The Great Debate: Noland, Montgomery vs Walther/Pieper, John 10:35; Pieper’s Conversion and Election

      There is to be a notable debate to be held October 15, 2016, between Dr. John Warwick Montgomery and Dr Jeffrey Kloha, Provost and professor at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis.  The sponsoring agency is The Lutheran Concerns Association which publishes their Lutheran Clarion newsletter.  This blog has already pointed out the anti-Christian errors of Dr. Kloha, errors that no Christian can accept.  But this posting is intended to defend against Kloha's opponent, Dr. Montgomery, and Montgomery's defender Pastor Martin Noland. Both claim the higher ground as the better defenders of Holy Scripture than... C.F.W. Walther and Franz Pieper.  But is this so?
      The Lutheran Concerns Association claims in it's home page that it upholds the Scriptures.  Yet it publishes the essay of Pastor Martin Noland which attempts to drive a wedge between the teaching of Pieper and Walther.  In their September 2016 Newsletter (Archive)Noland writes:

...Pieper belittled the external evidences for the divinity and canonicity of Scripture on the basis of a distinction between fides humana and fides divina. I can’t find that distinction in C.F.W. Walther or the J. W. Baier (1647-95) dogmatics used by and edited by C.F.W. Walther. I think that Pieper and his orthodox peers developed that distinction through conversations or debates with the “mediating theologians” of the late 19th century like F. H. R. Franck (1827-94) of the Erlangen school of Lutheran theology; see Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 1:110-129.

So Pastor Noland, who is published also in Christian News, and on the websites SteadfastLutherans.org and ConcordiaTheology.org, would propose that his objection to Pieper's teaching on Holy Scripture is supported by Walther.  Poor Pieper!  How could anyone trust his teaching now that Noland has identified Walther against him, especially on the matter of how we are to trust our Bible? —
      This desire among LC-MS "conservatives" to drive wedges is most disturbing.  But let me assure the reader that Noland's "wedge" is a "fiction", as Pieper would call it, since Pieper followed Walther in all matters, and made sure his students fully understood it.  Pieper gloried in Walther's tenacious defense of Holy Scripture and its Divinity!
      To prove Pieper's faithfulness to Walther, I want to publicize Pieper's comment on Walther in one of his major works, a work of true ecumenism.  In 1913 there were major discussions among American Lutherans, particularly Norwegian-American Lutherans, regarding disputed doctrines.  Because the "Missourians" were constantly referred to in these discussions, Dr. Franz Pieper wrote a comprehensive book to delineate clearly what was Scripture's teaching.  Its translated English title became Conversion and Election, A Plea for a United Lutheranism in America. (German original: Zur Einigung...)  Pieper referred to Walther 90 times!  This book is a gold mine of clear Christian teaching... and a partial basis for the Brief Statement of 1932.
  On pages 52-53, Pieper discusses Walther in relation to the old dogmaticians of the 17th century:

Walther’s real watchword was:

“Back to Luther and the sixteenth century!” 

So how is it that Pastor Noland would drive a wedge between the teaching of Walther and Pieper?  Does the reader really believe Pastor Noland on this point? –  To "honor" Noland's essay, I want to publish the full polished text of one of the rare books where Pieper's original German book was translated into English by his own Synod.  All hyperlinks and highlighting are mine.

This document may be accessed directly here.  Open this document and search for "Walther", "Luther", and "fiction".  Then carefully read the whole book for one of the clearest, most ecumenical writings in modern Church History.  I have spent the past month reviewing this marvelous book once again.  – I will likely come back to comment further on this writing from Pieper's pen but before I leave it, I would share a few more quotes:

   p. 70: The old dogmaticians teach: Every Christian can and ought to be infallibly certain, in faith, regarding his election, because, believing the divine promises of grace, he knows that his preservation in the faith does not rest with him, but with God.
   p. 93: Walther is the theologian of the bare Scriptures (nuda Scriptura), i.e., of the Scriptures without “gloss,” or interpretation. This, and only this, affords an explanation of Walther’s amazing certainty...
   p. 94: By asserting, that the clear texts, containing the whole of Christian doctrine, must, in turn, be made still clearer, the Scriptures are knocked into a confused, disjointed mass. If any would “teach” or “fight” with an interpretation, instead of the “nude” Scriptures, Luther designates the attempt an absurdity.
   p. 97: He (Walther) insisted that never an exegesis, but always the naked text, without exegesis, must be the determinative factor in the heart and conscience of the theologian.
   p. 99: Especially with regard to Walther we maintain that he was preeminently a “Bible theologian,” according to Luther’s definition: “Whoever is well grounded and experienced in the text will become a good and efficient theologian; for one verse or text from the Bible counts for more than many authors and glosses.”

So much for Pieper's weakness on defending the divinity of Holy Scripture.  Oh, and by the way, Walther and Luther have the same "weakness" as Pieper.
      A pertinent question concerning the October 15 Montgomery-Kloha debate is why no other seminary professor in the LC-MS is challenging Kloha's position towards Sacred Scripture?  Why must the defense against Prof. Kloha come from Dr. John Warwick Montgomery who is weak because of his dependence on "apologetics" and fosters a false notion that Biblical inerrancy was stronger outside the Lutheran Church?  I will not further challenge Prof. Kloha's obvious errors in this blog post.  Rather I would challenge his opponent, Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, who is weak at pointing out the errors of today's "evangelicals", the "evangelicals" who rationalize Holy Scripture in their differences from the teaching of the Lutheran Church... chiefly on the Doctrine of Justification.  Does no one in the "Lutheran Concerns Association" recognize that the greatest antagonists against realizing their goal of upholding Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions lies in their midst?
      In C.F.W. Walther's The Proper Distinction of Law and Gospel (pg 88; Law and Gospel: How to Read and Apply the Bible p. 98), he said:

God requires, not only that we love His Word, but also that we tremble at it, that is, that we sincerely dread to deviate from a single letter of the divine Word, that we do not dare to add anything to it or take anything from it. We are to be ready to shed our blood rather than yield a tittle of God’s Word.

Dear God!  My faith is so weak that I cannot accept the weak defense of Holy Scripture by the Dr. John Warwick Montgomery who depends on apologetics... I must run to the true teachers of the Lutheran Church – C.F.W. Walther AND Franz Pieper.  I believe: The Scripture Cannot Be Broken. John 10:35.

[2017-04-01: Addendum -- The above Conversion and Election book is referred to in Pieper's Christian Dogmatics, vol. 1, p. 158 (Zur Einigung) & 176]

What today's Church lacks (Pieper's Dogmatik)

      Continuing my project of presenting the full text of Franz Pieper's original Christliche Dogmatik.... (Vol. 1a fully proofed, proofing Vol 1b...)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      From page 410 of Volume 1 (or page 340 of English edition), my translation; underlining in original German text:

Even if we did not have all the newer text-critical work, but rather had to rely on the textus receptus, on which both Luther's translation of the Bible as well as the English Authorized Version [KJV] are substantially based, so the Christian Church of our time would not yet be poorer in its knowledge of divine truth. The Church of our time lacks not a fixed biblical text, but rather lacks faith in the text sufficiently fixed.

         – President Franz Pieper, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
If anyone is reading any other theological work produced in the last 85 years since Pieper's death in 1931, that theological work is not as good (or is detrimental) for producing and sustaining the Christian faith (i.e. the true faith founded on the prophets and apostles) as ... Franz Pieper's Christliche Dogmatik (or Christian Dogmatics).

Luther's Chronology, Part 6e (Barr – Textual variations / criticism)

In Part 6d of this series (Table of Contents in Part 1 here), I reviewed the use of "theoretical schematism" of Professor James Barr († 2006) to criticize biblical chronology.
Again, these reviews of Barr make use of his four essays:

1. UBC – Ussher and Biblical Chronology, 1985 (archived here)
2. BCLS – Biblical Chronology: Legend Or Science?, 1987 (archived here)
3. LBC – Luther and Biblical Chronology, 1990 (archived here)
4. PSC – Pre-scientific Chronology, 1999 (archived here)

In this Part 6e, I will cover Barr's use of textual criticism, and so-called textual variations.  I highlight in yellow the pertinent wording and in some cases I follow with some comments of mine directly afterward highlighted in green.

UBC, pg 583:

In the seventeenth century, and indeed in Ussher's own time, a further new discovery [beyond Septuagint Greek Bible] had still more emphasized the question of textual variation. The Samaritan Bible contained only the Pentateuch, and in Hebrew, though in a script different from that of the Jewish text. Made known to the west through a discovery in Damascus in 1616, it immediately achieved considerable renown. Many scholars thought it superior to the accepted Jewish text.

*** "Textual variation" – a favorite subject of "critical" writers like Professor Barr — we can't be sure about our Bible because of these.  But not so for believers, for they have received the Word of God through the "received text", especially Luther's Bible and KJV.  The Bible was written that we "... might believe that Jesus is the Christ" (John 20:31)  Professor Barr and all modern theologians stumble on their "scholarly", "scientific" judgments.  ***

UBC, pg 584:

In ... 1583, Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609) published his de emendatione temporum, the foundation of scientific chronology. He was a Calvinist, and professor at Geneva, later at Leiden, and an enormous scholar in classical and historical learning, in textual criticism and in the critique of sources.

*** Ok, I should be shaking in my boots, me – a Bible believer, at such an enormous scholar in textual criticism... a Calvinist at that! What would I do without "scientific chronology"! ***

UBC, pg 588:

Would this, then, not have suggested that the true chronology of biblical times should be built upon the Septuagint's figures all the way through? Not according to Ussher. He adhered to the Jewish Hebrew text (not the Samaritan) throughout, and where the New Testament contradicted the obvious meaning of it he used his interpretative wiles to explain it in agreement with the New Testament.

*** Here Barr has a point that Ussher is indeed inconsistent.  Not so Luther, who held to the OT chronology where it differed from a NT passage because the OT chronology was the source of chronology, not the NT which sometimes followed the Greek Septuagint. I suppose one could say there is value in reading Professor Barr's judgments but why not just read the Bible... and Martin Luther?  ***

UBC, pg 589:

... out of the 430 years found by simple addition from the books of Kings, 58 years have to be disposed of as cases of overlapping, results of textual mistakes, theoretical schematism or pure historical errors of the sources.

UBC, pg 598:

Ussher stuck steadfastly to the Hebraica veritas, the truth as expressed in the traditional Hebrew text.... Ussher's chronology could be directly attached to the English Bible that everyone used and read in conjunction with it. No system which appealed at times to the Septuagint or the Samaritan [text] could have had that sort of acceptance.

*** Maybe Barr does not agree with this?  Maybe the Septuagint and Samaritan texts had some truth where they differed from the Hebrew text? He does not say it here but see next item... ***

UBC, pg 601:

It is probable that in the last stages of the development of the Old Testament chronological interests became more lively, and that some of the data we now have in our Bibles are products of late editing and comparable with the adjustments we see in the Samaritan and Greek texts. ...

UBC, pg 605, appendix a.:

The figures of the kingdom [of Judah] must be accounted for through textual errors, or through overlaps and coregencies, or on the grounds that they were adjusted to fit a theoretical chronological schematism. 

*** "textual errors" and "theoretical chronological schematism" – Barr's devices to make the Bible believable (?) ***

BCLS, pg 6, pdf page 7:

It is likely that these various sets of figures imply that in fairly late times attempts were still being made to adjust and realign the chronology of the Old Testament. This is confirmed by a work like the Book of Jubilees, which is a rewrite of Genesis-Exodus, coming from the third or second century BC.

BCLS, pg 6, pdf page 7:

...at that time [time of the Flood] the last touches were added to the Book of Genesis; moreover, the special place of Enoch in the genealogy of Genesis cannot be unconnected with the Book of Enoch, a 2nd-century BC work concerned with astronomy and heavenly things.

*** "late times attempts ... to adjust ... the Old Testament" and "last touches added to Genesis" clearly shows Barr's complete failure as a Christian theologian since he denies the Bible was written by the Prophets themselves. ***

BCLS, pg 6, pdf page 8:

[Paul in Gal. 3:17] put in the exact figure of 430 because he knew it very well: it was familiar and obvious to him. Moreover, no one today will doubt that in this he followed the text of the Greek and the Samaritan, both of which made the figure of 430 in Exod. 12:40 cover not only the time of  Israel in Egypt but also its time in Canaan beforehand, i.e. going right back to Abraham’s entry into the land.

***  Barr basically says no reasonable person would say that the Bible does not contain an error here.  This is a direct attack on the veracity of Scripture for he is using Scripture against Scripture.  Franz Pieper responds thus (Christian Dogmatics volume 1, p. 251):

We are of the opinion that human reason, if it be reasonable, must refrain from explaining the departure of the New Testament quotation from the wording of the Old Testament by assuming "mistakes" or "slips of memory" in the holy writers. There is but one explanation: the Holy Ghost is speaking through the Apostles and is "taking liberties" with His own Word. And as the apparent contradictions in the Scriptures prove that the Scriptures are not a fabrication of designing men, so particularly the manner in which the Evangelists and Apostles quote the Old Testament is a powerful proof that they have not spoken and written of themselves, not by purely human deliberation, but that they wrote by inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

BCLS, pg 10-11, pdf page 11:

Another factor which brought chronological questions into the limelight at the time was the discovery, in 1616, of the Samaritan text of the Pentateuch. It was widely noted for its different chronological figures from the standard Jewish text; and many people thought that the Samaritan was in this respect the better. ... another, but different,text in the original language, and thus presented a new challenge.

BCLS, pg 11, pdf page 13:

... the existence of variant texts, of which the Samaritan, being in actual Hebrew and of ancient repute (its alphabet was exotic and more ancient in history than that normally used by Jews), was the most powerful.

BCLS, pg 11, pdf page 13:

One could say that the Masoretic text must be right, but for Christians that could only be a purely dogmatic decision: there was no good reason why it must be right.

*** There are good reasons for Christians, contrary to Barr's assertion.  The testimony of the Holy Spirit, the testimony of the church – believers through the ages.  That is what "textus receptus" means – the received text, received by the believing church. The doctrine of other texts that vary in doctrine, e.g. gnostic texts were not received by the church.  ***

BCLS, page 11, pdf page 13:

But if Paul, who was a totally inspired and authoritative person, actually followed the Septuagint or any other text, then that must mean that the Masoretic Hebrew is not absolutely inspired and right, since a text that differs from it may be correct. Even one such discrepancy totally destroys the possibility of a biblical chronology on the old style. Biblical chronology has to be perfect, otherwise it breaks down altogether.
     ***  Barr pits the Septuagint Greek text against the Hebrew text of O.T.  But Franz Pieper answered this objection nicely in his Christian Dogmatics, vol. 1, pgs 250-251:

The form of the Old Testament quotations as given in the New Testament does therefore not prove "fatal" to the theory of "verbal inspiration," but is, on the contrary, a mighty proof of inspiration. ... . There is but one explanation: the Holy Ghost is speaking through the Apostles and is "taking liberties" with His own Word.

LBC, pg 56:

And a moment's admission of a copying error in either Chronicles or Kings would have shattered the whole frail edifice.

*** Barr's solution to difference between 2 Chronicles and 2 Kings is "a copying error".  But Luther's solution was to "believe that in the Scriptures the true God speaks" and would rather show that the received text could indeed be without error, even though he would admit a possible "copyist error". ***

LBC, pg 57:

The figures given for all the kings of Judah, from the fourth year of Solomon, when the temple was commenced, to its destruction, add up to 430 years. Modern scholars consider the true historical period to have been just over 370 years: in other words, out of the sum of 430 found by pure addition they have to account for over fifty as cases of overlapping, theoretical schematism, different chronologies, mistakes of the authors and textual errors in transmission.

PSC, pg 382:

... the Bible existed in at least three textual traditions,which differed in the chronological figures, ... Anyway, one can see that the differences of text (Hebrew, Greek Septuagint, Samaritan Hebrew) form a difficulty.

*** See my comments shown under UBC, pg 583 above ***

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Most of these points were answered in my blog post that brought out Franz Pieper's defense against the objections to Inspiration based on variant readings.  The strongest evidence he brings is God's own promise to believers:

We know we have this Word a priori, that is, prior to any human investigation, on the basis of the divine promise.When our Savior says in His high-priestly prayer (John 17:20) that all those who will come to faith to the end of time will come to faith through the Word of the Apostles, He therewith promises us that the Word of the Apostles will be present in the Church to the Last Day. Again, when Christ admonishes all believers to continue in His Word (John 8:31-32: "If ye continue in My Word, then are ye My disciples indeed, and ye shall know the truth"), He guarantees that His Word will be present for us to continue in it.

Although Pieper also points out reasons a posteriori (after the fact) why we have God's Word even today in our Bible, I can add to his points with a recent article by Albert Mohler, a fundamentalist Southern Baptist, on a discovery of an ancient papyrus fragment purportedly teaching that Jesus had a wife.  His article is entitled "The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife? When Sensationalism Masquerades as Scholarship" and indeed shows its "discovery" is sensationalism intended to cause Christians to question their Bible.

Lest anyone think that Franz Pieper "buried his head in the sand", hear what he says further (C.D., vol. 1, pg 240):

We, too, in our theological seminary at St. Louis introduce our students to modern textual criticism. That is a part of the complete external equipment of a theologian of our day.  But we point out two things to our students: 1) We know a priori from the divine promise that in our present Bible we have the Word of Christ which is to be taught in the Church and by the Church to the Last Day. 2) We recognize, too, a posteriori, that the divine providence has so wonderfully held its protecting hand over the Bible text that in spite of the variae lectiones not a single Christian doctrine has become a matter of doubt.

Textual criticism was not viewed by Pieper as something necessary for Christians but rather to be defended against so that their Christian faith, which has no basis other than God's Word, would not be shaken but strengthened.

In the next Part 6f, I will cover Barr's pointed remarks about the Bible's "inconsistencies" and "errors".

Pieper: Objections to Inspiration (Part 1) – Variant Readings

I am interrupting the series (Table of Contents here) on Luther's Chronikon and the subsequent review of the modern scholar James Barr.  The reason I am doing this is because, after reviewing Barr's essays on biblical chronology, I have been constantly challenged in my Christian faith.  Professor Barr offers several reasons to question the credibility of the Bible with it's "legends", "errors"... with his "historical criticism" and "textual criticism" of the Bible.

But Franz Pieper long ago addressed these challenges by modern scholars against Holy Scripture.  I just now am refreshed by Pieper's wonderful defense of the Bible and the Doctrine of Inspiration.  Here is what he wrote in 1924 in his Christian Dogmatics, volume 1, pages 232-233:

Objections to the Doctrine of Inspiration

    The objections raised against the inspiration of Holy Scripture constitute an exceedingly sad chapter. They are as harmful as the objections voiced against the satisfactio vicaria of Christ.  Whoever denies the substitutional satisfaction of Christ denies the very essence of the Christian faith, because only the reliance on Christ's vicarious satisfaction (1 Cor. 2:2; 15:1-3; John 1:29) is the Christian faith.  And whoever denies the inspiration of Scripture, i.e., denies that the Word of the Apostles and Prophets is God's own infallible Word, destroys, as far as lies in his power, the foundation of the Christian Church, because, according to Eph. 2:20, the Christian Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets.  Nor dare we forget that everyone who denies the inspiration of Scripture eo ipso becomes a critic of Scripture and as a critic of Scripture -- which as God's Word is not to be criticized but believed - is subject to the divine judgment described in Matt. 11:25.  None of us, even though he were a doctor in all four of the learned professions, can deny the inspiration of Holy Scripture without suffering an impairment of his natural mental powers.  The arguments advanced against the inspiration of Scripture are below the level of the natural powers of mind which mankind still possesses since the Fall. 

Hmmm... Pieper puts all would-be scholars who deny the inspiration of Holy Scripture as using powers

"below the level of the natural powers of mind which mankind still possesses since the Fall".  

There are a lot of low-level powers being used by so-called "scholars" today.  You will find many of these as general editors, volume editors, and even translators in the American Edition of Luther's Works.

Pieper hammers home the scriptural doctrine here.  This is truly the spiritual strength of the old (German) Missouri Synod which rested squarely on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets.

How did Pieper answer the objections to the doctrine that the Holy Scriptures are divinely inspired?  In his Christian Dogmatics, volume 1, pages 232-265, Pieper devoted 33 pages covering these objections (like those of Professor Barr) in a way that leaves a Christian praising God for His wonderful Word... and sticking to his Bible.  This section alone is worth the price of the whole 4-volume set of Christian Dogmatics.  I will pass over for now the first two objections that Pieper answers in his book:

1. Different style in the various books in the Scripture (page 233)
2. The appeal of the holy writers to their historical research has been advanced against the inspiration of the Bible. (page 236)

Here are the main objections that James Barr uses and Pieper's refutation.  The first is used by Barr when he speaks of the Septuagint (Greek) and the Samaritan text as various readings of the Old Testament:

3. The variant readings (variae lectiones) found in the copies of the originals are said to disprove the doctrine of inspiration. Variant readings in the copies do exist. But, first of all, let us bear in mind that it is not fair to argue from the variant readings in the copies against the inspiration of the originals. We have never held that the copyists of the holy writings were inspired. Spelling mistakes or slips or attempted corrections in the copies have absolutely nothing to do with the inspiration of the originals....
     But now the objection to the inspiration of Scripture assumes another form, namely, that an inspired Scripture becomes useless and should no longer be urged, since the presence of variant readings makes it, after all, uncertain which is the original Word of God. The critics make much of this objection. Theodor Kaftan claims ...: "Every theologian knows that there is no authentic text," "that the number of variant readings is legion," and "that it must give the verbal inspirationist quite a jolt when he realizes that no one, not even he himself, is able to tell which text is the one that is verbally inspired."  The exact opposite is true!  In spite of the variants in the copies of the Bible we have a reliable Bible text. Referring to this reliable Bible text, Luther uttered the words : "The Word they still shall let remain." We have two ways of knowing that in the copies the Word of the Apostles or, what is identical with it, the Word of Christ, has been preserved for us.
     a. We know we have this Word a priori, that is, prior to any human investigation, on the basis of the divine promise. When our Savior says in His high-priestly prayer (John 17:20) that all those who will come to faith to the end of time will come to faith through the Word of the Apostles, He therewith promises us that the Word of the Apostles will be present in the Church to the Last Day. Again, when Christ admonishes all believers to continue in His Word (John 8:31-32: "If ye continue in My Word, then are ye My disciples indeed, and ye shall know the truth"), He guarantees that His Word will be present for us to continue in it. If there are such as do not recognize the Word of Christ which they have as Christ's Word, such failure is certainly due to their blindness, that, seeing, they do not see and, hearing, they do not hear, because they do not understand. (Matt. 13:13 ff.) Again, when Christ instructs not only the Apostles, but His Church (Matt. 28:20) to teach all nations all things whatsoever He has commanded them, He gives the Church the guarantee that His doctrine in all its parts will be clearly and surely known to it to the end of time. Christ also comes to the defense of the text of the old Testament. When Christ says in particular of the entire Scriptures of the Old Testament that they cannot be broken (John 10:35), He is certainly affirming that the text of the old Testament is reliable. Similarly He states (Luke 16:29): "They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them."  Likewise in His temptation (Matthew 4) [Matt. 4:4, 4:6-7, 4:10] Christ operates with the γέγραπται as with an immovable certain text.  We do not read that the devil brought up the matter of "variant readings." So we know a priori, before any investigation, from the promise and the testimony of Christ, that in the Scriptures now at the disposal of the Church we have a reliable text, or, in other words, the authentic doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets, that is, of God, in spite of the variae lectiones in the copies.
     b. We reach the same result also a posteriori, on the basis of scientific investigation. Human scientific investigation establishes the fact that not a single Christian doctrine has been rendered doubtful in any point by the "legion" of variant readings. (pages 237-239)

Dear Christian reader, do you want to know how Luther would answer all these modern theologians and scholars like James Barr on the doctrine of Inspiration?  Then read Franz Pieper.  Then trust your Bible.

In Part 2 of this series, I will address another objection that Barr uses – alleged contradictions and errors in Scripture.