J. C. W. Lindemann vs LC-MS: Postscript

      After reading (in JCWL 8, ToC in Part 1) C.E. Luthardt's incredible quote of “The Copernican system is Truth and a triumph of the spirit!”, it was doubly sad that Ludwig Fuerbringer followed Luthardt's judgment in 1932 on the authorship of Copernicus's epitaph.  We can see how Fuerbringer's weakness, even in 1932, is partially responsible for the continued downfall of the later Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.

Concordia Commentary,  Joshua 

      Prof. (emeritus) Adolph L. Harstad, an ELS theologian, denies the Bible's plain, clear meaning of Joshua 10:13 in his commentary Joshua (CPH 2004 edition, p. 423): 

“When the text speaks of the sun and moon standing still, this does not necessarily imply that the author believed that the sun revolves around the earth instead of the reverse. Rather, it is using language that describes phenomena as they appear to us from our vantage point on the earth.”  – 

This assertion is an accommodation of the Bible to "Science" and is clear proof that the new (English) ELS is not the “little Norwegian” of its fathers Madson and Ylvisaker or even of J.A.O. Preus II.  Indeed J.A.O. Preus, while still at the ELS in 1949, spoke against the “science” of Copernicanism (see here) in a writing against the opponent of the ELS, the ELC.

LC-MS Today (Harrison's “here and now”)

      Schaum and Collver, in their 2019 CPH book Breath of God, Yet Work of Man, essentially trample on the orthodox Lutherans of "Lindemann's List". They say (Look Inside, p. 431): 

"If you trust your physician, the same science suggests that you can trust a physicist. Even if  [Einstein's] general relativity has ended geocentricism for good, the Bible remains true and Christ still has redeemed me, a lost and condemned creature."

LCMS    —     ILC     —     LLDP     —     CTSFW
Harrison    —    Collver    —    Schaum    —    Rast

They are following the exact same reasoning as the followers of Copernicanism, that "Science" has proved the Bible to be incorrect in its account of natural history.  CTS-FW President Lawrence Rast Jr. wrote the Foreword to this book, thereby lending his name to its content.  It is offered by the LC-MS to other worldwide Lutheran groups as a teaching aid, as part of their "Lutheran Leadership Development Program" (LLDP).  Although Dr. Collver's "employment ended" in March 2019, yet his (and Schaum's) book was written while he was general secretary of the International Lutheran Council (ILC) and so this book is apparently still considered LC-MS doctrine… for worldwide Lutheranism.  It is sad that the LC-MS has dug its heels in so firmly. 

“Science” over the Bible… in the seminaries, universities
      In today's modern climate of "Science" over Scripture, a writer for Notre Dame University Press, Nicholas H. Steneck, stated in 1988 the following in his book Science and Creation in the Middle Ages in regard to a naturalist that Lindemann mentioned in Part 1, Henry of Langenstein (p. 42, emphasis mine):

“Laying bare the Creator’s design brings science squarely into focus. The revealed word of itself cannot lead to a full understanding of nature. In this regard Henry would not agree with Luther, for example, when the latter discards the “needless opinions” of the philosophers and turns “to Moses as the better teacher.” Using science and the works of scientists to help interpret Scripture is not only desirable, it is necessary… Ignorance of the way things are leaves the theologian vulnerable to the attacks and ridicules of philosophers. [JCWL: “fear of being considered stupid”] If nature and Sacred Scripture cannot be reconciled, the way is left open for the rejection of the latter’s teachings—even teachings that do not pertain strictly to nature. … No apology is needed for what follows, for unless we fully understand the workings of creation, the Creator too will fall beyond our intellectual and affective grasp.”

Steneck summarizes a position that matches the doctrinal position of the LC-MS.

Luther

Copernicus

< Lindemann's Luther, with Holy Scripture

vs. 

LC-MS replacement, Copernicus? >

May the true confessors of "Lindemann's List" be a strong testimony against today's teachers of the 
LC—MS and the ELS.

[I am planning to open my original Copernicanism series to comments after several years of restricting this.]

Walther: All Reformed sects... were first Lutheran

I spoke in an earlier blog of the confusion of CPH editors on what a "sect" actually is.  It is especially troubling when they attribute their confusion to C.F.W. Walther, since he left no doubt of what constitutes a "sect".  Here is one of his more forceful statements on this subject:

Addresses and Prayers
by C.F.W. Walther
Tr. by Joel R. Baseley

"All of the sects, which have separated from the papacy, were originally Lutheran Churches. The Swiss, the French, the Dutch, the English and the Scottish, so-called Reformed sects were all originally Lutheran, and they have Luther’s Reformation to thank for whatever good things they still retain. Their first martyrs were Lutheran martyrs and were slain, decapitated, burned, entombed alive, hanged, drowned, and assassinated by poison, and the like, by the papists as Lutherans. Indeed, these sects all claim to be more purified of papistic error than the Lutheran Church, but their alleged greater purity consists of their having rejected those doctrines which they cannot, in any way, force to harmonize with their reason." – From Addresses and Prayers, by C.F.W. Walther, page 13, translation by Pastor Joel Baseley from the German Ansprachen und Gebete, page 11.

Today the sects rarely, if ever, thank Luther's Reformation... maybe even criticize and condemn Luther?   Well then we see how much they have departed even from their own roots.

Oh, but what about those who would call themselves by the name "Lutheran", yes, even today's LC-MS?  Didn't they condemn Luther and don't they now even speak of the Bible as a "plastic text"?  Oh, now who's calling who a "sect"?

What is a sect? (Rev. Schaum against Walther/Pieper)

I want to address another area that Walther covered in my recent post in Part 6b where he gave the definition of a "sect" in his Die Rechte Gestalt... book (The Form of a Christian Congregation):

C.F.W. Walther

The communions which have become guilty of a partial falling away from the pure doctrine of the Word of God are rightly called heterodox churches.  Such heterodox communions are called both churches and also sects, but in a different respect.  They  are called churches insofar as God’s Word and Sacrament are not entirely denied in their midst, but both are still essentially present, and hence true children of God are still to be found also in these communions.  But insofar as these communions persistently err in fundamental doctrines of God’s Word and have caused divisions in Christendom they are called sects, i.e., heretical communions.

The term "sect" is used quite frequently in the world.  News agencies like to toss around the words "sect", "fundamentalists", or "fundamentalism" in their reporting of various "religious" news happenings around the world, whether it is about Christianity or not.  But Walther's use has little to do with the way the world understands these terms.  Walther is quite clear about the terms heterodox and sect.  A sect is clearly all those churches who left the true Evangelical/Protestants (i.e. Lutherans) of Luther's day and divided the church – all  those who deny the Gospel purely preached.

Now compare this to footnote #2 (page xxiv) of the "Historical Introduction" to Walther's For the Life of the Church: A Practical Edition of Pastor Walther's Prayers and Addresses (on sale for $5.00) by General Editor

Rev. Charles P. Schaum:

"Most of the addresses [of Walther] are based on a Bible text; they point out to the members their duties and privileges as Christians as well as the great blessings of pure doctrine and freedom of conscience that the Lutheran Church of America enjoys as compared with the American sects² and the state churches of Europe. That very fact assures to these addresses permanent worth; and if they are used, they will be of far-reaching blessing to our congregations.

[footnote] #2.  It was common in the Missouri Synod to refer to churches outside the sphere of Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, German Evangelicals, and Dutch Reformed as sects on the basis of their doctrinal errors. Such included the myriad offshoots of Methodism, various sorts of Baptists, and the generic Arminian religiosity of revivalists. The LCMS still regarded them as Christians despite their errors because they retained the basic doctrines of the Trinity, the person and work of Jesus Christ, and the need for salvation from the sinful human condition. Cults and heretics like Unitarians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others were rejected as false religions whose adherents could not hope to be saved unless they were converted to Christianity."

Rev. Schaum, who is quite a scholar, claims the term "sect" used by Walther (and Pieper) did not include those who call themselves "Episcopalians, Presbyterians, German Evangelicals, and Dutch Reformed".  I would think that with all his reading in theology, with his great knowledge of "early Missouri" and with his knowledge of languages, he would know better, for nowhere does Walther or Pieper hint at excluding these church bodies from the term "sect".  In fact they lamented all the "sects" of America ("the land of the sects") who caused great confusion.  How the sects bothered Pieper when they wanted to produce movies about the Bible and asked his advice.

Perhaps Rev. Schaum should re-write the Wikipedia article on Arminianism to say that it wasn't based on a Dutch Reformed theologian... surely not because the Dutch Reformed are not a "sect" according to him.

Rev. Schaum represents himself, yes all CPH, as masters of the theology of Walther.  Unfortunately he has a gaping hole in his true knowledge of Walther... and so the readers of several recent CPH publications of translated Walther's works have to cut through a minefield of confusion on Lutheranism.  My suggestion is that readers gloss over every attempt by editors or translators to judge Walther ... and just read Walther!