lived in his heart, and he accordingly taught it ever and again: so also our Synod can be victorious against the sects and all other enemies only if a fire, lit by a correct  [1880-77] knowledge of the doctrine of justification, starts to flare up in us as it burned in dear Luther.

[D]  It is a consolation for our time, though a sad one that Luther complains about the terrible lack of a right knowledge of our article already in his lifetime and in the middle of the Lutheran Church, that even in 1530, also the year of the handing over of the Augsburg Confession, he testified that only very few understood it rightly, while although most pastors could indeed thoroughly scold very well against the popes and the priests, it was at best that they managed to fall into an expression of the doctrine of justification correctly and they spoke of it like a dream.  With all [his] complaints about the blatant contempt for this doctrine, Luther nevertheless, after being very mercifully freed from the papal yoke, was willing to teach and preach it with all his might till his death—and indeed, you know, faithfully did so. It is fitting for us to note this to our salutary shame. We—alas!—only too often want to hold back the full comfort of the Gospel from our congregations when we are faced with a lack of fruit from it; then the poor people must remain lying in their misery, and no more help is for them.  We often still lack the proper compassion and love of Christ for these poor souls that Luther abundantly had that he neither would nor could hide the riches of divine grace, although and precisely because his heart was ready to break because of the prevailing contempt of these riches.  It is also strange how fearfully his prophecy was fulfilled that after his death things would come to the point at which none of the Wittenberg theologians would remain faithful to the true doctrine of justification.  Especially it is to be remembered finally that Chemnitz, deeply moved by Luther’s complaints, cites negligent learning and cold teaching of this article as the reason for its eclipse and its final downfall. [1880-78] [W1859-55]

= = = = = = = = =  cont'd in Part 27  = = = = = = = = =

Walther speaks thus of Luther:

...he kept the field against his enemies only because the doctrine of justification lived in his heart  and he accordingly taught it ever and again:

But Walther wasn't interested in just old history, he was interested in the same "here and now" teaching that President Matthew Harrison claims for himself.  So what was the "here and now" teaching that Walther was interested in:

...so also our Synod can be victorious against the sects and all other enemies only if a fire, lit by a correct knowledge of the doctrine of justification, starts to flare up in us as it burned in dear Luther.

It seems Luther's enemies are still on the field, but the (Lutheran) Doctrine of Justification is still holding the field against them... and only through LDJ.  Will you, dear reader, not follow Luther and believe God at His Word?  Would you not let that fire flare up in you knowing that God is already reconciled to you? (2 Cor. 5:20)  If Walther's testimony is not enough, would you listen to Martin Chemnitz, the Second Martin, on this as Walther relates:

...Chemnitz, deeply moved by Luther’s complaints, cites negligent learning and cold teaching of this article [of justification] as the reason for its eclipse and its final downfall.

And finally, Walther today sets before the Lutheran Church a choice:

If we despise this grace of God and want be a Luther ourselves, so we must waste away.

Do you hear Walther speaking to us? ==>> Don't waste away... go Back To Luther!

In the next Part 27...

The Second Walther!

I was the one who gave the main epitaph to Franz Pieper in my original website www.franzpieper.com back in 1999.  After much reading of many writings, it became clear to me who spoke the clearest for Christianity and Lutheranism in the 20th Century... it was Franz Pieper – The 20th Century Luther!

I will now add a second epitaph for Pieper that has come to me.  It springs from the epitaph that was given to Martin Chemnitz as the "Second Martin" because of his faithfulness to Luther's pure doctrine.  The story of this faithfulness has been preserved by 2 essays now hosted by the Wisconsin Synod.  J.A.O. Preus and Eugene Klug both presented essays in 1985 for the "Reformation Lectures" at Bethany Lutheran College of the ELS Synod:

Chemnitz and Authority by Dr. Eugene Klug
Martin Chemnitz on the Doctrine of Justification by J. A. O. Preus II

Martin Chemnitz is a true hero of Christianity and the reader is encouraged to download and read these essays.

Now C.F.W. Walther is the theologian of Christianity since the days of Martin Chemnitz.  Like Chemnitz, he too sat at the feet of Luther theologically and "gathered the luminous rays" of the Gospel like no theologian since.  Lutheranism was languishing under Germany's waywardness, but it was in America that God restored the glory of His grace, the glory of the pure Gospel through C.F.W. Walther.  Those who recognized this have given him the epitaph of The American Luther!

Ah, but God did not stop there, but gave us another theologian to follow Walther, to show the true beauty of the Gospel that had been restored by him.  The Missourians under Walther lamented that he did not write a complete systematic textbook on theology but rather edited an older textbook by a previous theologian, Johann Wilhelm Baier.  Although Walther made good comments in this textbook (see here for English topics), it was not the best vehicle for presenting the pure doctrine.  And Walther did not have the time to write his own textbook.  But Walther's successor did write the textbook that Walther did not – it is Franz Pieper's 3-volume Christian Dogmatics (or Christliche Dogmatik), not to be confused by other textbooks of the same name.  This was Walther's textbook because it followed him perfectly.  And so I will call Walther's successor

Franz Pieper – The Second Walther!