Hoenecke 2: Schaller's intro

      This continues from Part 1 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series repristinating the praise of the fathers of the Synodical Conference, especially Adolf Hoenecke.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      It does not matter what Franz Pieper wrote, whether he was attacking errors of opponents or refraining from publicly attacking brethren in the Synodical Conference, today's “historians” either criticize or question Franz Pieper writings.  Whether Rev. Todd Peperkorn (p. 309) or Prof. Charles Arand or others of the LC-MS, or writers for Concordia Historical Institute, or modern historians within today's WELS, Franz Pieper is now almost universally discounted and disdained.  His Dogmatics is being phased out, eliminated.  But Pieper also gave the highest praise ever for fellow leaders of the Synodical Conference.  In his Christliche Dogmatik, he could not resist giving substantial space to show just how glorious the true unity of the Spirit was by republishing portions from Hoenecke's Dogmatik (see Part 1 for ref.).
      Now I begin my "repristination" of the fathers. As I studied carefully the original German texts and compared them to the available English translations, I discovered that several portions had been omitted by previous translators and so I decided not to copy the existing English translations but would publish my own translation with the missing portions restored.  Again, the following is the full uncut text from Pieper's original. — In this Part 1, Pieper lets Prof./President John Schaller introduce his subject.

From Franz Pieper's Christliche Dogmatik, vol. 1, pp. 206, 208-211; translation by BackToLuther, not  from Christian Dogmatics, vol. 1, pp. 171 n230, 173-174. Green highlighted portions were not in the English versions and were restored from the German and translated for the first time.

————————————

As far as Hönecke's influence on the Wisconsin Synod is concerned, he is described by Prof. J. Schaller († 1920) as the man through whom the Wisconsin Synod came to a clear doctrinal position.

Prof. John Schaller
Hoenecke's historian

Schaller says, “It was then (when the Wisconsin Synod still belonged to the  General Council) that the Wisconsin Synod should be provided with an unequivocal doctrinal position and clarify its relationship with other American church bodies as well as with the German Church. At that time it belonged to the General Council, which in its commitment to Lutheran doctrine was much more resolute than the General Synod, but because of its unionist practice it displeased the resolute Lutherans who belonged to the Wisconsin Synod. On the other side was the Missouri Synod, with its unequivocal commitment to the Symbolic books of the Lutheran Church and its firm testimony against those who did not take the Lutheran Confession seriously in practice. At the proceedings, which concerned the question of confession, the young pastor Hönecke was active and soon also took a decisive part. For he had thrown himself into the study of the old Lutheran dogmatists and quickly not only gained a thorough acquaintance with their doctrinal position, but also gained the conviction that any unionistic fraternization not only denies the Lutheran Confessions but also the Gospel itself. His influence contributed greatly to the dissociation of the Wisconsin Synod from the General Council, and he made a strong stand when negotiations with the Missouri Synod were concluded in 1868, which resulted in the mutual recognition of the two bodies. That is why he is also one of those who deserves to be kept in good memory as the founder of the Synodical Conference, which was created in 1870 [sic - 1872].” (In the Foreword of Hoenecke’s Dogmatik, p. IX f; English translation Ev.-Lutheran Dogmatics, vol. 1, p. xix, NPH preface)

- - - - - - - - - (cont'd in Part 3) - - - - - - - - - - -
      It is striking how Schaller highlights the fact that Hoenecke had “thrown himself into the study of the old Lutheran dogmatists”, an activity of Walther that typically draws scorn from some against him, indeed an activity that is ridiculed by… J.P. Koehler.  Koehler actually attempts to set the Lutheran dogmaticians against a true exegesis of Holy Scripture (History, p. 216).  This omitted portion is NOT publicized by today's WELS teachers who publicly raise the study of “exegesis” as superior over the field of “dogmatics” (ref. their Wauwatosa Theology book series).  Perhaps as an oversight, the English translation of Hoenecke's Dogmatik v. 1 by James Langebartels also does not even contain this portion. [2018-01-12: see this 1978 CTQ essay by Henry P. Hamann Jr. for examples of misuse of "exegesis".]
      Some other modern historians may point out that Franz Pieper never mentions in his Dogmatik the names of the other Wisconsin theologians of the so-called “Wauwatosa Theology”.  It is evident to me that Franz Pieper's hope for the future of the Wisconsin Synod lay not with his brother August, certainly not with J.P. Koehler, but with John Schaller.  He is the one that F. Pieper honored by quoting him. —  In the next Part 3, ...

Pastor F. E. Pasche: Prof. J. Schaller's testimony; Copernicanism Part 19a

[2019-05-17: see more references to Engelder below; 2017-02-10: See added note at bottom]
      This continues from Part 18g-2 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.

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

Pastor F. E. Pasche
(younger years)

      After completing the blog series on Dr. Carl Schöpffer's last great book against Copernicanism, I want to return again to America, to the spiritual heartland, to Missouri.  And this time I want to reveal more of the pastor that has only been briefly covered in several previous blogs – Pastor Frederick Emil Pasche (1872-1954).  Both Robert Schadewald and Dr. Gerardus Bouw give him some coverage as a prominent proponent against Copernicanism.  

      I have used information from Pasche's books in previous blogs:

1. Walther's sermon which spoke of the Sun's orbit around the Earth
2. 1886 Synodical Conference essay against Copernicanism
3. Lehre und Wehre essay by "W.M." in 1898
4. Der Lutheraner article in 1878 (by Pastor Köstering)

Robert Schadewald reports the following of Pasche:

Perhaps the most prolific LCMS geocentrist was Frederick E. Pasche (1872–1954).  Pastor Pasche wrote two substantial geocentric books in German—Christliche Weltanschauung.  Kosmogonie und Astronomie (Christian Worldview: Cosmogony and Astronomy) in 1904 and Bibel und Astronomie (Bible and Astronomy) in 1906.  In 1915, Pasche published a 49-page pamphlet entitled Fifty Reasons: Copernicus or the Bible. 

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

      To begin my sub-series on Pasche, I want to start out backwards by publishing the Foreword to the last of his publications -- Fifty Reasons: Copernicus or the Bible from 1915.  Why?  Because it shows that Pasche was not unknown in the Synodical Conference in the early Twentieth Century.  And this essay applies to all of Pasche's writings against Copernicanism. 

      The Foreword was written by a notable professor of the old Wisconsin Synod (WELS) Prof. John Schaller, of whom we have heard good things earlier.  It appears to me that Schaller may have been the only teacher in the Synodical Conference, besides Franz Pieper, who actually had anything published against Copernicanism in the 20th century. [NOTE: See added note at bottom ***] As that century proceeded, it is notable that there were progressively fewer publications defending against Copernicanism, except of course by Rev. Wallace McLaughlin.  Because of its forthrightness and importance, I am taking the liberty of publishing this Foreword to the world.  Thankfully, it was written in English and so required no translation work on my part (all highlighting is mine):

FOREWORD
to F.E. Pasche's Fifty Reasons: Copernicus or the Bible
by Prof. John Schaller

Prof. John Schaller
Wisconsin Synod

The author of this booklet has risked a tilt with Science. That is a venturesome undertaking in these days of ours where Science reigns supreme, a veritable goddess before whom millions of faithful worshipers bow their heads in childlike trust. Science has become the masterword to conjure with because it claims to have laid down a firm foundation for a Weltanschauung which happily eliminates all those troublous concepts of sin and guilt, of eternity and a responsibility to an almighty God. Whoever dares to touch this beloved and admired idol with an unfriendly hand, with the nefarious purpose of exhibiting its brazen worthlessness, must expect to be caught up in the vortex of a crushing whirlwind of fanatical vituperation. For Science with its highpriests and devotees is intolerant to the last degree.

But let it be remembered that our author is at odds only with Science; he has no quarrel with science which is content with a lowercase initial. Just plain science is a valuable aid to man since it diligently assembles knowable facts and marshals them into some logical order for purposes of study and application. Its domain is that of observation, and it rests content with recording what it actually sees and hears. It goes no farther beyond the individual perceptions than to express in general, abstract terms a summary of known facts announcing the so-called “laws” which may be deduced from observed occurrences. Plain science is continuously reaching forward into the region of the unknown, seeking to increase the actual store of human knowledge; but as it never pretends to know what is unknown, so does it never attempt to overstep the boundaries which are set between that which is knowable and that which is naturally unknowable. Briefly, just plain science is real knowledge, not fancy.

But Science, the fetish of the modern world, reincarnation of the ancient idol Philosophy, scorns the boundaries which will forever mark the limit of plain science. From some bare foothold in fact, Science vaults into the saddle of that spirited steed Imagination and sets out to uncover the veiled mysteries of the universe. This adventure would be more promising if the steed were of pure pedigree. But no highpriest of Science could ever command the services of an undefiled imagination; the steed is alway a sideling jade, variously afflicted with pantheism, materialism, evolutionism, atheism, or a combination of these ailments. Thus every foray is doomed to failure at the outset. This fact, though sufficiently vexatious in all conscience, would not necessarily discredit those attempts at reaching the unattainable, if it were generally understood that the fanciful flights of Science were meant for pastime only. But it is an unfortunate habit of Science to proclaim as facts the alleged discoveries made in the trackless realms of fancy. Oh yes, Science will always tell us that this and that is an hypothesis; but Scientists and their unthinking followers, quickly losing sight of the difference between the finest hypothesis and the most insignificant fact, will just as surely insist, after a little while, that what entered the world as a guess becomes a fact by many repetitions. To mention but one instance. The hypothesis of evolutionism, having been adopted by Scientists generally, is not only used as a fact, but insisted upon as such, though to this day no investigator has been able to observe a single case of actual evolution. Hence plain science is compelled to record habitual untruthfulness as one of the deplorable characteristics of Science.

While plain science is not, and never can become, dangerous to a Christian believer, Science has been determinedly at work to overthrow the foundations of faith, and has succeeded in deceiving thousands to their eternal detriment. An accomplishment of which Science is especially proud is the successful destruction of faith in the Scriptures as the real revelation of God. Disguised as astronomy and geology, Science has demonstrated triumphantly that the very first chapters of the Bible contain nothing but myths, which are of no greater historical value than the cosmogony of any pagan people. This was the inevitable result of scientific speculation. No mind imbued with the errors of pantheism, deism, or monism, could by any possibility reconstruct the history of creation along the lines laid down in the record of which God is the author. It matters not that all the real facts of astronomy and geology agree very well with the Mosaic presentation and the point of view prevailing in the whole Bible; since Science has decreed that these facts shall be utilized for deductions based upon other points of view, and has declared its deductions to be facts, thousands of deluded sinners have been led to discard as antiquated the entire revelation of God in the Bible, including the Savior and His salvation.

Thus, since Science (not plain science, mind you!) is at war with the fundamental doctrines of Christian faith, it follows that all true Christians must be at war with Science. They cannot sit complacently by while the vain imaginings of the princes of this world are offered as true answers to the most vital questions with which every human being is concerned. It is in this spirit that our author makes his attack upon Science. Sure of his foothold in the inerrant Word of God, he, in particular, aims to show up the fatal weakness of the vaunted deductions of Astronomy (not astronomy, please!). The reader may not agree with the writer in every argument. He may, for instance, admit the possibility that the statements of Scripture referring to the sun as a moving body, were not meant to say that the sun does really move (though such an admission is much like playing with fire!). But he will surely agree that the writer has successfully arraigned Science for untruthfulness in allowing the impression to prevail that its astronomical hypotheses have attained the dignity of facts, whereas they can never be established as such. If it is too much to hope that this brief treatise will actually bring back some erring hearts to certain faith in the Bible, it will surely be welcomed as a fearless witness of the truth by those who, though certain of their footing in Holy Scripture, are yet conscious of the unholy power of Science to corrupt the heart of a believer.

Wauwatosa, Wis., March 27, 1915.

J. Schaller.

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

      It was most refreshing for me to again run across this writing from the dear Prof. Schaller.  May God bless it to His glory!
      I will comment more on Pasche's booklet 50 Reasons later.  But first I want to cover his earlier books that were published in the German language... in Part 19b.

[2019-05-17: In 1944, Prof. Th. Engelder clearly defended against Copernicanism in his book Scripture Cannot Be Broken, for example p. 89-91:

"All right, they say, let us remain in the domain of common science, physical science, and the Bible is wrong because science teaches that the earth rotates on its axis, etc., and Josh. 10:13 should have stated: “ And the earth stood still.” — Wrong again! Copernicanism indeed teaches that; but everybody except the sciolists knows that the system of Copernicus is based on a — hypothesis. The argument that Scripture is not inspired because of its alleged conflict with some hypothetical assumption has a most flimsy basis. And there is no reason in the world why we should decree that Joshua employed phenomenal and not scientific language."

He also continued his defense on pp. 142-143, 145, 153, 156-159, 161, 215 (also "Kopernicus")
2017-02-10: I have discovered that in 1913, Prof. Th. Engelder defended against Copernicanism in a serialized essay in Lehre und Wehre.  Search for "Kopernikanismus" in Google Books here – pp. 70 and 220 are indicated]

God's chg of heart-6f: WELS opposes? Not all did...

[2017-03-13 - revised, see text in red below]
     This continues from Part 6e (Table of Contents in Part 1, Curia essay in Part 6b) concerning J.T. Mueller's 1934 CTM essay defending Franz Pieper's seminal teaching on God's change of heart.  But who is Mueller defending against?  In this Part 6f, I assess the situation with the WELS in general, not just this doctrine of God's Change of Heart.

- - - - - - - - - -

We have seen all 3 WELS theologians, Hoenecke, Becker, and Meyer, attempt to refute the teaching of God's Change of Heart by appealing to passages speaking of God's love.  But Franz Pieper decisively answered this in his essay The Reconciliation Of Man With God, page 76:

The third objection is that God has revealed His love toward men by sending His Son and, in particular, by giving His Son into death. “God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son,” John 3:16. “God commendeth His love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us,” Rom. 5:8. For this reason, so men claim, we cannot speak of the appeasing of God’s wrath through the  death of His Son. Our rejoinder is: According to Scripture the sending of Christ into the world and His death on the cross reveal both facts — God’s love as well as His wrath. When Scripture declares that, when we were still enemies of God, we were reconciled to Him by the death of His Son, Rom. 5:10, it means that through Christ’s death the wrath of God toward guilty mankind has been appeased. But this same fact also manifested God’s love; for it was His great love that moved Him to satisfy His righteousness through the death of His Son, which was impossible for us to accomplish. “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins,” 1 John 4:10. [my emphasis]

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

What am I to think of the WELS now?  The WELS was a treasured member of the old Synodical Conference.  Here are some evidences of why the WELS was a valued member:

John Schaller

1) Rick Curia admits that another great teacher of the old Wisconsin Synod, John Schaller († 1920), seemed to teach similarly to Franz Pieper in one respect, although Curia gives no concrete examples.  But I have just now extracted the following from Schaller's Biblical Christology on "Reconciliation":

"...the 'change' ... is a change into another state of mind, the change from a God deeply offended by our sin to a God at peace with the world. The propitiatory work of Christ effects the permanent reconciliation of God. Announcing this fact, the gospel is the word of reconciliation. To preach this gospel is the ministry of reconciliation enjoined upon the church. The message proclaims “the peace of God which passeth all understanding” (Php 4:7; Ro 5:1), not the feeling of restful peace in the hearts of men, but the peace prevailing in the heart of God."  – page 163

Hmmm... this passage does not sound quite like the teaching of Hoenecke, Becker, or Meyer regarding a change in God.  The words "status" and "relationship" are missing here.  Schaller speaks of "a change into another state of mind", "a God at peace with the world", "the peace prevailing in the heart of God".  This comes much closer to the actual meaning of the Word of God.  Schaller may have not used the exact words that Franz Pieper used, but he comes close.  Could it be that Prof. John Schaller sensed that he needed to be more forceful in proclaiming the "Reconciliation" as a true "Minister of Christ", and so he wrote the words in this paragraph as well as he did.

2) In the later years of the Synodical Conference, before its breakup, the WELS worked mightily to convince its larger sibling, the LC-MS, that it was going on the wrong path in many ways.  One can read of this in my Timeline blog posts, Part 1 & 2. One can also read of this in Mark Braun's A Tale of Two Synods.  I read in Curia's essay of the many ways in which the WELS taught and defended the doctrine of Universal, Objective Justification (UOJ).  Especially E.H. Wendland is noted for his wonderful defense of UOJ (here and here) in 1951 and 1954 when the discussion on the Doctrine of Justification was at its peak.

3)  One of the more stirring examples of the strength of the WELS was this:

"...leading scholars of the Bible take some of the chief passages on objective justification and flatly deny that there is such a thing" – WELS Tract. No. 3: Every Sinner Declared Righteous, 1954, page 5 (Significant History..., Endnote 224)

This is a wonderfully clear judgment by the old WELS over the travesty of the old Ohio Synod's "greatest exegete" R.C.H. Lenski, who ridiculed UOJ.

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

But Rick Curia presents his own case, and apparently that of the newer WELS, that (paraphrasing):

Leading scholars of the Bible from the WELS take some of the chief passages on God's Change of Heart and flatly deny that there is such a thing.

I must thank Rick Curia in at least one respect – he pointed out this issue and brought to light the wonderful essay of Prof. J.T. Mueller (that I published in this blog series),  even if he rejects God's Change of Heart.  But this whole blog series is dedicated to the blessed memory of Prof. J.T. Mueller.
= = = = = = = = = = =

==>> To today's WELS:

You seem to find yourself in uncomfortable company, if (former) Pastor Rick Nicholas Curia is correct in his judgment.  In January 1983, Rick Curia said (here):

Whether one describes this changed relationship anthropopathically, as a change that took place in God's heart (Walther, Stöckhardt, Pieper, Schaller and the Missouri Synod in general), which has biblical support because the Bible often speaks of God in much the same way; or, certainly more "logically" on the basis of God's immutability, as a change in the status of sinful mankind now as a result of Christ's work of redemption (Hönecke, Lenski--even though he refuses to equate universal reconciliation with universal justification--Meyer, and most Wisconsin Synod pastors today), really doesn't make a great deal of difference. Both are helpful in explaining the change that took place in a way our human minds can begin to grasp it. God, who hated the sinful world has now reconciled the sinful world to himself....
Who is correct --Hoenecke or Pieper? I say, take your pick; and this seems to have been the consistent attitude of the members of the Synodical Conference (although I am also certain that there were strong preferences on either side!) Hoenecke may appeal more to us for logical reasons, but Pieper's position is also defensible on both Scriptural and logical grounds.

Curia has identified this same teaching to be the teaching at the Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary (WLS).  Will you, WLS, now deny this?  Yes WELS, you seem to be using the same arguments as the erring German theologians', such as Ihmels, arguments from reason.  Ihmels spoke of only a change in the "relationship" between God and man, you speak of only a change of the "status" or "relationship" of man before God, while both Ihmels and now WELS reject the teaching of the change in God's heart, at least to some degree or another.  Only the teaching of the great John Schaller, in his book Biblical Christology, keeps my faith from faltering as he does not follow Hoenecke's weakness (like J.P. Meyer) on this critical teaching.

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

There is a term used by today's WELS in their Statement of Beliefs, Justification #2, now obsolete which says of "unbelievers" that they "forfeit the forgiveness won for me by Christ" (John 8:24) [What the Bible and Lutherans teach - NEW VERSION (WayBack)- see next paragraph note].  The term "forfeit" can be properly understood, but in a certain sense it could be misunderstood.  If it is understood as though I have rejected the forgiveness, then it is properly understood.  If it is understood as though God had withdrawn His forgiveness, then it not correct. When I turned away from God, the God of my youth, the God of my Lutheran training and upbringing, it was I who rejected the gift of forgiveness in unbelief...  God did not withdraw His forgiveness (and so cause me to forfeit it) because of my unbelief.  No, it is God who is faithful.  It was I who had rejected Him!  In this light, the WELS should reconsider the wording of their Statement of Beliefs so that there can be absolutely no misunderstanding.
[Revised! The latest 2017 version (WayBack) of WELS beliefs statement has removed the reference to the "forfeit the forgiveness won for me by Christ" THANK YOU WELS!]
Again, let me make a clear confession of this now before all the world:
When I left the God of my youth, the God who was presented to me in the Lutheran training of my youth, from Luther's Catechism and from Bible teaching, it was NOT God who caused me to leave Him.  No, the message that brought me back to Him was that He had never left me, He was always there, as I envisioned, in my back pocket where I had stuffed Him, ... He never, ever stopped wanting that I cling to Him in faith.  And it was purely by His Word, The Word Of His Grace, that I was brought back to Him... by the Lutheran Church from above.

What Is Christianity?
And Other Essays
by Francis (Franz) Pieper

As an antidote to this OLD aberration of the WELS that confused the clear meaning of 2 Cor. 5:19, the reader should now read (as I have now re-read) Franz Pieper's 1916 essay "The Reconciliation of Man with God" (Southern Illinois District of the Missouri Synod).  This essay was the third of six essays translated by the dear J.T. Mueller and published in the book of essays entitled What Is Christianity? And Other Essays.  It is available from CPH and Amazon.  On page 62, Pieper wrote:

But wherein does reconciliation consist? In other words, what does reconciliation involve? God’s reconciliation of the world does not mean that men have changed their attitude toward God, as these words (2 Cor. 5:19) have erroneously been explained; for men, ignorant of God's reconciliation, could never change their attitude toward Him.

No, the reconciliation of the world consists in this, that God “in Christ,” or for Christ’s sake, changed His own sentiment toward man. St. Paul writes: “Not imputing their trespasses unto them."

I believe in the forgiveness of sins!  (Article III, Apostles Creed) Amen! Amen!
= = = = = = = = = = =

In the next Part 6g, I conclude this whole series by going back to Rick Curia, formerly a pastor of the WELS.