Concordia Publishing House and false honoring of Walther - missing books!

I have just discovered a most troubling omission by Concordia Publishing House (CPH) regarding their current offerings of C.F.W. Walther's writings. Not only have they repackaged the previous offerings thereby causing confusion but they have apparently dropped a major publication entitled Essays For The Church in 2 volumes published in 1992.  Here are pictures of the covers of both volumes:

These are still in some libraries:

• Concordia Theological Seminary (CTS), Walther Library here
• WorldCat here shows 23 libraries worldwide with these 2 volumes, but with wrong cover picture (see my review there).
• Valparaiso University Library here
• Concordia Seminary Library, St. Louis2 (COSL) BX8011.W2913 1992 here [updated Dec. 22, 2013]

It is not even listed with Amazon which lists most books even if they don't sell them.  [updated 2017-03-05:] It is now listed on Amazon here. Volume II (1877 - 1886) is incorrectly identified in Google Books and CTS Walther Library with an incorrect picture of the front cover!  Volume I (1857-1879) is correctly identified in Google Books but without a cover picture.

I can hardly believe this... these 2 volumes were the largest publication of English translations of Walther's convention essays.
So much of Walther's works have not been translated - several books of sermons, articles in Der Lutheraner and Lehre und Wehre, and several more essays.  But at least these 2 volumes of Essays for the Church were a major work published by the modern English LC-MS... and now they are not available for purchase.  But CPH sees fit to publish President Matthew Harrison's recent translations of Walther's essays and letters, a rather small sampling.  And Concordia Publishing House presumes to honor Walther with their "bicentennial celebration"! Maybe someone should ask the head of CPH, chief "cyberbrethren", why the inconsistency.

The British-Jewish "homeland"; Christians and Jews today (Frederick Danker)

Most people of today don't have any idea how the modern nation of "Israel" came about for the return of the Jews. They were largely empowered to replace the Palestinians by the British.  There are numerous articles in Wikipedia: Balfour Declaration, Herbert Samuel, and Palestine Zionist Executive. Kevin Phillips, a former Republican strategist, wrote the following in his book American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century (Penguin, 2007) on page 256 pertaining to world events surrounding World War I:

More than any other European people, nineteenth-and early-twentieth-century Britons spoke of resettling Jews in the historic land of Israel.

Mr. Phillips does not write from a Christian perspective, but Franz Pieper commented numerous times about the British, the Jews, and the resettlement of Jews in their "homeland".   I hope to bring out some of Pieper's comments in Lehre und Wehre as events unfolded during those early years of the 20th Century.
= = = = = = = = =
On another note, it was announced in a St. Louis newspaper that Frederick Danker passed away, a former professor at the St. Louis Concordia Seminary.  The article introduces him:

...along with most of the faculty at Concordia Seminary here, were fired for what the college president called their liberal teachings.

The firing was associated with those who started Seminex in 1974.  But Danker, according to the article was:

...a prolific author and a world-renowned Bible scholar. His most famous work, published after 30 years of research, is an acclaimed Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament.

So why am I mentioning this in relation to the Jews?  Because Frederick Danker, according to this article, had this to say about the word "Jews" in the New Testament:

For example, the Rev. Danker investigated centuries of Gospel readings about Jesus' final hours that said "the Jews" called for Jesus to be crucified. That led some Christians to blame the Jewish people for Jesus' death, the Rev. Danker said.
But he determined that "Jews" should be translated as "Judeans," referring to the proper name of the people who then lived in southern Palestine.
"Over the centuries, the word 'Jew' in translations got so distorted and caused so much unnecessary acrimony, causing such tragedies between Christians and Jews," the Rev. Danker told the Post-Dispatch in 2001, in an interview about his lexicon.

We see from this that Frederick Danker is as responsible as anyone for causing Christians of today to doubt the condemnations of the Bible regarding the unbelief of the Jews... and for causing the condemnations of Martin Luther for his writings against the Jews. And finally it was reported that Frederick Danker spent "...12 years working 14-hour days on the lexicon". How hard he worked to prove his scholarliness and that we did not understand our Bible. I would not deny the usefulness of a scholarly approach to Biblical studies, but only when coupled with a spiritual understanding. And so Danker's (and all modern biblical scholars) great works would have to be approached with great caution because of his lack of spiritual understanding. Danker does not hold a candle to Luther, Walther, and Pieper! They believed God at His Word... and were scholarly!

usque ad nauseam - to the point of nausea (Objective Justification)

[2019-07-20: added note in red below]
In Franz Pieper's Christian Dogmatics, there are many Latin phrases since the Latin language was that of the church through the ages.  To help seminary students follow the meaning of these phrases, David P. Scaer published his little booklet A Latin Ecclesiastical Glossary for Francis Pieper's Christian Dogmatics.  This was a very helpful guide to me as I voraciously studied Pieper's volumes.  This guide is not quite so necessary now that Google Translate now offers free translation from Latin which appears to be amazingly good. [2019-07-20: Also Yandex now offers Latin translation]

But as I was again browsing my copy of Scaer's booklet, I ran across the Latin phrase:

usque ad nauseam = to be repetitive as to bring a person to the point of sickness

So how and where did Pieper use this odd phrase?  I had written in the margin this:

page 439 Obj. Just., remind of  Obj. Just.

What was it that Pieper had to repeat "to the point of sickness"?  I had to look this up again... what volume was it?  What subject was Pieper talking about that he had to make me "nauseous"?
In volume II, in the section The Application of Salvation, sub-section The Function of Faith in Justification, Pieper had this to say:

Because men are always forgetting it, we have to repeat usque ad nauseam: full forgiveness of the sins of the world has been obtained through Christ's vicarious satisfaction, is wholly independent of any human quality or any "improvement" in man ("not imputing their trespasses unto them," 2 Cor. 5:19), and is made known unto men by God in the Gospel ("and hath committed unto us the Word of Reconciliation") that men should believe it. The idea that faith in its function as a receptive organ must do more than merely believe the Gospel, that it receives forgiveness because it is a good quality ("ethical act") or produces good qualities, finds favor only with those who deny, or at any rate have forgotten, that Christ has perfectly redeemed the world and that the Gospel is the message of God's grace.

Dear God!  Make me sick with the Word of Thy Gospel!  May the Good News "bore me to death"!  Bring again teachers like Walther and Pieper who are not afraid to keep repeating thy Gospel in it's purity to the point of making me nauseous and bored for Thou knowest that I will always only forget it!  Lord, "help thou mine unbelief"! (Mark 9:24)

Luther's Chronology of the World, Part 1

[2020-01-10 AIG links updated to Archive copies]
In the December 1898 (volume 44) issue of Lehre und Wehre, Franz Pieper reviewed the latest issue of the St. Louis Edition of Luther's Works, volume 14 from Concordia Publishing House. A portion of this volume contains Luther's Chronology of the World.  Here are Pieper's comments:

... Finally, this book contains in Columns 484-802 the so-called "historical and philological writings." In the first place, "Luther's Chronikon or Calculation of the Years of the World" is here. This writing is also particularly important, because Luther here clearly provides the authority of Scripture over all human research and science. Here Luther says, among other things: "This thing has moved me that though I have not despised the historians completely, I have preferred Holy Scripture to them. I use the historians in such a way that I am not made to contradict the Scriptures. For I believe that in the Scriptures the true God speaks; but in the histories, good people by their ability, their diligence, and their faithfulness prove (but as human beings), or at least that the copyists, can err." (Column 491) So must every Christian theologian stand. This should be remembered particularly by our modern shard collectors [archaeologists], for whom the authority of Scripture is often less than that of a lying Oriental royal court historian who, in the interest of the stomach, imputes a dozen ancestors to his ruler more than he really has. ...
 F. P.

I believe Pieper's last comment refers especially to the confusion of the histories of the Egyptian Pharaohs by European historians.  What a comedy!  A Christian's response to any finding of archaeologists that a certain piece of Bible history may be true is this:
  ==>> So what?  I knew it was first true because God said it in His Word!  It doesn't matter what you archaeologists may think is true, for I know what true history is as far as Biblical people, places, and events.

In Luther's Chronikon, you learn of Luther's calculations as best as humanly possible as far as God has given in the Bible.

There is another book sold by AnswersInGenesis.org (AIG) by James Ussher entitled Annals of the World, also available for free download here.  AIG has published a nice graphic of Ussher's chronology – PDF file here. [2020-01-10 AIG links updated to Archive]  It looks like this:

I would like sometime to compare Ussher's analysis to Luther's but I will take Luther's as more authoritative.  I believe Luther stuck to the Bible text better than Ussher, especially when Ussher tries to fix the exact year and day of the beginning of Creation. Luther fixes the beginning about 3960 B.C, while Ussher says "1a AM, 710 JP, 4004 BC".  In the Wikipedia article on Ussher or Ussher's Chronology, there is no mention of Luther's Chronikon.  Why don't today's Lutherans hold up this teaching of Luther?  The old German Missouri Synod did. Are modern "Lutherans" afraid of the scoffing of the world on practically all things Biblical, such as Creation, Geocentrism, the Jews, etc?

This series is continued in Part 2 where I present an English translation of Luther's work on Biblical Chronology.

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

Sept. 23, 2012:   Because this series will be extensive, I am including a Table of Contents in this Part 1 so that one can jump to any of the parts from here:

Table of Contents – Biblical Chronology and Luther

• Part 1 – Introduction; Pieper's comments on St. Louis Edition, vol. 20 containing Luther's Chronikon; also comments on James Ussher's Biblical Chronology and AnswersInGenesis.org publishings
• Part 2 – English translation by Pastor Kenneth K. Miller, with download
• Part 3 – Original of Luther's version in German from the St. Louis Edition of Luther's Works, with download
• Part 4 – Preface texts by Pastor Miller and Martin Luther
• Part 5 – Comments on Preface texts; introduction of Prof. James Barr, modern scholar
• Part 6a – Review of James Barr essays, Part 1
• Part 6b – James Barr and modern theologians and scholars
•      Part 1 – Pieper's defense of Doctrine of Inspiration, variant readings of Bible text
•      Part 2 – Pieper's defense of Inspiration, Contradictions and Errors
• Part 6c – Barr's objections to the general figure of 4000 years in Old Testament
• Part 6d – Barr's use of the term "theoretical schematism" -- actually legends and myths of the Bible
• Part 6e – Barr's use of textual variations and textual criticism of the Bible
• Part 6f – Barr's remarks about the Bible's "inconsistencies" and "errors"
• Part 6g – Barr's demand for the use of the "historical critical" methodology – i.e. "scholarship"
• Part 6h – Barr's insistence that Scripture be "reasonable" and "sensible"... for him.
• Part 6i – Barr's comments against Luther's use of Daniel's prophecy of the Seventy Weeks
• Part 6j – Barr's demand for extra-biblical information to have a true biblical chronology.
• Part 6k – Barr's second "gotcha" – Luther "followed" historical forgeries. 
• Part 6L – Conclusion to reviews of Barr – his grand notion of the Bible's "literal intention" 
• Part 7a – Review of WELS Prof. John Brug's essays on biblical chronology
• Part 7b – Review of WELS Prof. John C. Jeske's essays on biblical chronology
• Part 7c – Review of WELS Prof. Siegbert Becker
• Part 8 – Conclusion

Who Am I?

I'm not a pastor.  I'm not a teacher or professor at a seminary. I'm not a missionary.  I'm not a "Church Professional". I'm even not a member of any congregation now.  So who am I?  Who is this BackToLuther?

Dear God! Who am I that I should be the only one in the world today who is expounding the Doctrine of Universal, Objective Justification like Walther did?  Even in his day, Walther was almost the only one who expounded this doctrine and had to strengthen his brethren... he had to answer many questions when he taught this most beautiful doctrine.  How he rejoiced when Prof. Georg Stoeckhardt (Stöckhardt) came to the St. Louis Seminary from Germany and also expounded this doctrine (i.e. the Gospel) as purely as he did.

I recall a "confession" by my elderly father (about 15 years ago) as he and I attended a weekly Bible study on the book of John.  My father did not speak much of his faith and did not comment much during this Bible study. Somehow the Bible passage of Mark 9:24 came up and I recall my father speaking before the group from the heart saying the same words:

Lord I believe, help thou mine unbelief!

I was struck by my father's words... they were his confession of faith!

And so who am I? I'm just a Christian like any other Christian, hanging on by a thread, just a thin thread, because all I bring to the table is my unbelief.  God has given me a faith to believe Him at His Word, that He truly means it when He said: "For God so loved the world...", a fallen, sinful, proud, unbelieving world!  And so this confession of my father is also my confession (like my other one):

Lord I believe, help thou mine unbelief!

Quotes of C.F.W. Walther on Doctrine of Justification (Part 5)

After that unpleasant task of censuring a St. Louis professor in my last post, I am returning to the green pastures of the teaching of God's Word through one of the most glorious essays (1874 - 1875 Western District)  that Walther delivered.
See the previous blog posts Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.  
We are now up to the the topic of the Doctrine of Election.  This was becoming a hot topic in 1874, and would soon even cause a split within the venerable Synodical Conference.  It was an important topic!  But listen to Walther... is there a doctrine that is more important?  A doctrine that is required in order to begin to understand the Doctrine of Election?:

Election:

page 74: ...the question was raised whether perhaps the 12th point (on the election of grace) should be considered next, since the Iowa Synod maintained again and again that only the leaders in our synod hold to the doctrine of predestination (election of grace) which is presented in our publications, while the remaining members of the synod hold a different position.  However, we can rightly recognize how the Lutheran Church gives all glory to God also in the teaching of election by grace only after we have gone through the doctrines which precede it in the third thesis.  Besides, it appears impossible to convince the Iowans even with the most compelling evidences from God’s Word.  Therefore it was resolved to continue with the present order. (emphasis added- the third thesis is “The Reconciliation and Redemption of the Human Race”)

Enthusiasts:

page 79: But there is a falsehood in what they say (redemption of whole world).  Why do they so vehemently oppose the teaching of the divine Word on Baptism, absolution, and the Lord’s Supper? .... They counter: “That would be too easy to go to heaven,...”  But thereby they show that they do not actually believe that Christ has really and truly, through His suffering and death on the cross, redeemed the entire world and reconciled it with God. . . . .   He is opposed to the means of grace because he does not believe in the grace.  “Really,” says the enthusiast, “I can’t believe that God would give such wondrous gifts through such common, ugly means.”  Let this serve as a reply: “This stems from the fact that you are lacking the faith that Christ has earned forgiveness of sins and God’s grace for all people;...page 80: They claim: “We are united with you Lutherans in the basics of Christianity, we believe like you that Christ is the Savior and Redeemer of all humanity, page 80: The only difference between us Christians and the enthusiasts is that in our case our faith is so weak that we cannot comprehend the magnitude of Christ’s benefits as we ought; while the enthusiasts blaspheme these heavenly truths and trample them underfoot.

Feelings:

page 81: When, for instance, the Methodists and the Presbyterians, especially those of the new school, have worked on a person and have brought him to the point where he, full of longing for grace and for liberation from sin, in his anxiety does not know how he can be helped, cries, sighs, and wrings his hands, they do not ask him, “What do you believe?” but, “How do you feel?”  If the person says he feels good, they say Jesus is there; if he does not feel good, they say He is not yet there.  They continue until he has the feeling that Jesus is there.

Means of Grace:

page 79-80: for if Christ has won such blessings, would He leave us without means to acquire these blessings for ourselves?  Surely not.  So that we do not have to ascend into heaven to bring Christ and His blessings down, He wills to be in the Word and where His Word is used.”

 Certainty:

page 80: “Need you ever doubt,” Christ reminds the redeemed, “the assurance of forgiveness of sins?  No, you can now be absolutely certain of God’s grace.  Baptism is My hand, absolution is My hand, the Lord’s Supper is My hand, the Gospel is My hand with which I grant you these great and glorious blessings.”  And it is not an empty hand, but a hand filled with a variety of spiritual goods.  We people should truly rejoice, sing, and jump for joy when we hear this from Christ’s own lips.page 80: That we are steeped in so many doubts, are torn and distressed by so many worries, are at odds with God and the world, are dissatisfied with our lot in the world--this has its basis in our lack of faith that through Christ God is reconciled with us, that our salvation is already prepared, and that it is bestowed on us through the means of grace.

Resurrection:

page 106: For when God raised His Son from the dead, He did not forgive Him His own sins, but the sins of all mankind which He had taken upon Himself. .... So the entire world was justified by the resurrection of Christ, which man must now accept by faith.

Satiation:

page 80: That we are so lazy and cold in hearing the Word of the Gospel, that we so little value the absolution pronounced by the pastor, that we have so little desire for the spiritual refreshment of Holy Communion -- this is due to our lack of faith in the reconciliation of all mankind through Christ and the fruits thereof.

If: 

page 108:page 109: When the little word “if” is used in Scripture, it is not always necessarily a conditional “if,” but often a syllogistic “if,” which serves to indicate consequence. ...

Counseling:

page 110: How could one comfort a disturbed person?  He is already assailed with doubts about his faith.  He would have to despair with such a doctrine.  Rather one must seek to convince him that the Savior is there for him, has already forgiven him, and wants to accept him.  As soon as one makes faith even in the least a requirement for justification, one takes from such a person all the comfort of the Gospel.

O you Walther! What a wealth of Christian teaching and wisdom is in these quotes!  Dear Reader... do you see the heart of Christianity in them?  Ah, the words of John 3:16:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

No one taught this passage more purely since the time of Martin Luther and Martin Chemnitz than C.F.W. Walther!  
Dear God!  Have mercy on us!  Cause the light of thy doctrine, thy Word, to come to light again in these last times!  SDG!

How today's (English) LC-MS = Graebner Synod

[2023-09-09: fixed broken link; 2019-05-10: added inline text note in red on exception to Graebner's teaching; 2018-04-19: see also this later post for quote in American Lutheran from Theo. Graebner, The Birth Certificate of today's LC-MS]
I am interrupting this series of Walther quotes to switch gears and expose the transformation of Missouri from old to new, from orthodox to heterodox... away from the Scriptural teaching of Walther and Pieper.
In previous posts (here and here), I have identified the new "Missouri Synod" as the "Graebner Synod" after it's founder, Prof. Theodore Graebner.  Some might fault me and say it was rather other people like  J.W. Behnken or those who staged the "walkout" of the St. Louis Seminary in 1974.  But the spearheading of the demise of the Missouri Synod happened before these people, for it was Theodore Graebner who had first gained a reputation as a "champion" of orthodoxy.  Faithful pastors, teachers, and laymen gravitated to him for guidance and comfort... as if Theodore Graebner was an equal of ... Franz Pieper!  As I stated in my original Internet posting, www.franzpieper.com,:

There was no other man in the world who knew as much as Theodore Graebner about what was going on in the world. He was the editor of the Lutheran Witness, the main publication of the Missouri Synod to its members. And it was to Graebner that many in the Minority [later the ELS] wrote of suspicion with Preus/Torrisons’s explanation of Pieper/Dau/Graebner’s January 9 letter. 

Theodore Graebner was a prolific writer and communicator well before the death of Franz Pieper. In his earlier days he wrote many books, articles and letters seemingly battling unionism, prayer fellowship with heterodox, evolution, Boy Scouts intrusion into the church, lodges, Reformed tendencies, Pietism, Romanism, etc.  Much of his earlier works were in the German language. But in the later half of his life, he turned around on many of his conservative writings to support the issues he wrote against. And he wrote in English.  His turnabout has been well documented. Perhaps one of the better accounts is that of Prof. Mark E. Braun of the WELS in his book A Tale of Two Synods - Events That Led to the Split between Wisconsin and Missouri (TTS), Northwestern Publishing House, 2003. But also Mark Braun published an essay entitled Theodore Graebner: Bellweather of Changes in the Missouri Synod (TGBC) (PDF) which documents many of the events and writings by and about Theodore Graebner. (email me if you would like the text of this paper for ease of searching as the original download is in rasterized PDF format.)

Theodore Graebner was a "giant" in the history of the Church in the 20th Century, albeit an infamous giant.  After all, he was the judge of Walther and Pieper on the Doctrine of Justification!  He was a translator of Luther's commentary on the book of Galatians, one of Luther's greatest works. Do a Google search on "Theodore Graebner" and so far (as of 3/3/2012), there are no major articles on him... no Wikipedia articles, no extensive biographies, only references to a few books that he published or translated. (Didn't O.P. Kretzmann say Graebner would be a legend? see TGBC pg 215) There is a very brief sketch of his life in the Lutheran Cyclopedia here.  ... except there is the major article by Prof. Mark Braun above of the Wisconsin Synod that rather documents his downfall.

• Who did the leadership of the Boy Scouts of America turn to in the 1940s to appease the Church on it's teachings and practices?  Theodore Graebner. (see TTS pg 107)
• Who did the founding fathers of the ELS turn to for comfort and brotherly counsel during the stressful beginnings of that faithful synod?  Theodore Graebner.  (Concordia Historical Institute contains many letters to not only Franz Pieper but also Theodore Graebner.)
• Who did President Behnken turn to for guidance in clearing up "misunderstandings" between Missouri and the Norwegian Synod?  Theodore Graebner. (see my website franzpieper.com) 
• Who was chosen to write the book of the biography of Franz Pieper when he died?  Theodore Graebner.
• And who was it that questioned the doctrine of Justification as taught by Walther and Pieper, Universal, Objective Justification?

Theodore Graebner, founder of the new English LC-MS, the "Graebner Synod"!

Why was Graebner not censured for his article in the American Lutheran magazine in 1939 that directly and publicly questioned Missouri's doctrine of Justification?  Why? Not only did Graebner repudiate Pieper when Pieper warned against the opponents (A.L.C.), but Graebner also repudiated Walther who warned against the Ohio and Iowa Synods' error on this most basic Christian doctrine. Why has virtually everyone overlooked this clear public departure of a St. Louis professor from the doctrine of the Grace of God proclaimed in the Gospel?  When I realized that Graebner not only reversed on issues of unionism and prayer fellowship, I scoured his older writings, the writings that others considered orthodox and conservative.  Nowhere did I find that Theodore Graebner taught or preached the doctrine of Universal, Objective Justification! [2019-05-10: I have discovered exceptions to this in Graebner's 1932 book Pastor and People, p. 62-63, 73-74, 76, 87] This has been my test of orthodoxy since the Lord opened my eyes to His Gospel. Virtually all of Graebner's writings were written against something, warning against something.  But did he ever teach the unbounded Grace of God in Christ?  I have not seen it.

Then I will do it now in this blog... I, BackToLuther, will 
repudiate and censure Professor Theodore Graebner of the St. Louis Faculty! 

Even some of the so-called "conservatives" inside and outside the LC-MS were confused on the Doctrine of Justification. For example Pastor Paul Burgdorf, editor of the Confessional Lutheran periodical, attempted in an article in the September 19, 1983 issue of Christian News to censure the president J.A.O. Preus for his teaching of Objective Justification!  Burgdorf attempted to do this with Walther's teaching on the necessity of faith to receive the Gift.  But Burgdorf rather shows his weakness on the Doctrine of Justification because the necessity of faith, to believe and receive the Gospel, in no way mitigates the doctrine of the Universal, Objective Justification! Burgdorf quotes Walther against Walther!
I will warn all those who are either in today's LC-MS or in fellowship with them of the grave danger they are in because of this basic doctrine of Christianity!
And I will even go one step further on this.  In the current Wikipedia article on "Lutheranism", there are 21 references to the writings of A.L. Graebner (father of Theodore) on Lutheran doctrine. There are only 3 references to the writings of Franz Pieper.  I will not deny there are good teachings in the writings of Prof. A.L. Graebner. But dear reader, if you want to read the best book ever written on complete Christian, Lutheran doctrine, you will get Franz Pieper's Christian Dogmatics, and read the 3 volumes cover to cover.  Then read them again... and again!

Back To Luther... and the writings of the old German Missouri Synod!

(see this later post for quote in American Lutheran from Theo. Graebner, The Birth Certificate of today's LC-MS)

Quotes of C.F.W. Walther on Doctrine of Justification (Part 4)

See previous Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.
In the previous Part 3, Walther makes it crystal clear what Faith Is Not... it does not appease God and make Him forgive our sins.  But what then is Faith?

Faith is:

page 76: But faith is the hand which makes salvation one’s own.
page 77: However, faith is necessary in regard to fruit and acceptance. (Calov quote)
page 105-106: One can see the doctrine of justification correctly only when one considers faith as merely the hand with which one appropriates the offered justification.  The old fathers spoke of two means for the attainment of justification, the giving means, namely Word and sacrament, and the receiving means , namely faith.  If a means for giving is present, then the gift must already be at hand.  Thus it is also with justification.  It is already there.  The question is only how God desires to give it.
page 107: So also faith is nothing but the raised hand which man extends to take what God unconditionally offers, presents and seals to him.
Heerbrand continues: “It is the way and means of accepting the benefit that is offered and given to us through and for Christ’s sake; and so it is the tool or, as it were, the hand that accepts and appropriates Christ and His gracious gifts offered in the Gospel.  When alms are offered to a beggar and he takes them with his hand, the hand is not called the condition, but the means or instrument with which the gift is taken.”
page 108: Consequently faith is the intrument, or as it were the hand, with which we grasp what God offers in His promises  If we wish to make very clear to people how faith is related to justification, these two expressions are best suited to achieve this.  It is very necessary that one understand this point clearly; only then will we teach justification perperly.  As much as all Christian groups speak of faith, only a minority have a correct conception of faith and how it justifies.  . ... But, faith is only an accepting; that it changes people is only its fruit.  Whenever one accepts, fruits will follow -- such as a different will, a different understanding.  Yes, a person is now a new creature.
page 109: Faith is not itself a work, but only an instrument.

Faith -justified apart from: 

page 79: They have already been given us, are always available for our benefit, even though we do not have faith.
page 109: If justification depended on the perfection of our faith, then we would all be lost.

Faith - Believe:

page 75: Only believe that Christ, the Son of God, has done all this in your stead...
page 81: But when a person has been shattered by the Law and is penitent, they should direct him to Christ and say: “Only believe!  As soon as you believe, you have all the blessings of Christ.  You are already redeemed;...
page 85: We preach about faith because in this way Christ is proclaimed.
page 111: We therefore hold fast to what Scripture says: “This is the work of God, that you believe...” (John 6:29)

Good works:

page 76-77: To this sectarians and enthusiasts respond: “You suggest therefore that good works are unnecessary?”  Our reply: “Good works are indeed to be done; but not to reconcile God, not to redeem oneself, not to earn forgiveness of sins and become God’s child; rather, in gratitude to Christ and God for the redemption we have received.  After all, what I do in order to receive a reward is not really a good work at all.”

Contradiction?

page 74: The doctrine of the universal grace of God appears to be in contradiction with reality.

Dear reader, these quotes show the Missouri Synod from above...  the true Christian teaching!
In the next post Part 5, Walther addresses one of the hottest topics of his day - the doctrine of Election.

Quotes of C.F.W. Walther on Doctrine of Justification (Part 3)

See Part 1 and Part 2 for previous quotes and source material.

6. Univeral Redemption:

page 75: This teaching is without doubt the crowning glory of all Christian doctrine...the Christian religion on the contrary teaches not only how people eventually shall be eternally saved, but that they are already saved.
page 75: Everything has already been done; you are already redeemed; you have already been made righteous before God; you have already been saved.  You therefore do not have to do anything to redeem yourself; you do not have to reconcile God to yourself; you do not have to earn your salvation.  Only believe that Christ, the Son of God, has done all this in your stead;.
page 76: We Lutherans, on the other hand, teach, as was stated: The entire world is already redeemed through Christ; the entire work of redemption is already accomplished.. . . Formula of Concord: “In his purpose and counsel God has ordained . . . that through Christ the human race has truly been redeemed and reconciled with God...
page 77: One dare never say to people: “You are saved provided you have faith”; rather the reverse: “Because Christ has redeemed you, therefore you now believe that you are saved.”  A person does not believe he will come into an inheritance because of a future promise, but only when the promise has been assuredly given.
page 78: I should believe that my sins are forgiven because they have been forgiven me in Christ.
page 78: Luther continues: “Hence this is the benefit of Christ’s suffering and resurrection, that He did not do this for Himself but for the entire world,...
page 79: But thereby they show that they do not actually believe that Christ has really and truly, through His suffering and death on the cross, redeemed the entire world and reconciled it with God.
page 79: “Really,” says the enthusiast, “I can’t believe that God would give such wondrous gifts through such common, ugly means.”  Let this serve as a reply: “This stems from the fact that you are lacking the faith that Christ has earned forgiveness of sins and God’s grace for all people;...
page 88: No, the chief function, the real assignment, is that the preacher come as God’s messenger and say: “Dear people, rejoice, you are saved; are you not aware of this?  I come to you as a messenger of God to bring you this good news: God is reconciled with you!”

7. Faith is not:

Page 76: Hence, this is not Lutheran teaching: that Christ by His fulfillment of the Law, by His suffering, death, and resurrection, has been instrumental in moving God to regard faith as something so extraordinary and superior that because of it He is reconciled with man.  Rather, the Lutheran Church teaches: All, yes everything necessary for reconciliation and redemption has been accomplished through Christ.
page 78: The enthusiasts claim: Faith is the means of being saved, because through it one acquires a new heart, becomes holy and pious... But faith, as a work of man or for the sake of its good attributes and results, cannot be credited with the distinction of accomplishing salvation and redemption; . . . Therefore it is dreadful when sectarians claim: I possess all this, provided I take some responsibility for bringing it to pass....
page 105: It is said that man must also do something in justification, namely believe.  Under such circumstances justification is not attributed solely to God.  But that means nothing else than robbing God of part of His honor and ascribing it to man.  Then it would not be God alone who saves us, but we would work together.  Only those who cannot distinguish sharply between condition and means can conceive such a thought.  A condition demands a performance on the part of the person who is to receive something.  For example: “I’ll give you the horse with the condition that you pay me so much for it.”  With the meeting of the condition the other promises performance in return.  Faith would then be an accomplishment on our part for which God would give us salvation in return.  But this is false.
page 106: Faith is not a condition to be met under which God will then give to us, but He has already given.
page 106: Therefore when Scripture says we are justified by faith, basically nothing is said but this, that we are saved by grace, as the apostle writes in Romans 4:16 -- not that faith is an acceptable good work.
page 107: ... But the expression: “If we believe, we will be saved” is never used in the Scriptures in the sense that it indicates a condition.  Neither does it say “because of faith” but “through faith by grace.”  A teacher must be very cautious not to use wrong words in presenting this doctrine, words which cloud its meaning.
page 107: How does Heerbrand answer our question?  In this way: Faith is not a condition, nor is it demanded as a condition; justification is not promised or offered either because of worthiness or meritoriousness or even insofar as it is a work.. . . If faith were a condition under which God justifies us, then there would have to be some worthiness or meritoriousness in faith, or it would have to be such a [grand] work that God would have to accept it.  But that is commingling of several concepts.  Does a hand merit anything because it seizes a present?
page 108: As much as all Christian groups speak of faith, only a minority have a correct conception of faith and how it justifies.  They think of faith as a special quality in man.  [They claim that] man has been changed, so that now there is something good in him, because of which God now considers him justified.
page 109: And since God Himself works faith, it cannot be the cause nor the condition but only the means of justification.
page 109: ...Carpzov speaks on this point: “It is not accurate if one calls faith the instrumental cause of justification.”
page 109: Faith is not itself a work, but only an instrument.  We are to contribute nothing because we can contribute nothing, not even faith.  If justification depended on the perfection of our faith, then we would all be lost.
page 110: If faith were a virtue, there would have been enough lacking in Paul’s faith to condemn him to hell.  What is true of unbelief is not true of faith.  Unbelief is the cause of damnation, but faith is not the cause of salvation.

In my next post Part 4, I will continue Walther's quotes on what Faith Is...

Quotes of C.F.W. Walther on Doctrine of Justification (Part 2)

See Part 1 for previous quotes and the source material.
The charge of  "universalism" is raised by some "conservative Lutheran" writers against Universal, Objective Justification.  But does this charge have merit?

3. Universalism

page 64: It is satanic pride to say: “If God is indeed just, then it is logical that He will want to save all people.”
page 106: Now the papists, Armenians, and other sects come and say: There you see what a fine doctrine the Lutherans have.  They say: ’Eternal life is given unconditionally.’  Accordingly the wicked, thieves, liars, etc., all would be saved.  Just as the Universalists teach, no one would be lost but all would be saved, even the devil....
But that is nothing but pure swindle. The enthusiasts know well enough that we do not teach that. Rather, such a doctrine (i.e. of Universalists) is a most disgraceful one, by which God is made to be the devil.

4. Universal will of Grace

page 64: But we do know that He actually desires to save all people; He has revealed this in His word.
page 65: This teaching we find clearly enunciated in our Confessions, where in the Formula of Concord, Art. XI of the Epitome, we read: “The passage, “Many are called, but few are chosen,” does not mean that God does not desire to save everyone.
page 65: The will of God to save him (resister) is nevertheless an earnest one, it is not a kind of charade; it is His genuine will.
page 67: Apropos of this point Luther writes: “There are those who interpret the words (“Many are called, but few are chosen”) as follows: “Many are called” - that is, God offers His grace to many - but “few are chosen” - that is , He lets such grace come to only a few, for there are few who are saved.  Truly an ungodly interpretation!” (House Postil, St. Louis Edition, XIII a 201).

5. By Faith Alone, only by Faith

page 65: When a person does not desire to hear God’s Word, does not attend church, not even read the Scriptures, but rather pokes fun at divine matters,.... God cannot save him.  

The next post (Part 3) will continue with Universal Redemption, etc.

Quotes of C.F.W. Walther on Doctrine of Justification (Part 1)

In my previous post, I prefaced the ensuing quotes of Walther with the reason why they are so important.
In 1874 and 1875, there were meetings of the Western District of the Missouri Synod at which Walther presented a continuing series of theses entitled The Doctrine of the Lutheran Church Alone Gives All Glory to God, an Irrefutable Proof That Its Doctrine Alone Is True. An English translation was published by Concordia Publishing House in 1981 under the book titled Selected Writings of C.F.W. Walther - Convention Essays. (Aug. R. Suelflow, Translator)
These quotes are a matter of spiritual life and death for me.  I had to know about the following topics, and here is the order I put them in:

1. Justification
2. Importance of this doctrine
3. Universalism?
4. Universal will of Grace? - or is it just a misunderstanding that God wants all men saved?
5. By Faith alone, only by Faith
6. Universal Redemption
7. Faith is Not... - are there limits to what faith is?
8. Faith Is... - so what exactly is Faith?
9. Faith - justified apart from... 
10. Faith - Believe
11. Good Works
12. Contradiction?
13. Election
14. Feelings
15. Means of Grace
16. Certainty
17. Resurrection
18. Satiation
19. If...
20. Counseling

On my first topic of interest, I pulled out the following:

1. Justification

page 105: It is said that man must also do something in justification, namely believe.  Under such circumstances justification is not attributed solely to God.  But that means nothing else than robbing God of part of His honor and ascribing it to man.  Then it would not be God alone who saves us, but we would work together.  Only those who cannot distinguish sharply between condition and means can conceive such a thought.  A condition demands a performance on the part of the person who is to receive something.  For example: “I’ll give you the horse with the condition that you pay me so much for it.”  With the meeting of the condition the other promises performance in return.  Faith would then be an accomplishment on our part for which God would give us salvation in return.  But this is false.

page 105: We are not reconciled to God when we believe, but we are already redeemed, are already reconciled to God, so that we believe.  This is also true regarding justification.  The whole world is already justified in Christ.  Faith is not the condition under which we are justified but the way and means by which we become partakers of the justification which God has long ago given us.  As we read in Scripture, God gave His Son to the world.  He did not merely grant the world permission to appropriate His Son; but rather (as we read in John 3:16) He gave Him to  us that we should believe in Him, and not only when we believe.
page 105-106: The old fathers spoke of two means for the attainment of justification, the giving means, namely Word and sacrament, and the receiving means, namely faith.  If a means for giving is present, then the gift must already be at hand  Thus it is also with justification.  It is already there.  The question is only how God desires to give it.
page 106: So the entire world was justified by the resurrection of Christ, which man must now accept by faith.
page 108: If we wish to make very clear to people how faith is related to justification, these two expressions [instument and hand] are best suited to achieve this.  It is very necessary that one understand this point clearly; only then will we teach justification properly.  As much as all Christian groups speak of faith, only a minority have a correct conception of faith and how it justifies.  . ... But, faith is only an accepting; that it changes people is only its fruit.
page 108: Forgiveness has been wrought also for the unrepentant.  Only their unbelief keeps justification from being effective in their case.
page 108: Justification is not something that occurs in our heart, but it occurs in God.  Sanctification occurs in us. Justification is a judicial act of God, in which He absolves the sinner from guilt and punishment and declares him justified.
page 109: And since God Himself works faith, it cannot be the cause nor the condition but only the means of justification.
page 109: Yes, the whole work of redemption would thereby be drawn into doubt.  But, thanks be to God, our justification is already accomplished.
page 109: The real reason for our justification is Christ.
page 109: If justification depended on the perfection of our faith, then we would all be lost.

2. Importance of this doctrine

page 87-88: At this juncture the convention observed that in most sermons the newer preachers tended to seriously neglect the doctrine of salvation.  [Walther continues:]  Yes, there are not a few Lutherans who think that doctrine should be treated very lightly lest the hearers become too secure.  Rather they feel one ought to stress conversion.  But how and by what manner did the Reformation of the church come into being?  How are people converted?  Precisely in this, that they let God have the honor which He has reserved for Himself in the work of salvation, that one truly believes this salvation with all his heart, and takes pleasure in it.  Anything else is no conversion.  ...that occurs alone through faith.  .... There is no teaching so worthy of being diligently and thoroughly studied, so worthy of having the preacher present it enthusiastically and graciously, as the doctrine of the redemption of the entire world through Christ. ....
Where this teaching is not preached in all its purity, there God is wretchedly despised; and conversely, where this gem is brought to light in all its brilliance, there God alone is given all glory.
page 108: If we wish to make very clear to people how faith is related to justification, these two expressions are best suited to achieve this.  It is very necessary that one understand this point clearly; only then will we teach justification properly.  As much as all Christian groups speak of faith, only a minority have a correct conception of faith and how it justifies.  . ... But, faith is only an accepting; that it changes people is only its fruit.  Whenever one accepts, fruits will follow -- such as a different will, a different understanding.
page 108: The question whether the expression “we are justified or blessed under the condition that we have faith” has no foundation, was answered: if one is speaking of the necessity of faith one might use this expression, but not without previously having forestalled any misunderstanding.  [see my letter to Prof. E.F. Klug]
page 110: This doctrine is vitally important, because if faith is made a condition for salvation, then one ascribes to man the ability to produce faith.  This is the error of the Methodists and other sects,...

In my next post, I'll continue with Walther quotes on Universalism, etc.

Preface to quotes of C.F.W. Walther on Doctrine of Justification

Before I get back (see previous post) to the unpleasant task of exposing Prof. Theodore Graebner and the origins of the downfall of the old German Missouri Synod, I must return to the divine, glorious teaching that puts C.F.W. Walther above all teachers of the church since Martin Luther and Martin Chemnitz. This is the teaching that truly separates the Lutheran Church as the one church that gives all glory to God. And this is the teaching that Walther fought so hard for against the Ohio and Iowa synods and others, yes even against any doubts among those in his own Synod.
In the middle of the 1990s, I was devastated by a traumatic event in my life.  I began to re-attend worship services with my father in an LC-MS church.  I had thrown off Christianity since my youth, and all seemed lost in my life.  During one of the sermons, it was preached something about the redemption of the whole world.... I forget the exact words used.

Hmmmmm.... what?  You mean God would still be gracious to me, even after I had so horribly thrown Him off like a dirty rag?  All the counsel of the world to relieve my pain (I sought a lot of counsel) was never even close to this message.  You mean all the counsel of the world is exactly contrary to God's counsel?  Surely God isn't that gracious... is He?  I recall the tears of (possible) joy as my thought was: "You mean God, that you were always there, even when I rejected you, there in my back pocket in the (Lutheran) training of my youth? My faith was re-kindled at that moment by the gracious God, but it was still weak.  I had to be sure of this universality of Justification and Redemption, otherwise I was sure I was going to Hell!  I devoured God's Word listening by cassette tapes the entire KJV at least 2 times through.  And I recall the passages of God's desire for the salvation of all men: Ezekiel 33:11, 1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, Matthew 26:50.  And in the Matthew passage cited, Jesus called Judas... friend?  Jesus, you knew what Judas was going to do to you... you knew he was going to deny you... ?  Why would you call Judas ... FRIEND?  At that moment, I heard Jesus call me, the one who so horribly denied Him, ... friend!  I knew then that this was my lifeline... and my confession remains this (as before) that:

If Jesus did not die for the sins of the whole world, yes even the sins of Judas, then I'm going to HELL!

And then in my readings of Christian literature, I began to gravitate to the writings of Luther, Walther, and Pieper.  I did this like a moth to a source of light.  It was that weak faith that had to know, to be certain, that had to erase all vestiges of doubt.  But now in my next post I will bring out the quotes of Walther that slammed me into my chair and pounded the Kingdom of Heaven into my heart!

Dear God! You are a witness to the tears in my eyes even now...
(Part 1 of quotes of Walther on Justification is next)

Rejoin the LC-MS? ... (Pieper speaks to me)

Since my last post, I have been devouring the translations of Walther and Pieper in the (Kindle) book At Home in the House of My Fathers by Matthew Harrison, current president of the LC-MS. Harrison spent some time researching the publications of the old German Missouri Synod and found among the many untranslated articles and essays a few that caught his attention.  I commend Harrison especially for bringing to light at least some of these works.  I'm now reading Pieper's article The Offense of Divisions in the Church and getting immense encouragement from it but...

But also in my last post, I raised the rhetorical question of whether I should consider re-joining my old synod, the LC-MS.  After all, here is now a president who seems to uphold the beauty of the father's doctrine, teaching and lives. President Harrison even says today's LC-MS is "orthodox" in his prefatory remarks to Pieper's essay to the 1905 Delegate Synod titled The Difficult Path of Holding Forth for the Truth.

But is it so?  Is today's LC-MS "orthodox", i.e. true to the Bible in all it's teaching? I could give a hundred refutations of this statement, but the one doctrine that covers it all is this: The Lutheran Doctrine Of Justification. It is this basic doctrine of Christianity that has been left behind!  How so?

• In dealings with other church bodies
• In actual public teaching
• In it's writings

I could tell President Harrison that his synod should start teaching creation, geocentrism, and warn against modern Dance and Theater.  ... that his synod should start teaching the verbal inspiration of the Bible, the authority of God's Word...  his synod should retract it's denouncement of Martin Luther in his writings against the Jews.... that his synod should warn against unionism.

But I won't.  What do I tell President Harrison that he should do?  Get down on your knees with all your synod and ask God's forgiveness for allowing doubt in his synod on the very Gospel itself.  (Read Jonah 3: 6-10 and Matthew 12:41.) How did his synod do this?  I will repeat it here as I recorded it earlier. In the December 1939 issue of the American Lutheran, (vol. 22, pgs 3796-3797), Professor Theodore Graebner wrote this:

One of the statements in the A.L.C. declaration has been criticized as hiding a denial of objective justification – when this doctrine is accepted by the American Lutheran Church (because it has accepted our Brief Statement) and when both Ohio and Iowa Synods for generations past have taught correctly this same doctrine.  As long ago as 1872 and as recently as 1938 the public doctrine in the areas here placed under suspicion has been the plain doctrine of Scripture as we teach it ourselves. - Theodore Graebner

When I first read this quote of Theodore Graebner, I caught my breath.  I could hardly believe what I was reading, for Professor Graebner publicly directly contradicted Walther and Pieper who so carefully warned against the error of the opponent "Lutherans" who denied the teaching of Objective, Universal Justification.  Theodore Graebner had "come out" of the closet and showed that he was at best confused about the Gospel, at worst, did not know it. I have not seen any indication that Professor Graebner was reprimanded on this.

And so it is, President Harrison, that you are now the president of the "Graebner Synod" that teaches the doctrine of Justification just as the Ohio and Iowa synods did and still do today... that is the ALC, later to become the ELCA.  How so?  By allowing doubt on the Gospel itself!

No, I know who you are, today's LC-MS.  Your house is on fire!  You have lost the Word and you don't know how to find it again!

The enormity of this topic causes me to continue it in my next posts with quotes of Walther on The Lutheran Doctrine of Justification.

Convention Essays from the old German Missouri Synod...

[2017-08-06: added direct link to spreadsheet, see below]
A commentator on my "translators" post pointed out a recent publication from the LC-MS that had me a bit stunned, because it surprised me that any writer of today's LC-MS would hold up the fathers of the old German Missouri Synod. The book is titled "At Home in the House of My Fathers". (Also Kindle edition.)
But the real stunner is that the author/editor is the current President of the LC-MS, "Matt" Harrison (Matthew C. Harrison). If I find that there is sufficient new material translated that I don't already have, I may actually buy the book! Some essays were from the 1840s which I have not seen yet. But this stirs up my old feelings about today's LC-MS. Maybe I should re-join my old synod because, there it is, an actual modern writer holding up the fathers! But I will say more about this later.
In response to this notice and to honor the fathers of the Missouri Synod, I am publishing the following extensive listing (prepared in the 1990s) of most doctrinal essays from the old German Missouri Synod (and beyond), most of which have much spiritual content. The listing goes from 1855 to 1956 so scroll down to see all the line items. But the real gems in this listing are the essays from C.F.W. Walther and Franz Pieper (F. Pieper). You will find their names among many others. But they are the ones who "gathered the luminous rays" of the Gospel the best. (My apologies for the poor English translation of some of the titles; I will update them and the spreadsheet "ConventionEssays" with time. See German titles for actual wording of the titles.)
[April 21, 2014 - see this post for downloads of scans and some text files]



2017-08-06: Direct link to this spreadsheet >>>  HERE <<<.

Most translators of the German Missouri Synod were not faithful...

As my masthead says, I came back (by God's mercy) to my old Christian faith, the Missouri Synod.  Not just to today's LCMS, but back further.  Back to the old German Missouri Synod, which led me to the true spiritual Luther, something today's modern world knows little about.

How could I go back so far since they communicated almost exclusively in German?  Well I first devoured all their works that had been translated into English.  That meant reading the translations of the likes of W.H.T. Dau, Theodore Graebner, J.T. Müller, William Arndt, Carl S. Meyer, August Suelflow and Kurt Marquart.  These translators would sometimes complement the German authors, but these complements were hollow because they either were silent about the true glory of their subject matter (true Christian teaching, the Gospel) or they actually tore down the authors. August Suelflow would omit portions of the original material where brevity was not needed, especially when I was hanging on every word the German author wrote!

But there were a few translators who were exceptions: Theodore Engelder, Walter Albrecht and Wallace McLaughlin.  These translators did not just translate, they sat at the feet of the giants of theology - C.F.W. Walther and Franz Pieper.  They are what I would call true Christian translators, not translating for translations sake, but for spiritual reasons... to proclaim the true Gospel!

It took me awhile to realize the shakiness of most translators... and to throw them off.  They are now in my side room. I want the good stuff... the pure Lutheran teaching. And I get it now partially by going directly to the German writings and using the tools of today to translate them directly.

But I would not leave this subject except to say there is one English translation that stands above all others: The 3-volume Christian Dogmatics by Franz Pieper (or Francis Pieper), translated primarily by Theodore Engelder. It is the greatest "book" by a human author in the English language.  How so?  Because

• Theodore Engelder, the translator, sat at the feet of:

• Franz Pieper, who beautifully quoted the Lutheran (Christian) doctrine of

• C.F.W. Walther, The American Luther and 

• Martin Luther, the reformer of the Church, Rev. 14:6-7

All Engelder's writings that were not translations are also faithful to the Word of God, building the Christian faith. What is significant is that he was faithful in the face of the horrible hot breath of the unionism spearheaded by Prof. Theodore Graebner.  As I stated elsewhere, Prof. Engelder was looked on as "not a yes man".  And it was reported that there was one man that left the room when there was to be a joint prayer in a unionistic meeting of the new modern LCMS and the other American Lutheran church bodies around 1943.  I believe that one man was Theodore Engelder.  And so Theodore Engelder is among the very few that I let out of that side room and read him without hesitation.

May the name of Theodore Engelder be remembered for his spiritually faithful translations and writings!

Walther's advice to struggling students: read Lutheran Doctrine of Justification

In the book Prairie School of the Prophets - The Anatomy of a Seminary 1846 - 1976 (CPH, 1989), Erich Heintzen wrote of the Missouri Synod practical seminary that eventually became what is today the Fort Wayne Seminary.  On page 63, he wrote of the early days of this institution when it resided in St. Louis from 1861 - 1874 during Walther's tenure there.  The practical seminarians attempted to initiate discussions on independent topics of interest among themselves.  Here I quote Heintzen:

In a desperation move, the Kollegium presented talks on the subject of the Kollegium itself and finally fell to discussing the catechism of the Methodist Epis­copal church. At this point, Dr. Walther was consulted. He sug­gested that they lay aside the catechism for a while in order to study something more basic, an essay on justification that had been pre­sented to the Western District convention of 1859.

And so Walther knew what advice to give struggling students who seemed to get bored with their chosen topics... study the basics of Christianity --- the Gospel itself.  And so the advise would be the same today for the LCMS if it were ever to return to it's foundation... study Walther's writings on the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification.  And Franz Pieper paraphrased Walther when he wrote:

All praise of Christ, of grace, and of the means of grace, without the right doctrine of justification, is nothing.  All teaching in the Church must serve this article.  Not as though one should or could urge only this article.  All revealed doctrines must be taught with the greatest care.  But even when one is treating of hell the goal must be to show the hearers the deliverance from hell.

Would to God all people knew and believed the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification (LDJ)!

Reformed teachers on Martin Luther... not quite there, but not all bad

I ran across another blogger, James Swan, (http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/, and tquid.sharpens.org/luther_Jews.htm (archived))  who defends Luther in some instances against attacks from Roman Catholics and others.  But he admits he is Reformed in his belief.  He speaks of hearing a talk of R.C. Sproul on Luther's commentary on the book of Romans that strengthened his faith immensely and has since studied Luther extensively.  Good for Mr. Swan! He somewhat defends Luther in his writings against the Jews but still condemns Luther in what are considered his harshest writings against the Jews.

Franz Pieper quoted many Reformed theologians approvingly where they defended the authority of Scripture, the Word of God.  Some so-called Lutherans today attempt to refute the Reformed only on their doctrines of the Sacraments, the Lord's Supper and Baptism.  But the difference between the Reformed and Lutherans is much deeper... it involves the heart of the Gospel itself.

So for those who want to know Martin Luther, they will read not only Luther's writings but also the writings of "The American Luther" and the "The Twentieth Century Luther" --> C.F.W. Walther and Franz Pieper.  All the Reformed teachings stop short of the pure Gospel either in synergism or limited atonement.  Only the true Lutheran faith (and Martin Luther's!) preached the full, free, complete pardon won by Christ on the cross. There is nothing we can do but believe it... and it is available for all because none have been excluded from the universal, objective Justification won by Christ! This the Reformed have difficulty swallowing... but it is the plain teaching of Scripture.  And it is this Gospel that has been commanded to be preached and is enveloped by the preaching of the Word and the Sacraments of the Lord's Supper and Baptism -->> the Means of Grace.

May all the Reformed who speak well of Martin Luther forget their aberrations of the Gospel and cling only to the simple word of the Gospel.

Ken Ham and his Answers In Genesis teaching on Creation

Mr. Ham enjoys some notoriety in the world today because of his teaching of a literal six-day Creation.  I recall having my faith strengthened by this and other so-called creation ministries.  I just received a mailing from him lamenting the sad state of the external church bodies today that have given up the literal teaching of Creation.  But Ken Ham also teaches a doctrine of salvation that is close to the Lutheran teaching... his reformed leanings have not led him too strongly to espouse a "decision for Christ" synergism.
Ken Ham is a vocal advocate for the authority of God's Word which pleases me.  He even praises Martin Luther on occasion... something that a few Reformed teachers do. Again, this pushes him into the Lutheran camp... except he falls on occasion. When there was some talk of evidence of life outside our Earth, he made a statement to the effect that "we must not be dogmatic" about the teaching of only life on Earth, which is Biblical teaching.
But the real difficulty for Mr. Ham is the issue of church denominations.  He attempts to stay above the differences among external church bodies.  But there is a church called the Lutheran Church which is the denomination that stands alone on the Word of God. And I am not speaking about today's external church bodies that claim the Lutheran name... but rather those who teach the true Lutheran (that is the true Christian) doctrine.  And those are few and far between.

Was Walther too strict warning against the Theater? Part 2

In Part 1, I gave the full section of Ewald Plass' book This Is Luther on the subject of Theater. I have attempted to verify Plass's sources but have been frustrated on his first reference about theatrical presentations presenting the Gospel in Lower Germany.  Even though I found the book by Julius Koestlin on Google Books, it seems that Mr. Plass must have erred because the page that he references, page 504, does not speak about the theater but about the Mass, papists, and the power of God's Word.  So I must take his assessment at face value.
But I did find his reference for "secular drama" or comedy by cross referencing the Erlangen citation with the St. Louis edition:
Erlangen Edition 62: 336 f. <<==>> St. Louis Edition 22: 1558-1561
And here is what Luther says:

2. On the Comedies.

(Cordatus. No. 1709)

Comedies need to be recited by the boys mainly that they have practice in the Latin language:  after that people will be trained by the fictitious persons and everyone is reminded of his duties.  In addition they set out the wiles of immoral women, and how the parents should receive their children with honour, and how the children should obey their parents. And if the comedies should not be performed because of some objectionable [obscoena] things for Christians, even the Bible would not be read. But anyone who takes offense at such things, takes the scandal where no one gives it.
(This paragraph in Lauterbach, 29 May 1538, p. 89)
I like the comedies of the Romans very well, the main purpose of which was that they want to appeal to the young people to enter the marriage estate. For the government of the world cannot exist without matrimony. Therefore, those insightful people attracted the youth by comedies, just as through images, in the best way to marriage, for fornication and celibate life are the bane of the state.

Let us examine what Luther says here.  What does Luther identify as the purpose of these theater comedies?
1) for student boys to learn Latin language
2) to warn against immoral women
3) parents should receive their children with honor
4) children should obey their parents
5) young people should enter marriage estate rather than fornication and celibacy

Now let us see how we can quote Luther against Luther.  The perfect example of this Luther's position on the Jews: he changed from sympathizing with the Jews to blasting them for their unbelief.  In the same way, one can quote the Bible against the Bible, but it is all the devil's play since Jesus said: "... the Scripture cannot be broken". (John 10:35)

Luther admitted in his later years that he was naive in his younger years concerning the papacy and other matters.  And he showed that he would seemingly change his position on Dance when the circumstances showed the practice had become worldly.

And so I, BackToLuther, must say that even though Walther did not take the time in his book to explain Luther's comments on the theater, yet Luther's pro-theater comments in no way impair Walther's warnings against the theater. I would say that Walther's warnings are the voice of a later Luther who would fully understand Goethe when he said the plays can neither promote or want to promote morality (see Walther pg 106).

Ewald Plass presumes too much when he says "There was certainly nothing prudish or puritanical about Martin Luther."  Indeed God's Word does speak plainly about the immoralities of people and about the human anatomy, but these are warnings and words from the Creator, the One who made them "male and female".  Indeed Luther was "prudish and puritanical" in the sense the modern world uses it.  Luther criticized Lucas Cranach for one of his paintings depicting a nude woman even though it was to attack the papacy.  His criticism was because of embarrassment over what was to be said to wives and mothers in view of this painting.

No!  Walther, not Ewald Plass (and the modern English LC-MS), must be listened to because Walther's warnings are the same as from Scripture:

...whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Romans 14:23

Flee fornication. 1 Cor. 6:18

Much more could be written about this but this is a "blog" and so I will end it here, at least for now. I have been on this subject since my post of December 29, 2011 where Pieper raised the subject again in 1927. May this be to the glory of the One who paid the price... that we might be free from sin. SDG.