L09a–False charges by LCMS: Walther a Pietist? (Eggold–Piepkorn–Pelikan); Wohlrabe, McCain defend Walther

      This continues from Part L09 (Table of Contents in Part L01) in a series on the instruction of the Law by C. F. W. Walther and Martin Luther. — A preposterous charge by LCMS theologians against Walther prompted this Excursus. A refreshing rebuttal was made by more recent LCMS men.

Jaroslav Pelikan     —     A. C. Piepkorn      —     Henry Eggold     
“Walther, a Pietist”

    The matter taken up in Walther's statement #3 in Part L09 causes many of today's LCMS theologians to stumble, for they are weak on both Law and Gospel preaching. They are weak on the proper distinction of these two doctrines. Concordia Seminary Doctoral candidate Henry Eggold Jr. († 1982), in his 1962 doctoral thesis [Internet Archive], said this about Walther's preaching of the Law, p. 178:

“One of the very strong accents in Walther's preaching is his rebuking of prevailing sins. As one reads a number of his sermons at one sitting, he finds that Walther spends almost as much time denouncing a false faith as he does pleading for a true faith. When he is rebuking sin, he is in dead earnest [as if God is not?]; he preaches the Law as though there were no Gospel and pictures God in the awesomeness of his justice and righteousness. His language is vigorous, blunt, and unsparing.”

Also in this essay, one discovers that Eggold references two of the leading lights of the 1974 Walkout: Drs. Jaroslav Pelikan and Arthur Carl Piepkorn. It was Pelikan who started the myth that Walther synthesized Orthodoxy with Pietism, in an article for a German theological journal in 1952 (see here, footnote #4; full text file). Then in 1961, Piepkorn referenced Pelikan's essay in an article for Concordia Theological Monthly, "Walther and the Lutheran Symbols" (see here, p. 609, footnote #17). A year later, in 1962, Eggold came out with his semi-famous doctoral thesis that referenced both of these "leading lights" as the marching orders for his work. But in reading all of Eggold's comments and judgments of Walther, it became apparent that he himself is weak on preaching the Law in comparison with Walther. Yet he proposes to judge Walther by stating (p. 255) that 

“A critical appraisal of Walther's sermons will not close one's eyes to the influence of Pietism which introduced faults into Walther's preaching, namely, his tinge of legalism and his occasional advice to the terrified sinner to prayer for grace without directing him to the Gospel.”

That Walther was under "the influence of Pietism" is quite preposterous. Even Rev. Dr. John C. Wohlrabe Jr., LCMS Sixth Vice-President, admitted that Eggold's assertion of Walther's "Pietism" was questionable, stating: 

"Yet, when one carefully considers the doctrine of the church, as set forth in Walther’s other writings, as well as in his sermons, one can’t help but question this assertion. Did Walther’s addressing himself to unbelievers in his sermons come from a pietistic influence or from his doctrine of the church, which was soundly based on Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions, and such orthodox Lutheran theologians as John Gerhard?" ("The Preaching of C. F. W. Walther in View of the Doctrine of the Church", The Pieper Lectures - Preaching Through the Ages, Volume 8 (2004), p. 90)

Wohlrabe goes on to demonstrate how Eggold was wrong, that an apparent inconsistency in Walther's writings was only apparent. Even more, he asks the question (p. 91) "why has this practice [addressing unbelievers in a sermon] all but disappeared in modern preaching?" Finally, (p. 95) he states that Walther's preaching put the "stress on objectivity over subjectivity—or put another way, orthodoxy over against pietism." — 

    Also Paul McCain, in a 1998 essay, wrote about Pietism and stated that "The first leaders of the Missouri Synod had to struggle against Pietism in their own lives and it has been so ever since." In a footnote to this, without naming Eggold, Piepkorn or Pelikan, said this (p. 86):

“It is inaccurate to describe C. F. W. Walther as a Pietist. Anyone who makes this assertion knows little about Walther and even less about Pietism.” (The Pieper Lectures - Pietism and Lutheranism, Volume 3, p. 92)

      Eggold's charge is the same as what Franz Pieper reported of Missouri's opponents who charged them with, among other things, being "Pietists". As Pieper explains in his Christian Dogmatics, Pietism is the tendency to turn Lutheranism towards Reformed territory, and Walther is far from doing that. It seems that Prof. Eggold swallowed the false theology of Jaroslav Pelikan. — And we notice why Eggold was weak as a theologian and a preacher: He was advised by the likes of Profs. Richard Caemmerer, Jaroslav Pelikan, and Erwin L. Lueker, the Walkout sympathizers of 1974. His agenda in producing his thesis was prescribed by Prof. Pelikan (who later left Lutheranism), which was to prove that Walther's preaching was a "synthesis of Orthodoxy and Pietism". Eggold's own homiletical philosophy, "Preaching is Dialogue", was possibly influenced by Prof. Caemmerer's homiletics. Prof. Eggold never changed his judgment of Walther as he repeated these same charges of "Pietism" in his "Translators Preface" to the CPH book Selected Sermons of Walther published in 1981, the year before he died. Sad. 

      The latter charge above by Prof. Eggold, Walther's statement "to pray for grace", can be answered by the Fifth Petition of the Lord's Prayer, which petitions the Lord to "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us". Eggold could also charge our Lord Jesus with the same charge of "not directing the terrified sinner to the Gospel". Eggold should have studied Luther's explanation of the Fifth Petition. — He should also have listened to the Savior when He said Luke 13:3, 5: 

"I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

Eggold brings another charge against Walther that we report in the next Part L10…

L09–III. 2., 3. Law shows our sin, even for true Christians

      This continues from Part L08 (Table of Contents in Part L01) in a series on the instruction of the Law by C. F. W. Walther and Martin Luther. — In this segment, Walther addresses two more reasons why the Law must be preached. — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 7 (Dec. 1861), p. 364 ff.:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

III. Why must the Law also be proclaimed in the New Testament and also to Christians?

      2. The second reason why the Law must also be preached in the New Testament is that only those who recognize their sins can come to faith in Christ and to knowledge of his reconciling and redeeming work and suffering; but knowledge of sin comes through the Law alone.

What Luther says on the preaching of the Law to show our sins:

• “If a person is to become spiritual and come to faith, he must first be under the Law; therefore, without the Law no one recognizes himself for what he lacks; but he who does not know himself does not seek grace. But when the Law comes, it demands so much that man feels and must confess that he is not able to fulfill it; he must then despair of himself and, humbled, sigh for God's grace.”
• “For who can know what Christ suffered for us and why, if no one knows what sin or Law is? Therefore the Law must be preached where Christ is to be preached.”

Walther continues:

      3. Finally, the Law must also be preached to those who have already become true Christians, for the reason that even the believing, enlightened, born-again Christian, who is of course willing to do all good, is not yet completely enlightened and renewed, but has the old Adam, that is, flesh and blood, and therefore still needs the teaching of the Law, even terror and compulsion; as we see then that the law is also preached to Christians through the whole of Holy Scripture.

What Luther says about preaching the law to true Christians:

• “But the matter itself and experience testify that even the righteous or faithful are subjected and delivered to death daily. Therefore, as far as they are under death, they must also be under the Law and sin. It is especially coarse and inexperienced people and harmful deceivers of consciences who want to take the Law away from the church.”
• “Therefore the Law (as well as the gospel) must be preached without distinction, both to the righteous, or believers, and to the ungodly; … to the godly, that they may be reminded thereby to crucify and mortify their flesh, together with lusts and vices, so that they may not be secure, Gal. 5:24, for security takes away both faith and the fear of God, and makes the latter worse than the former was.”
• “But outwardly the flesh does not yet want to do so; all kinds of filth and evil lust, anxiety for food, fear of death, avarice, anger and hatred still cling to it: the filth always remains next to the faith that it may beat and fight with it.”
• “So divide a Christian into two parts: That he is both righteous and unrighteous. The Holy Spirit dwells in the heart, but not in the flesh, where the devil dwells with his seed”

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

In the next Part L10, Walther addresses the point that makes him and Luther the perfect teachers to follow on the preaching of the Law. But first, in the next Part L09a, we call out past LCMS theologians who crassly criticized Walther… on his Pietism?

M18: Luther too mild?; Bente's history — 2 uploads to Internet Archive

       This continues from Part 17 (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.” — Walther brings out the mildness of Luther as he dealt with the erring. I was reminded of Luther's mildness with Elector Frederick regarding his relics, only warning him and not condemning him. How Walther mirrors Luther in his mildness! Walther's showed great mildness with his opponents, turning harsh with them only when they became stubborn against certain doctrines, e.g. on Election of Grace. This mildness by Walther was sometimes mistaken by modernizing LCMS theologians for a unionistic tendency in order to justify their own syncretism. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 359-360 [EN]:

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 18 of 28  - - - - - - -

Of a conversation about the suspicion which Luther had at that time, in regard to Melanchthon's faith, in the point about Holy Communion, we find certain details neither in Melanchthon's nor in Luther's letters from that time. But not only does Melanchthon report on November 25: “Although the day (of my interrogation) had already been announced to me after the consultations that were recently held about me, Luther's illness nevertheless prevented anything from being negotiated, upon which an armistice occurred” (p. 452); but Melanchthon has without doubt given Luther reassuring explanations about this point as well. It is a fact that Melanchthon, as we have already proved above with Melanchthon's own words, rejected Zwinglianism and professed his faith in the correct doctrine of Holy Communion. Thus Luther's wrath was laid to rest, and even the strong suspicion against Melanchthon disappeared from his loyal heart, so easily calmed by good words. **) 

—————— 

**) The example of the wretched [Johannes] Agricola shows how quickly Luther, even if a severely erring man recanted, allowed himself to be satisfied. Read Cruciger's letter to Dietrich, Corp. Ref. III, 482: Even to a Cruciger, Luther's procedure here seemed too mild, because he hated Agricola. [See Bente's elaboration LuW 53, 487 ff.]

Even [Nicholas] Amsdorf, whom Luther held in such high esteem, could not therefore tear Melanchthon out of Luther's heart in the long run, although he wrote to Luther, pointing to Melanchthon, that he "nurtured a serpent in his bosom.” (p. 503) —

Although it has been claimed that Melanchthon altered the Augsburg Confession with Luther's knowledge and approval in 1540, this was contrary to historical truth. In the Nochmaligen Haupt-Vertheidigung des Augapfels (Leipzig 1673 [1630 Google Books; see here; Hoe von Hoenegg?]) we read rather: 

“Dr. [Johann] Wigand writes in the History of the Augsburg Confession p. 31 that Melanchthon solus, alone, without the advice of others, changed the Confession; which good people resent. Thus also the Jena theologians” (on the occasion of the Altenburg Colloquium) “have also responded sufficiently to the intercession of the Philippists and have thus said: ‘The gentlemen would do well, and not speak so presumptuously against the eighth commandment, that they may subject the simple-minded to talk, as if it were as they give. But some of us have heard more than once that the man of God Luther of holy memory complains quite a few times that the Augsburg Confession is changed so often, and said to Philip: ““Dear Philip, the book is not yours, but the book of all the confessing churches; (LuW 360) therefore I will not give you the right to change such a book so often and in so many ways.””’  Likewise, in the History of the Augsburg Confession Against the Disguised Ambros. Wolfium p. 365, that blessed Luther often addressed Philip and asked him to abstain from changing and multiplying the Augsburg Confession; at times he even expostulated with him and said, ‘Who has commanded you?’” (p. 343) 

That Luther did not intervene more seriously against Melanchthon because of his change of the Augsburg Confession without asking about a conflict arising from this was doubtless due to two reasons in particular. First of all, the first changes were not a direct blackening of false doctrine, but merely a weakening of the confession. *) 

—————— 

*) Although Dr. C. [Carl] Schmidt claims in his [1861] biography of Melanchthon p. 423 that the word "exhibentur", which Melanchthon used in the 10th Article of the modified Augsburg Confession, means, (body and blood) are "offered", “which presupposes faith in the receiving ones”; this is obviously wrong, however. Exhibere means more than offerre, to offer, i.e. "to offer, to answer”. Now, since Melanchthon's modified text reads: "Quod cum pane et vino exhibeantur corpus et sanguis Christi vescentibus" (not credentibus!) “in Coena Domini," only he who believes in a real presence and in the enjoyment of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper, of which all who enjoy the Lord's Supper are partakers, can sign these words without reservatio. Hence also Melanchthon in the following year [1541], as Schmidt himself reports, p. 398 f., at the Colloquium at Regensburg, 

“declared: ‘The Protestants hold the common teaching of the catholic Church that in the Lord's Supper, when the bread and wine are consecrated, the body and blood of Christ are essentially present and are taken’; they also reject the opinion of those who deny the presence of Christ, since it ‘comes from human reason alone, without the Word of God’.” 

Melanchthon, incidentally, referred here to the words of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession: “Testati sumus etiam in A. C., nos 'improbare' eos, qui negant, adesse et sumi verum corpus Christi”. (Corp. Ref. IV, 276)

- - - - - - - - -   Continued in Part 19  - - - - - - - - - -

In all the histories by Dr. Robert Kolb, I have not found any mention of the report of Amsdorf's comment that Melanchthon "nurtured a serpent in his bosom." Quite the contrary, Kolb paints the opposite picture of Amsdorf's relationship with Melanchthon at this time. — In the next Part 19 Walther further elaborates his first point, that Melanchthon’s changes at first were not directly “blackening”.

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

Honoring CPH Publisher Paul McCain 

with Bente's Historical Introductions: 2 uploads

       To honor Paul McCain († 2020), who likely wrote the stirring praise of Bente's history in the "Preface" to the 2005 CPH reprint of his Historical Introductions (see Part 9), I have uploaded 2 versions of Bente’s original history from 1921 to the Internet Archive: 

1. full high quality scan of original 1921 copy, and 
2. a fully OCR’d PDF with hundreds of hyperlinks added to sources. A DOCX file may be dowloaded from >>> HERE <<<.

The hyperlinks offer a great advantage, a feature that the "history" of Dr. Robert Kolb does not have. May this aid in weaning LC-MS students and pastors away from the syncretistic and Philippist histories of Dr. Robert Kolb! 

[Please note! Internet Archive is currently experiencing difficulties producing the "flip book" Preview after updated files were re-uploaded in place of the original upload.  Without this, links to specific pages will not work until this "bug" is fixed. A second copy has been uploaded here to provide a working "Preview" flip book]

M09: “Beloved Baumgärtner” testifies against M.; praise of Bente's history from Paul…; LCMS Doctrinal Review?

[2024-05-02: added material at bottom in red on official LCMS criticism of Bente's history]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -       This continues from Part 8 (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.” — In this segment, the strong testimony of Baumgärtner. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 332-334 [EN]: 

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 9 of 28  - - - - - - -

How necessary it was for Melanchthon, in Augsburg in 1530, that Luther strengthened him over and over again, can be seen from the drastic description that the brave deputy of the city of Nuremberg, Heronymus Baumgärtner, who was present at the private negotiations with the papists, makes of Melanchthon's behavior. He writes under September 13, 1530 from Augsburg to the Nuremberg (LuW 333) Council secretary Lazarus Spengler, among other things, the following: 

“God has ordained us, but by grace, that the [Augsburg] Confession is out and once delivered, otherwise our theologians would long ago have confessed otherwise: how they would like to act where they would be followed, even though they are unequal to each other. Philip is more childish, for he has become a child. … 

The Elector… has no one of understanding in this matter, except Dr. Brück, who is but few; but he has been brought to the point where he now also deals with worries, because he has no support from anyone. For the other Saxon theologians are not allowed to speak publicly against Philip, for he stretched out his head so much that he said the other day against the Lüneburg Chancellor: ‘He who may say that the next means given are not Christian, lies as a villain.’ To this he was answered: ‘Whoever says the contradiction,’ etc. And besides, one does not cease to denigrate in many ways those who show themselves Christian and brave in this; as the Hessians, who have behaved quite well and honestly in this respect, publicly complain to us; be careful that we will also be treated in the same way. In sum, if we do not soon receive a harsh, ungracious farewell from the Emperor's Majesty, we will not be let go until we are brought into the traps, so that we forfeit God's grace and do not obtain the Emperor's.  For the essence has so far steadily granted: as often the princes with each other, so one comes to the Elector ridden, tells him how he means the matter faithfully and well etc.; he has understood this or that from the Emperor, and if one escaped alone in this or that matters etc., the matter could still be helped: immediately Philip is there, makes articles, glosses them etc.. ... In the meantime, this is carried by” (the Brandenburg Chancellor) “Heller and Brenz also to the Margrave; if we are required to do so, and we do not allow ourselves to enjoy the pre-cooked porridge, then it is of an unwillingness, and the theologians run around, saying that we may not suffer peace; as if peace could certainly be obtained by our yielding; (we) only wanted to strike a blow with the Landgrave, whom they then truly disparage miserably in this… It is therefore necessary to call upon God diligently to help the things themselves, for they have indeed come beyond the reason of men.  Periit lex a prophetis et sapientia a sapientibus. [“The law of the prophets and the wisdom of the wise have perished.”] The one or other snipe still has a beak to sing in a Christian and constant way, which is why he was often mocked scurrilously by the others; outside of him, we theologians all wanted to be one with adversity. (Unschuld. Nachrr. [Löscher]. 1730. p. 392. ff.) 

On September 15th of the same year, the same Baumgärtner again wrote to the Nuremberg Council: 

“Therefore I ask you, for God's sake and for the sake of His Word, to do your part and to write to Doctor Martin Luther that he, as the one through whom God first opens His Word to the world, will come running to Philip with power and yet warn the pious princes (LuW 334), but especially his own master [the Elector], towards him and admonish them to perseverance. *) 

——————

*) The beloved Baumgärtner probably did not know that Luther had already written the following to Augsburg on August 26 to Spalatin: 

“I hear that you have undertaken, though not gladly, a wonderful work, namely to unite the Pope and Luther with each other. But the Pope will not want to, and Luther refuses to do so; take care that you do not spend your efforts in vain. If you have done this against the will of both of you, then I will immediately reconcile Christ and Belial with each other, following your example. I know, however, that you have not been drawn to this vain effort of your own free will, but by chance, or rather by the hooded ghosts of Speier. Christ, who has been your strength up to now, will also now be your wisdom, that those Italian cunning intrigues against you will do nothing. For evil counsel is most evil to the counselor. Greet Master Eisleben, Dr. Brenz, Schnepf and all ours.” (Letters, de Wette. IV, 144 [StL 16, 1406, #1060]) 

By the way, Luther later received news from Nuremberg about the dangerous settlements Baumgärtner complained about against Spengler and therefore wrote the most serious letters to Melanchthon, Jonas and Link. (op. cit. p. 168 ff. [StL 21, 1569 #1702]) 

- - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 10  - - - - - - - - - -

The “Beloved Baumgärtner” is also mentioned in Bente's history, but characteristically not in Dr. Kolb's history. Could Dr. Robert Kolb be guilty of the "bias" or "agenda" that the "1517." podcasters speak about? — In the next Part 10…

- - - - - - - - -   LC-MS Theologians, Historians: Rev. Paul McCain   - - - - - - - - - -

      After growing weary of the army of LC-MS theologians and pastors criticizing Prof. Bente's history, it was quite a shock to read the "Preface to the Reprinting" of CPH's 2005 reprint of Bente's work. The author of this "Preface" is not given. Not only does it not criticize Bente, it… well, the reader will get the sense of it from this excerpt (all emphases are mine):

“…to thank and praise the Lord of the Church for His rich and varied blessings through specific persons, … Professor Friedrich Bente knew this better than most as he labored to produce this historical introduction to the various documents contained in the Book of Concord. Even though Bente reflects older scholarship, and may strike some as too strident in the positions he embraces and the manner in which he writes of his subject matter, his unqualified acceptance of the Book of Concord as a true and unadulterated exposition of the Word of God makes his work extremely helpful for our day and age. While more contemporary treatments of this same subject matter supply many helpful insights and perspectives, they do not surpass Bente’s passionate commitment to being and remaining truly Lutheran. In fact, modern treatments of the same subjects must be very carefully evaluated since they are produced in part by theologians who have intentionally surrendered key points of Lutheran doctrine for the sake of various ecumenical compromises. Intense commitment to the truth confessed in the Book of Concord reflects itself on each page of Bente’s work. He was not interested in creating a novel work to be admired and praised by academia or the guild of scholars. His concern was to provide a resource for those who bear the name Lutheran, and all who wish to understand why the Lutheran church treasures her precious ‘Concordia.’”

“contemporary treatment”

 I have had to check the date of this Bente reprint with the date of the 2012 Fortress Press book The Lutheran Confessions: History and Theology of the Book of Concord by Robert Kolb, Charles Arand, and James Nestingen [see Part 6] several times because it seemed that the Preface for Bente was specifically warning against Dr. Kolb's 2012 history as a "contemporary treatment".  Even now, it seems the author of this Preface for the Bente reprint would have had knowledge that Dr. Kolb was already, since 2001, working on his 2012 book, as Kolb reveals in his Preface to it. — But who would write such a highly praiseworthy report of Bente's work?? Who would "stick their neck out" in the face of overwhelming opposition to Bente's history in the LC-MS?  Who would claim that modern histories "do not surpass Bente’s passionate commitment to being and remaining truly Lutheran"? Who would stand up to great scholars such at Dr. Lowell C. Green, who publicly impugned Bente's history over several decades within the LC-MS? I believe that author was 

Rev. Paul T. McCain († Nov. 25, 2020).

And even if it was not actually McCain who authored this Preface, it would have been McCain's influence, as Publisher for CPH, that got that Preface written as it is.  And for that reason may the name of Rev. Paul T. McCain be remembered in the Church and, with him, may we give "thanks and praise to the Lord of the Church for His rich and varied blessings through … Prof. Friedrich Bente."

      Ah, but today's LC-MS podcasters have an opposite opinion on Bente's methodology. Their comments are documented in Part 17.

- - - - - - - - - - - -  2024-05-02: ADDED SECTION  - - - - - - - - - - - -

      I have discovered not only anecdotal evidence of opposition to Bente's history, but now official evidence: Paul McCain's first 2005 edition of his Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions publication was chastised in 2006 (Reporter article) for various reasons by the "LCMS Commission on Doctrinal Review" in its "Concordia decision". Among its decisions was the following comment: 

17. In the introductions to both the Smalcald Articles (hereafter SA) (page 282) and the FC (page 530), an unfair and inaccurate caricature of Philip Melanchthon is repeated, following Bente. The one-sided charges have been refuted by recent scholarship, but are here repeated and perpetuated, distorting the historical truth and introducing an anti-Melanchthon bias especially to the understanding of the Formula.

The historical assessment of Philip Melanchthon is not a doctrinal matter. But repeating Bente’s notorious anti-Melanchthon bias is not an adequate presentation of the current state of confessional scholarship. As mentioned elsewhere, an edition of the Book of Concord must be held to high standards, also in terms of historical scholarship.

What the LCMS Committee did not acknowledge is that their criticism of Bente equally applies to Walther, for Bente was only following Walther's clear testimony. It is not known what "confessional scholarship" was being referenced by the Committee, but I suspect they are referring to Drs. Robert Kolb and Lowell Green. I will take Walther's and Bente's Lutheran, confessional scholarship over the LCMS "current state of confessional scholarship". And thank God, Editor Paul McCain did not remove the offending text in the 2006 Second Edition (p. 470 or view at right, or p. 530 in 2005 edition).