Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Witness-Lutheran Witness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Witness-Lutheran Witness. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 9, 2021

The Lutheran Witness: Walther on its beginning & history; “Melanchthon's mildness”

[2021-03-21: see comment below for 1996 information by former Witness editor David Mahsman]
      I grew up reading the official LC-MS magazine to its members, The Lutheran Witness.  I never knew its history, how it began.  Even in more recent years, I figured that it was started by the English Conference of the Old Missouri Synod.  However, I recently came across C. F. W. Walther's commentary upon receiving the first issue of this church newspaper, and I learned “the rest of the story”.  This publication did not originate with the Missouri Synod.  So let us hear from Walther the colorful, true account of this publication and the man who started it.  From Der Lutheraner, vol 38 (June 1, 1882), p. 84, translation by BackToLuther:

A new English Lutheran family paper.

 [by C. F. W. Walther]

We have just received the first issue of such a paper, which bears the title: The Lutheran Witness. It is intended to serve the interests of the General Synod of Missouri and its friends, and is edited by Rev. C. A. Frank, of Zanesville, Ohio, under the auspices of the Cleveland District Conference. We can hardly describe how joyfully we have been surprised by the appearance of this paper. Some time ago the rumor had reached our ears that such an English paper was in prospect; but since we heard nothing further of the project, we feared that it would be abandoned because of the difficulties involved, since the number of English Lutheran congregations in our district is so small. To our great joy, however, we have been undeceived by the reception of the first issue. The only family Lutheran paper in the English language which claimed to represent the pure old Lutheran doctrine was hitherto the [Lutheran] Standard of Columbus [Ohio Synod]. In the hope that this paper would gradually become at least somewhat of an organ for the dissemination of sound Lutheran doctrine and correct Lutheran practice, we were also content with the same, and in hopeful love covered up the poverty of this paper. However, where truth is perverted, the tolerance of love ceases. For some time now, the unfortunate Standard has made it its business to pervert the divine truth and to blaspheme the confessors of the same in the most fraudulent manner. Whether this happens in blindness, in which God has given the writers of the Standard out of righteous judgment, or in pure ignorance, we do not want to and cannot decide. Enough, the Standard has however become an unholy instrument for the destruction of the true Lutheran organization, under hypocritical carrying of the banner of the same. To be sure, the paper and its subsidiary moons are quite harmless meteors in the church heavens. For although they enjoy the sympathy of many, even outside the Ohio Synod, only the Ohio Synod itself marvels at the wisdom it supposes to hear from its Standard and its satellites: but to be really instructed by Ohio's leaders, of that outside Ohio nothing is yet to be noticed. The Standard is only good enough for our enemies outside Ohio to do the dirty work of throwing excrement at Missouri. Rightly, therefore, our Witness writes in its editorial program: “Of course, those who wish genuine Lutheranism to be spread can no longer leave the preservation of their treasures in the hands of Ohioans, but must be their own watchmen to guard their sacred jewels.”  

Carl Adolf (C. A.) Frank (1846-1922; image Denkstein, p. 186)

Our dear Frank, of all people, is also evidently the right man to carry forward the banner of the Reformation. He was himself a professor at Columbus; he therefore knows better than anyone else the secret history of that anti-Lutheran castle from which the Lutheran banner flutters in the air. He has also shown how much his love can endure; for it was he who still hoped for Columbus when everyone on the side of truth had already given up the same. But if our Frank has therefore shown something of Melanchthon's mildness, all who know him know that behind this mildness there is a Lutheran steel nature which, after all, does not forgive the truth one iota, whether it concerns friend or foe.

The first number before us is excellent. *) It is true that in it a pleasant rain usually falls on readers who are looking for edification, but in the distance lightning is already flashing from dark clouds, which are not exactly edifying for the enemies of truth, but promising for this organ to all friends of truth.

Then, dear brethren who understand English, hurry and order the beautiful paper; you will truly get back more than you spend for it. To let the paper greet us Lutherans in vain would indeed be a great shame for us. The subscription price for the whole year, about the same as the Standard, except that the Witness is published only twice a month, is $1.00. Address to The Lutheran Witness, 16 Harvey St., Zanesville, Ohio       W. [Walther].

__________________

*) It is a pity that there are so many printing errors in this first number.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Walther reveals much in this announcement:
  1. Walther was not above using colorful language against his opponents who threw “excrement [Kot] at Missouri.”
  2. Walther admitted that in regards to the opposing Ohio Synod's publication, he “in hopeful love covered up the poverty of this paper” for awhile.  Walther, like Luther, did not look down on weak brethren.  Only when those who used their weakness to promote error did Walther, as Luther, call out their error publicly and defend (“Wehre”) against their error.
  3. He considered that the Witness editor C. A. Frank had “shown something of Melanchthon's mildness.”   In other words, compared to Walther's Der Lutheraner, The Lutheran Witness was not as sharp in its polemics in distinguishing the Lutheran doctrine against the errorists. 
When I came back to my old faith, I first read old issues of The Lutheran Witness. Why? Because they were in English!  But after then reading from the older German Missourian fathers, I discovered what Walther calls “Melanchthon's mildness” in the Witness, and determined that I wanted the best Lutheran writings… those of the Old German Missouri Synod.  There I found ultimate comfort of the Gospel, loud and clear: Universal, Objective Justification. — In the section below read Walther's later comment on the success of the Witness, and then the report of Ohio Synod spinoff Concordia Synod's adoption of the Witness. — 
On page 93 of the same year of Der Lutheraner p. 93, Walther gave later news of the Witness:

I. America.

The second issue of the new English Lutheran family newspaper The Lutheran Witness, whose appearance we announced in the last issue of the Lutheraner, has just come out. In it the editor, Pastor Frank, writes: “Gifts, subscriptions and letters which we have received allow us to make the announcement that our Witness has been favorably received and that its publication will be continued." While we never doubted for a moment that the paper would not only endure, but would in time acquire a large readership, since it owes its origin neither to the thrill of writing nor to the desire for profit, but merely to the duty of attending to the blasphemed truth, we hope that our dear readers will receive with pleasure the news that the continuance of the Witness is already assured. Now may all who understand a paper written in the English language avail themselves of the opportunity afforded them by the Witness to hear a “witness” for Lutheran truth and against the miserable distortions of it now to be found even in such English papers as have hypocritically written the name “Lutheran” on their foreheads [Ohio Synod’s Lutheran Standard]. W. [Walther]


And finally, again in the same issue of Der Lutheraner, p. 100, the announcement of the formation of a separated synod from the Ohio Synod, the "Concordia Synod" included the notice that “Der Lutheraner  and The Lutheran Witness were declared organs of the Synod.” Because this Synod was directed to English speaking Lutherans, it may be considered the forerunner of today's English LC-MS, which is now quite different from the former Old German Missouri Synod.

Wednesday, November 27, 2019

UOJ, Ohio's great error &… The Lutheran Witness? Part 1 of 2

The Lutheran Witness, March 21, 1890      Universal, Objective Justification (UOJ) continues to be ignored or misunderstood in today's Lutheranism.  But it was the core teaching of not only Walther, but also the Synodical Conference from its beginning.  One of my more popular blogs presented Pieper's sharp warning in June 1889 against the Ohio Synod and their fall on this foundational Christian doctrine of Justification.  But less than a year later, in March 1890, another sharp warning appeared against the changing Ohio Synod and its Lutheran Standard magazine, this time in the English language The Lutheran Witness. The following is the summary section (Google Books, p. 155-156) of one of the finest essays that The Lutheran Witness magazine has ever produced, apart from translations of Walther's German language writings: 
- - - - - - - -  (Summary by author "G. A. M.")  - - - - - - - - - 

Such is the article, a truly wonderful document, in our opinion on the relation of faith towards universal justification. This article voiced the sentiments of the whole Synodical Conference in 1872. In this article our readers are informed: “The sectarians do not simply regard faith as a hand, but as a condition which man must fulfill before he can go to heaven; whereas faith is nothing but an empty hand which God must fill. If we had nothing else but faith, and not Christ (which of course is impossible), we would be damned with all our faith; for not the act of faith, but Christ whom we thereby embrace, makes us pleasing to God. And this is what all fanatics <page 156> overlook. They wish to secure some place for the activity of man, and therefore they now lodge it in man’s faith, now in his penitence, again in his conversion, and yet again in his sanctification,” etc.
But in 1890 the Standard also writes: “Faith is a necessary condition of man’s justification.” In 1872 the Standard in agreement with Synodical Conference stated: “The sectarians regard faith as a condition which man must fulfill before he can go to heaven;” in 1890 the same Standard writes: “Faith is a necessary condition of man’s justification.” In 1872 faith was only an empty hand and no condition; in 1890 faith has become a necessary condition and is no longer an empty hand only. The Standard of 1890 has killed the Standard of 1872. According to its own verdict Ohio has taken its place among sectarians in wishing and working “to secure some place for the activity of man” in conversion, justification and election. Yet, in consummate hypocrisy, the renegades at Columbus charge Missouri with having falsified even the doctrine of justification. The sad truth is, Ohio has changed both its doctrine and morals. G. A. M.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Along with the clarion call against the Ohio Synod that this summary displayed, it was also a surprise for me to see it published in English, for it seemed that it was largely the German speaking Missouri theologians who were strong on the Doctrine of Justification.  Unfortunately today's LC-MS theologians, who want to label Old Missouri as "LC-MS", do not teach like the Old (German) Missouri Synod. So why do they promote themselves as Old Missouri?…  Good question.
      Now I will reproduce the full 2-part essay (March 7, March 21) for the full background and narrative, even though it is freely available in Google Books.  In the next Part 2, I present my conclusion on this pivotal doctrine.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Polemical.
Ohio in 1872 and in 1890 on Faith and Conversion.
1. ON FAITH.
“Meeting of the Synodical Conference (1872).”
Christ is the lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world.” He was the representative of the human race in bearing all men's iniquities, suffering and dying for our sins. When he arose again from the dead, He was pronounced acquitted. This acquittal was again in our stead. In Him all men are absolved. “He was delivered for our offenses and was raised again for our justification.” He died and rose again not only for an elect few, but for all men, and the benefits of the redemption are secured to all. “As by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” There is a general justification of the race in Christ as the substitute for all men. The benefits thus secured are brought to men through the means of grace. These are not efficient causes of the blessings bestowed, but channels through which they are conveyed. They bring the gift which is already purchased and secured. Faith is not a condition of the existence of forgiveness for men. It is the means of its appropriation. When absolution is pronounced, it is valid whether men believe it or not. Faith does not make God’s declaration true that our sins are forgiven us. It is made because it is true and faith is to receive it because it is true. Were it not true, unbelief could not be the great sin it is. It is absurd to say that we might believe a thing to be true in order that it may become true and give us comfort. Our comfort might rest upon the truth in itself, which does not become truth by our faith and does not become untruth by our faithlessness. When the truth that our sins are forgiven us in Christ is received we are personally justified by faith and have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. He that believeth not shall be damned, because he rejects the free pardon brought to him through the means of grace. His sin is not that he failed to fulfill conditions under which he might have received forgiveness of sin, but that he has not appropriated the forgiveness offered without money and price.” (L. Standard, Vol. XXX, No. 15, whole No. 820. Aug. 1, 1872, page 116.)
Prof. Matthias Loy, Ohio Synod
Prof. Matthias Loy
Ohio Synod
"Prof. Toy"


This summary of the discussions of this subject was written by the Editor, “Rev. M. Loy,” and is introduced in these words: “To this subject” (of justification) “the greater portion of the time set apart for this meeting of Conference was devoted, not because there was any diversity of opinion upon it among the members, but because of its paramount importance and also because some not connected with the Conference had disputed essential features of the doctrine.” Now in 1890 this same Standard and this same “Loy” writes, “Faith is a necessary condition of justification.” In 1872 faith was not a condition of the existence of forgiveness of sins. In 1890 it has become a <column 2> necessary condition of justification. Now they teach the very reverse of what they taught twenty years ago in the very article of justification. Now they find a merit of man in his faith or apprehension, formerly faith was to them the God-given hand only whereby man grasps the pardon announced in the gospel of justification. This shows that the Standard has become a Sand-ard, and Rev. Loy a Prof. Toy.

[Read the balance of this article in the "Read more »" section below; Conclusion in Part 2]