Walther on Knowledge, or lack of it (1884 Der Lutheraner)

      Walther was a very knowledgeable man, very "smart" and very well read – a true scholar.  He knew multiple languages and understood world history.  So it was with interest that I read his short blurb in Der Lutheraner vol. 40, (1884), p. 95:

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

Saint Bernard              ●             Peter Abelard

Self-knowledge.

 

In one of his letters, the pious [Saint] Bernard makes the following judgment about the highly famous scholar [Peter] Abelard: "Of all that is in heaven and on earth, there is nothing that he does not know, except himself. — Unfortunately, this verdict is true for most of the great scholars, but especially for those who think they know and understand everything, know all sorts of things, but know nothing. W. [Walther]

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

      In his life filled with controversy, Walther had dealt with many very smart theologians, ones who considered themselves as great scholars – both in Germany and America.  But great knowledge, by itself, did not impress Walther, even though he himself was very knowledgeable.  Walther was rather impressed with Saint Bernard's insightful comment about one of the greatest scholars of history.

Fick 13: Boston; against Papacy; No God?; Catechism History

      This continues from Part 12 (Table of Contents in Part 1), publishing an English translation of C.F.W. Walther's biography of Pastor C.J. Hermann Fick. —
- - - - - - - - - - - -
      Now Fick is again called to a big city, this time Boston.  Walther makes a terse comment about this city and its “European affairs”.  With its Puritan - Episcopal - Methodist base, it surely was a struggle for the orthodox Lutheran, Pastor Fick.  Walther elsewhere made a comment against the waywardness of Eastern districts: “Why are many congregations in the eastern section of the United States no longer free?”. –  Also in this portion, Walther reviews several more masterpieces by Fick on the Papacy, atheism, and Luther's Small Catechism. —  We now join our Fick as he makes his last move, to the Eastern district, to Boston...

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

This translation by BackToLuther (BTL), taken from Der Lutheraner, Vol. 42, Nos. 14 (July 15, 1886) to 18 (September 15, 1886). All underlining is emphasis from original. All highlighting by BTL. — This portion:– vol. 42, #18, p. 138.

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

In Memory of Our Unforgettable Fick.

(by C.F.W. Walther; Part 13, cont'd from Part 12)

However, by God's gracious will, Collinsville should not be the last stop in the life and work of our Fick. In the year 1872 he received an urgent call to Boston in the state of Massachusetts. To be sure, at first the climate of this more northern state caused him to resist the acceptance of the call for the sake of the constitution of his body, which was inclined to catarrh; but the importance of the city, with its European character, overcame his misgivings, so that finally, trusting to the guidance of God, he confidently followed in the name of God. He was solemnly introduced to this new post on November 10, 1872. The task presented to him was not an easy one. The European affairs of Boston, which were mixed up with New England, and which, of course, in some respects also asserted themselves in his congregation, caused him no little difficulties and worries. It was especially the sad school conditions there that weighed on his mind, as he complained to us on the occasion of the meeting of the Synodical Conference in Cleveland, Ohio., in August of 1884. Nevertheless, as far as we are aware, his official activity in Boston was a richly blessed one, and in spite of all the seriousness with which [page 138, col. 2] affected Fick there, the relationship between him and his congregation was a relationship of deepest love and full trust.

In spite of all the official work imposed on him by his congregation of about 600 souls, he still found time to serve the church in general with his pen. Already in 1873 came the excellent writing: “Secret of Wickedness in the Roman Papacy” [WorldCat; German text], in which he sets forth, after an important introduction in a first part “Secret of Wickedness” from the doctrines and in a second part in the works of the Papacy, namely in his terrible abominations. Both parts together comprise 38 and 250 pages in small octavo. The motto of this work is the words of Luther: “All other heretics are heretics only in certain parts; but this man (the Pope) is the only and true antichrist who is against the whole Christ.” (Luther's Works [W1], Vol. IX, 1014) [StL vol. 9, 1475 §13; AE LW 30, p. 287 - “Lectures on 1 John”, chpt 4:3 – see this blog.] The book is based on the most reliable sources and appended with a precise indication of these sources. The same has become widely used, and the second edition of the same has just been published.

We are now living in a time when:

●  in countless writings and daily newspapers, the word, “There is no God!” is treated as a truth no longer to be proved, but as a long-established truth;

●  in almost all the workplaces, retail shops, art galleries, public squares, and even many university lecture halls, does the word: “There is no god!” resound;

●  more and more people are making connections every day who have chosen the word, "There is no God!" for their slogan and for their shiboleth;

●  all men, wherever they go, wherever they stand, breathe in the fumes of the air made heavy, so to speak, with the denial of God:

but there are also many souls who, without being descended to cattle like most atheists, and without being filled with Satanic hostility to God, are sick of inhaling the hellish poison of atheism.

For the sake of such unfortunate souls, in the year 1876, our Fick issued a writing entitled, There Is A God. The Responsibility to Testify. [Google Books, WorldCat]  In this splendid 240-page work, the author has laid aside the weapon of ridicule, and in alternating form, now in narratives, now in stories, now in shorter or longer essays, are so clearly revealed the existence of a God in such a convincing manner and the counter-proofs against it in their wretchedness, that whoever does not want to deny his own reason, after reading this precious book and being healed of his unbelief, must exclaim: “Yes, yes, there is a God!”

In 1882, Fick followed this larger work with a small work: “The Gentile Christmas. A Tale of Life in the Far West. Publishing House of Neitz and Jung in St. Louis, Mo.” [German title; no WorldCat! see 1882 Der Lutheraner (w/ review by W)., and Ev. Schulblatt;] The tendency of this lovely booklet is to show by an example that man can not convert himself, but that God for Christ's sake is willing and strong to save man from the deepest depth of his misery of sin, to bring to faith and to save forever.

The last major fruit of his tireless literary industriousness is Fick’s work published in 1881 under the title: Stories from the Church and the World about Dr. M. Luther's Small Catechism. For Church, [page 138, col. 3] School and Home Collected. [German title; Archive copy] This is first a collection of the Holy Scriptures, then each of the six major parts, and finally, for each of these, stories concerning them. There are 614 of these stories on 361 pages in Kleinoctav close printing. As much as there are similar collections, this one is not only not surpassed by any other in our low judgment, but also not equaled by anyone else. Not only is the selection of the immense material taken on the basis of clear, pure Lutheran knowledge, but also everything is described in the chaste and sober language of Lutheran simplicity. —

- - - - - - - - - - -  continued in Part 14  - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lutheran Scholarship
      Walther stresses that Fick's book on the abominations of the Papacy uses “the most reliable sources” and is “appended with a precise indication of these sources”.  I was amazed too at Fick's scholarly work on the Lutheran Martyrs. Dr. Robert Kolb is noted as one of today's great scholars on Lutheranism and the Reformation.  But C.J. Hermann Fick was also a great scholar on these matters.  Walther testifies elsewhere that Fick writes as one of the greatest writers “in the spirit of Luther”, something I find sorely lacking in Kolb.  Kolb largely ignores (or refutes) the true Lutheran scholarship of the old (German) Missouri Synod. — No, today's LC-MS does not want the world to know just how much their “fathers” in the faith attacked the Papacy.

“Lutheran Catechesis”
      There is a movement by some in the LC-MS to use “catechesis” as the way to turn it back from its admitted heterodoxy.  There would hardly be any better book for this purpose than a translated English version of Fick's book of 614 stories on Luther's Small Catechism, a book Walther labeled as “not equaled by anyone else”.  I took the time to translate a portion of Walther's Foreword to this book:

“This collection is of particular value to Lutherans because it gives an example for every part of our small Lutheran catechism. Therefore for teachers who have the catechism in their school, and parents who have to promote it in their homes, the book cannot be recommended urgently enough. In the use of it, they will soon discover the good services they can get from these stories for a fair, vivid, practical, and urgent treatment of our “Children's Bible.” Imbued with a genuine Lutheran spirit and written in language understandable to children, these narratives can also be confidently given to the schoolchildren themselves and handed over to them for the purpose of reading through, that after completing each portion of the catechism they would recount the examples each story belongs to. But even adults will derive for themselves rich instruction and edification.”

In the following “Read more »” section, I have included the German text of the first several pages of Fick's book on the Small Catechism – The First and Second Commandments. I may add to this over time. — In the next concluding Part 14...

Ecumenical Lutheranism (Part 3) (not Robert Kolb)

     This continues from Part 2 (Table of Contents in Part 1), reprinting the English translation, from the first issue of Concordia Journal (Jan. 1975), of Franz Pieper's “Vorwort” (Foreword) to the first issue of Concordia Theological Monthly (Jan. 1930). —

      This essay is a good antidote to the writings of Dr. Robert Kolb, who would be known in the world as the spokesman for today's “ecumenical Lutheranism”. But more of his books are published by non-Lutheran publishers (Baker, Eerdmans, etc.) than Lutheran.  Even his collaboration on the Book of Concord (2000) was with a theologian of, and published by, the ELCA, a synod supposedly not in fellowship with the LC-MS.  It does not matter how many times Robert Kolb repeats the term “justification by faith”, yet I have found nowhere where he clearly teaches an “objective justification" nor “universal justification”, the teachings that confirm the Lutheran sola fide, by faith alone without the deeds of the Law.  Never have I found Dr. Robert Kolb defending the ecumenical (and much maligned) doctrine of the Verbal Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures against a world of theologians vehemently denying it.  How sad!… how can any Christian be certain of his salvation without believing that the words of 2 Cor. 5:19 are actually God's Words? (Answer: you cannot).
      Now let us listen to a true Lutheran teacher, not the weak teacher (like C.S. Meyer), Dr. Robert Kolb:

All bold words are Pieper's emphasis. All highlighting by BackToLuther.

Franz Pieper's Foreword to Concordia Theological Monthly, Vol. 1, No. 1

Translation by Paul H. F. Boecler  —  Part 3 (cont'd from Part 2)

The present danger in this kind of talk is that one may lose God’s Word altogether. “For the Holy Spirit will not allow Himself to be separated nor divided, so that He would let one point be taught or believed as true and the other as false. But special consideration must be shown the weak who are willing to be instructed and do not obstinately argue to the contrary.” (Luther’s works, St. Louis ed., XX, 1781 f, § 50 [Am. Ed. LW 38, p 308].; IX, 826 f.) 

The symbols of the Lutheran Church also bear abundant witness to ecumenical Lutheranism. The Augsburg Confession in Article VII allows consciences to be entirely free in “all ceremonies, instituted by men,” since these do not belong to the true unity of the Christian church. But the determination of what is sufficient for the true unity of the Christian church, namely,
“to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments,” also embodies the assertion that there be no differences in the Christian church, according to God’s will and order, but complete agreement with reference to the doctrine (consentire de doctrina evangelii et administratione sacramentorum).

Article X of the Formula of Concord does indeed teach that the churches “because of disparity in ceremonies, where one in Christian liberty has fewer or more of these, do not on that account condemn one another.” But there is the qualification: “if otherwise they agree with one another in the doctrine and all articles of the same, also in the right use of the Holy Sacraments.” The Formula of Concord would not be representing “ecumenical Lutheranism” in agreement with Matthew 28: “teach them to observe all that I have commanded you,” if it had not firmly asserted this truth.

Throughout its 75 years of publication, Lehre und Wehre has been in the service of “ecumenical Lutheranism.” From the first year’s edition on to the present, our “theological, church, and current events monthly” has taken the same position on Holy Scripture as did Christ and" His holy apostles: that Holy Scripture is God’s own inerrant, majestic Word and therefore the only source and norm of theology. On the basis of Holy Scripture our theological journal has expounded all Christian teachings again and again, briefly and at length. When they became known, Lehre und Wehre took due notice of all church events throughout the world and presented them in the light of God’s Word. The major publications in the area of Christian and theological literature were always given due attention. Whatever conformed to [CONCORDIA JOURNAL/January 1975, p. 17] Scripture was recommended and whatever conflicted with Scripture was exposed as such.

Lehre und Wehre was determined to expose especially the aberrations of modern Lutheran theology, which (we say it with regret) no longer holds Scripture to be God’s Word. As a result it thoroughly destroys the articles of Christian doctrine. Our journal explained what a grave menace these aberrations are for the saving Christian faith. This was done regarding individual publications of modern Lutheran theology as well as the entire neological product in its opposition to the Scriptural Lutheran doctrine. A comprehensive analysis and evaluation was offered in three volumes (1875, 1876, 1877) under the general heading: “What is to be said of the development of doctrine in modern Lutheran theology?”

The purpose of this comprehensive presentation is to convince the reader “that modern Lutheran theology is no development or a further growth of the old theology, but the most drastic defection from it, something entirely new, something altogether different” (Lehre und Wehre, XXI [1875], p. 161). In its contention for the genuine old Lutheran theology and the Wehre [defense] against the new, Lehre und Wehre could not ignore the situation at home, but was obliged to direct special attention to what was going on in the U. S. A. Until the year 1872 the most urgent question was: What is “ecumenical Lutheranism” in the teachings on church and ministry? Beginning with the year 1872 the situation became even more serious. Now the preeminent question became: What is “ecumenical Lutheranism” regarding the doctrine of the conversion and salvation of man? Are conversion and salvation the gift of God’s grace alone or is the superior quality of a person’s conduct in comparison with others ultimately a factor in God’s judgment?

This basic difference produced the controversy on the doctrine of God’s eternal election. The issue was whether election happened in view of faith. Is faith to be understood as a quality of personal conduct in comparison with others, or does eternal election as well as conversion rest on God’s grace and the merits of Christ alone? In accordance with “ecumenical Lutheranism” the Formula of Concord teaches: “The eternal election of God, however, not only foresees and foreknows the salvation of the elect, but is also, from the gracious will and pleasure of God in Christ Jesus, a cause which procures, works, helps, and promotes our salvation and what pertains thereto; and upon this [divine predestination] our salvation is so founded that ‘the gates of hell cannot prevail against it’ [Matt. 16:18], as it is written [John 10:28]: ‘Neither shall any man pluck My sheep out of My hand,’ and again [Acts 13:48]: ‘And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.’”

In agreement with “ecumenical Lutheranism” the Formula of Concord rejects as simply nonexistent any “better conduct” on the part of those who are converted and saved, in comparison with others who remain unconverted and are lost. Otherwise the Christian doctrine of election by grace would be set aside. In true ecumenical fashion the Formula of Concord concludes with finality all those questions which human reason would like to have answered, and does so by pointing to the limits set for human understanding in this life on earth. “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself, but in Me is thy help” [Hos. 13:9]. When, however, disputes on this question would tend to go beyond and exceed these limits, we join St. Paul and keep our lips sealed, earnestly reflect and say: “Who are you, a man, to answer back to God?” [Rom. 9:20]

This is the battle which Lehre und Wehre, together with other synodical publications, and particularly in association with the synodical brother 10 years older, the Der Lutheraner, fought for “ecumenical Lutheranism,” for the sake of the unadulterated doctrine of the church of the Reformation and in behalf of the “one great treasure of the Lutheran Church.” This “one great treasure of our Lutheran Church” in America was also commemorated at the 25th anniversary of the Synod (1872). Other churches, Catholics and sects, surpass us in numbers, in wealth, in imposing buildings, in high offices, in outward organization, and in other respects. The one [CONCORDIA JOURNAL/January 1975, p. 18] great treasure of the Lutheran Church is her doctrine, pure and in all points agreeing with Scripture.

- - - - - - - - - -   continued in Part 4   - - - - - - - - - - -

      After hearing Dr. Franz Pieper's clear teaching delineating the pure Christian doctrines of Conversion and the Election of Grace, we will now see how Dr. Robert Kolb treats other Christian doctrines, of Church and Ministry, in the interest of so-called “ecumenical Lutheranism” (from Concordia Journal, October, 2001, p. 295:

Dr. Robert Kolb (emeritus):
Walther
"stopped speaking,
could not dream,
missed the chance,
improper expression Bible truth,
served for political interests,
dishonest theological exertion,
outdated."

“C. F. W. Walther … may be worthy conversation partners in our discussion, but some of the most critical problems we face begin where they stopped speaking—or even some distance after they stopped speaking—more than a century ago. We must answer questions of which they could not dream. They [Walther] provide us with an ecclesiology shaped for a world in which the church was conceived of as divided into “Konfessionen.” There is no readily understandable American translation of that concept! [Nonsense. Pieper just identified it to be “denominations”.] We have missed the chance to compose an expression of our ecclesiology for the denominational age of North American Christianity. We will reap only confusion and contention among ourselves and in our relations with other churches if we do not begin soon to formulate a proper expression of Biblical truth regarding the church for a post-denominational age. We must do so in humble submission to Scripture and to God's call to confess our faith abandoning use of ecclesiological problems as instruments for serving political interests [!] among us. We must turn to the honest theological exertion [i.e. forgetting Walther!]  required for repeating our doctrine of the church in ways that address the situation of the confession of Christ's Word in the early twenty-first century.”

Robert Kolb quite exposed himself in 2001 as abandoning truly Lutheran doctrine -- in his “post-denominational age”.  In fact, he shows himself to be of quite the same stripe as what Walther cried out against in 1875:

“Modern Lutheran theology is … the most drastic defection from it.”

Yes, that is Dr. Robert Kolb, a modern Lutheran theologian, a unionist of the most deceptive kind, in the mold of Prof. Theodore Graebner. — In the next Part 4…

Luther & Walther: on science & religion; Copernicanism Part 20

      This continues from Part 19a a series on Copernicanism and Geocentricity (see Intro & Contents in Part 1) in response to a letter from a young person ("Josh") who asked if I believed Geocentricity ... and did not ridicule me in his question.

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

      This blog post is interrupting my sub-series (Parts 19x) on Pastor F.E. Pasche to insert a quote from Walther and Luther on this subject of "science and religion".  This comes from one of C.F.W. Walther's Forewords for the journal Lehre und Wehre (LuW), volume 21, 1875 pp. 1-13, 33-42, 65-80.  An English translation was included in the 1981 CPH book Selected Writings of C.F.W. Walther - Editorials from "Lehre Und Wehre". pp. 122-142.  This specific quote comes from Walther's defense of the charge made against the old (German) Missouri Synod that it had contempt for "Wissenshaft", the German word variously translated as science, learning, or scholarship.  This quote is on page 33 of LuW, or page 130 of the translated CPH book (Google translation of text here):

In the first place, we confess that no matter how much we think of learning [Wissenschaft, science/scholarship], we do not rank it above the truth of Scripture, nor even as its equal, but immeasurably below it. Hence we indeed say frankly and openly with Luther:

“It is better for learning to be destroyed rather than religion, if learning refuses to be a servant and desires to tread Christ under foot” (Letter to Amsdorf, 28 June, 1534; St. Louis Edition, XXIb, 1911-1912, [No. 2067]; not in any published English translation; Google translated text here.).

A single little passage of Scripture means incomparably more to us and is an immeasurably greater treasure for us than all the wisdom of this world.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
      Now the scoffers will continue to mock this position of the old (German) Missouri Synod as a "contempt of science or scholarship"... just as in 1875.  Unfortunately today's LCMS is hardly "Missourian" as Walther and Pieper are practically sneered at.  This is in spite of the fact that CPH still sells their book.  Could it be that the LCMS teachers have rather joined those scoffers?  But Christians, so far as they are Christian, will recognize in these quotes true Christian counsel.  —  I plan to go back to my sub-series on Pastor Pasche soon, which will be Part 19b.  [next Part 21 here]

Pieper: Objections to Inspiration (Part 2) – Contradictions, Errors

This concludes a 2-part series from Part 1 which highlights two of the eight points where Franz Pieper, in his Christian Dogmatics books, defends the Doctrine of Inspiration of Holy Scripture against the attacks of modern theologians and scholars... scholars like Professor James Barr and his writings against biblical chronology. (see Table of Contents on Chronology posts here)

Now Pieper addresses the issue of alleged contradictions and errors in the Bible — in his Christian Dogmatics, volume 1, pages 241-243:

    4. The alleged contradictions in Scripture and erroneous statements in general are stressed particularly by the opponents of inspiration.  At the time when Philippi [a Jewish convert!] had not yet gained the right attitude toward Scripture and still admitted the possibility of errors in Scripture, he nevertheless censured the "furious search for discrepancies" on the part of the moderns, which was "due primarily to the wicked attitude which boasts of having eliminated all assumptions and presuppositions; they claimed the right to cut loose from the presupposition that Scripture is the Word of God, but in place of that sat down in the temple of God and presupposed that they were God" (Glaubenslehre, 1st ed., I, 199). With regard to the alleged contradictions in Scripture the situation is briefly this: if only there is some readiness to come to an understanding, the possibility of harmonizing the seemingly contradictory statements can easily be shown; and no fair-minded person will ask more than that. Ebrard [Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte, 2d ed., p. 59] should not have reproved Chemnitz for "offering the probable when he could offer nothing certain." Chemnitz's principle is the only sensible one. In recent years A. T. Robertson [a fundamentalist Southern Baptist!] has written these apt words: "In explaining a difficulty, it is always to be remembered that even a possible explanation is sufficient to meet the objector. If several possible explanations are suggested, it becomes all the more unreasonable for one to contend that the discrepancy is irreconcilable. It is a work of supererogation to show that this or that explanation is the real solution of the problem. Sometimes, owing to new light, this might be possible, but it is never necessary. And by reason of the meager information we have on many points in the Gospel narrative, it may always be impossible in various cases to present a solution satisfactory in every point. The harmonist has done his duty if he can show a reasonable explanation of the problem before him. It is to be remembered also that there is as much prejudice against the supernatural element in the Gospels as there is a favorable opinion for the accuracy of the narratives." [Quoted in Broadus, A Harmony of the Gospels, 8th ed., p. 232; another fundamentalist Southern Baptist] We shall have to agree with Robertson. This might be added: If we should meet with a case where we can discover no way of adjusting the difference, we leave the matter in abeyance, since as Christians we believe, on the authority of the Son of God, in the infallibility of Scripture - "the Scriptures cannot be broken" (John 10:35). All objections against the inerrancy of Scripture disgrace the Christian, because they oppose a human judgment to Christ's judgment.
     Luther knew very well how to deal with the unbeliever and the Christian according to his flesh in an apologetic way, but when he describes the attitude toward the Scriptures which is becoming to the Christian, he uses firm, yes, strong language. He says, for example: "They [the sophists] say the Scriptures are far too weak that we should silence heretics with them; reason must do it, and it must come forth from the brain; thus one must prove that the faith is the right one. But our faith is above all reason, and it alone is the power of God. Therefore, if the people will not believe, then be silent; for you are not held to compel them to receive Scripture as God's book or Word; it is enough if you give the reason therefor. But if they take exceptions and say: You preach that one should not hold to man's doctrine, and yet St. Peter and Paul, and even Christ, were men -- when you hear people of this stamp, who are so blinded and hardened as to deny that what Christ and the Apostles spoke and wrote is God's Word, or doubt it, then be silent, speak no more with them, and let them go. Only say: I will give you reasons enough from Scripture; if you will believe it, it is well; if not, go your way. Will you say: Then God's Word must suffer defeat? Leave that to God!" (St. L. IX: 1238 f.) According to Luther, it is utterly unworthy of a Christian to refuse to accept as God's Word and inerrant what Christ and the Apostles spoke and wrote. This judgment Luther also applies to the historical trustworthiness of Scripture in all cases where there is a discrepancy between secular writers and the statements of Scripture. He says: "I make use of the secular writings in such a manner that I am not forced to contradict Scripture. For I believe that in the Scriptures the God of truth speaks; in the histories good people display, according to their ability, their diligence and fidelity (but only as men) or at least that their copyists have perchance erred" (St. L. XIV:491). Likewise Luther maintains the inerrancy of the Scriptures when they differ with the natural scientists. He says with regard to the doctrine of the creation of the world: "When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and all that is therein in six days, then let it stand that it was in six days, and you dare not find a gloss how six days were one day. And if you cannot understand how it could have been done in six days, then accord the Holy Ghost the honor that He is more erudite than you" (St. L. III:21). As to the accommodation of the differences in the reports of the Gospels, Luther (just like Chemnitz in his Evangelienharmonie) [or Harmoniae Evangelicae] is content with pointing out several possible ways of solving the apparent discrepancies. (St. L. VII: 1780 f.) He is so far from doubting the correctness of the reports that he even declares the apparent disorder in them to be God's work and wisdom (St. L. VII: 1297).

It almost horrifies me when I think that the Devil himself in Matthew 4:1-11 did not raise the issue of "variant readings" or "contradictions" or "errors" in the Bible, but our modern theologians and scholars do.  Are they trying to outdo the Devil?

What other objections did Pieper address and defend against?

• inaccurate quotations of OT in NT (pgs 247-251)
• insignificant matters by the Holy Ghost? (pgs 251-255)
• "solecisms", barbarisms (pgs 255-260)
• single passages of Scripture itself against Inspiration (pgs 260-265)

So now I am refreshed and re-armed by Pieper against modern scholars and will address James Barr's writings against Luther, his Chronikon, and biblical chronology in Part 6c of my series on Luther's work.