Pieper: The Open Heaven, Part 7 (American Lutheran closers)

In Part 6 (Table of Contents in Part 1), Pieper reveals "the most deplorable event in modern history", Lutherans who deny "by grace alone" or sola gratia.  After covering the error of Melanchthon and 19th century German theologians, he moves on to his last group (pgs 276-277):

Also within the Lutheran Church of America Luther's sola-gratia doctrine has been vigorously disputed and disavowed. The Lutheran theologians here have gone much farther than simply to declare that man's conversion and salvation depend also on his right conduct; they have actually asserted that any one who does not espouse this synergistic view, but ascribes man's conversion and salvation solely to divine grace, subverts the foundation of the Christian religion and must therefore he regarded as a false prophet, a wolf in sheep's clothing, a Calvinist, and the like. ... But all those in our country who thus so strenuously oppose the Scriptural doctrine of conversion and election really set themselves in front of the open gate of heaven with the arrogant demand which we may correctly render thus: "No admittance except on good behavior." Of course, they added to their claim the qualification that they did not imply right conduct in the absolute, but only in a relative sense; that is, those who would be saved must show a lesser degree of resistance and of guilt as compared with those who are not converted and saved. But if we argue after this fashion, it becomes all the more obvious that we close heaven: for with our comparatively better conduct and our comparatively smaller guilt we join the ancient order of Pharisees, who return to their houses without being justified, Luke 18: 14, or to state it directly, as Pharisees we exclude ourselves from heaven.

Pieper then hammers home the account of the Pharisee in the Temple from Luke 18:11.  Then he slams it home again with Luther's take on this subject:

Luther, when speaking of this "comparatively better conduct" of men, uses very strong language, language that is apt to grate somewhat harshly upon our refined ears. He calls it an "insidious" and "horrible fraud" of Satan whenever a person exalts himself in the sight of God even over a harlot. His exact words are: "God forbids you to exalt yourself even over a prostitute, though you were Abraham, David, Peter, or Paul." (St. L. Ed., XI, 515.)
That illustrious oracle of scientific theology at Luther's time Erasmus of Rotterdam tried to persuade Luther in his diatribe Concerning the Free Will, published in 1524, not to ascribe salvation entirely to divine grace, but to accept a compromise and to recognize in the divine plan of salvation not only God's grace, but also man's own good conduct, or the so-called "faculty of applying oneself to divine grace"... But in his treatise of refutation, Concerning the Enslaved Will (De Servo Arbitrio), Luther replied: "Iugulum petisti," that is, "You have seized me by the throat," (Cf. Opp. v. a., St. L. Ed., VII, 367. ) Luther meant to tell Erasmus: "All you want is to deprive me of the fundamental doctrine of salvation by grace alone, and by your error you aim to close for me the heaven which Christ has opened."

Dear Christian!  Don't let any teaching close The Open Heaven for you!  There is nothing we can do to earn Heaven, no comparatively better conduct or good behavior that can save us.  How this goes against our nature for our old nature screams "look at me God", I've done this or that good thing or at least I'm not as bad as so-and-so.  No!  It is only and alone by God's free grace.

Pieper finishes this section with hymn verses that included this familiar one, a striking one for me:

Just as I am, without one plea
But that Thy blood was shed for me
And that Thou bidst me come to Thee,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come!

Why is this familiar hymn striking for me?  Because it is the hymn sung during Billy Graham's televised crusades, at the end where the audience was bid to "accept Christ" or "make a decision for Christ".  This hymn verse shows how synergistic preaching or "decision theology" has to forget itself and bow to pure grace alone.  My mother, who was a strong follower of Walter A. Maier and The Lutheran Hour radio program, would not miss any of Graham's television broadcasts.  But Graham's decision theology was not Lutheran and confused my Christian faith in my youth.

Who were these Lutherans in America who were confused on the doctrine of "by grace alone" or sola gratia?  The Ohio and Iowa Synods, the forerunners of the ALC and LCA synods which were the forerunners of today's ELCA.  So instead of Prof. David Scaer's reason for the downfall of the ELCA which is the Law, it is rather Pieper's reason: the fall on the Doctrine of Grace.  And this shows the continuing fallout of Pieper's "deplorable event" in all of modern history – the Downfall of the LC-MS.

Pieper goes on in his essay The Open Heaven to continue to drive this last point home – how the doctrine of sola gratia is to be defended, in my next post Part 8.

Pieper: The Open Heaven, Part 6 ("Lutheran" deniers)

In Part 5 (Table of Contents in Part 1), Pieper introduced this topic of those groups who close the doors of Heaven by denying "by grace alone" or sola gratia. The first 2 groups, Roman Catholics and Arminians, were fairly predictable.  But now he goes on to a religious group that even Wikipedia does not include in this category in their comparison chart of religious denominations – "Lutherans". (pages 273-274):

But now we arrive at the most deplorable event in modern history, secular as well as ecclesiastical. By means of Luther's Reformation, God restored to His Church the heaven which Christ has opened for all men, but which had so long been bolted against all poor sinners by the papal doctrine of work-righteousness.

Do you hear that, modern historians?  Pieper is going to tell you what "the most deplorable event in modern history" is.  But it won't be what you say it is, because you don't know what true theology is.  But Pieper does, and so we get pure Historical Theology from him.
And what is this "deplorable event"?  It is that some theologians who call themselves Lutheran actually deny what Luther's Reformation was based on.  Pieper breaks these down into 3 chronological groups:

1) Melanchthon (page 275)

After Luther's death († 1546) there appeared the first Lutheran to deny The Open Heaven:

It cannot be denied that this "scandal" originated in the very heart of the Lutheran Church, even during Luther's lifetime, and that after his death it boldly raised its head in Luther's own city of Wittenberg. Melanchthon, who in the beginning had been a loyal and devoted colleague of Luther, in the course of time espoused the doctrine, and gained adherents for it, that the Holy Spirit and the gracious operation of the Gospel are not sufficient to convert a sinner to God, but that there must be a third cause of conversion and salvation, namely, man's own assenting will, which "applies itself to divine grace".

However the true Lutherans, especially Martin Chemnitz, overturned this error in the Formula of Concord.

2) German theologians of 19th century

Then again in the land of Luther, Germany, there appeared again this error (pgs 275-276):

The offense cropped up time and again within the Lutheran Church during the succeeding centuries. The German theologians of the nineteenth century who are generally regarded as the exponents of Lutheran theology have renounced almost completely the sola gratia doctrine of Luther and of the confessional Lutheran Church and have adopted the synergistic views which Melanchthon propounded in his later years. ... The neo-Lutheran school of theologians in Germany champions this synergistic doctrine almost to a man.

So much attention has been given to German philosophers, thinkers and theologians of recent centuries.  It seems the world can't get enough of them and their ideas.  But unfortunately!  their ideas were largely their own, especially on theology.  Pieper is still right...  Germany's theologians were leading Christianity away from its true teachings.

So Pieper thus far has taken us from Luther's times to the 19th century with his first 2 groups of "Lutherans" that deny sola gratia.  So now he goes on to the third group which is probably one that he wanted to highlight the most since I suspect this is what he worried about the most for his beloved Missouri Synod.  This third group?  In my next post Part 7 – the Lutheran Church of America.

Pieper: The Open Heaven, Part 5 (Deniers of Grace Alone)

In Part 4 (Table of Contents in Part 1), Pieper points out how Calvinists close the doors of Heaven by deny universal grace, but now he goes on to a much larger kettle of fish – those who deny Grace Alone (sola gratia)(page 272):

However, the wretched business of closing heaven is carried on in even wider circles. Heaven is actually closed to the sinner by all those who teach that, while divine grace has been secured by Christ for all men, yet this grace, proclaimed and proffered in the Gospel, together with the gracious operation of the Holy Ghost which produces faith in this Gospel, is not sufficient to insure heaven, since salvation must be earned in part by man's own works, efforts, and merits.

Pieper goes on to name 3 groups who close Heaven by deny the doctrine of sola gratia or by Grace Alone.  The first 2 are:

1) Roman Catholic Church 

This is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Church erects a barrier in front of the gate of heaven opened by Christ's perfect atonement by demanding that all who want to enter that gate must first give proof of their fulfilment of the "Law of God and the commandments of the Church." This false doctrine is expressly taught in the chief confession of the Roman Catholic Church, the Decrees of the Council of Trent. (Cf. Sessio VI, Can. 20.) Rome even goes so far as to anathematize all who put their trust solely in the mercy of God according to which He forgives all sins for Christ's sake. (Can. 12 and elsewhere.) Scripture, however, decrees in unmistakable terms that this mandate excludes men from heaven: "Christ is become of no effect unto you whosoever of you are justified by the Law; ye are fallen from grace." Gal. 5: 4; and again: "As many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse," Gal. 3: 10.

2) Arminians

... the Arminians ... insist that God's grace in Christ is not sufficient to convert and save the sinner; for man himself must cooperate in his conversion by means of those spiritual powers which he has retained even after the Fall. The specific error of Arminianism is that divine grace cannot exert its power without the cooperation of man's free will.

The Wikipedia article on Arminianism explains that Methodists, Congregationalists, and certain Baptists hold to this doctrine.  But their comparison chart of various "Protestant" denominations has an error on it and this error is covered by Pieper's presentation of the third group that denies "by Grace Alone" and it is a bit of a surprise.  I will cover them in Part 6 – "Lutheran" deniers of sola gratia.

Pieper: The Open Heaven, Part 4 (Closed by Calvinists)

In Part 3 (Table of Contents in Part 1), Pieper points out how Unitarians close the doors of Heaven, but he goes on to Calvinists who do the same thing (page 268):

Heaven is closed, moreover, by all those who teach that Christ secured grace and opened heaven for only a part of mankind. This error is championed by all Calvinists of olden and modern times, including those in our own country. John Calvin opined that God meant to save only about twenty per cent, of all men; the other eighty per cent. He directly created unto eternal damnation. (Cf. Institutiones, III, 24, 12; 21, 5.) ... In his controversial writings, directed against all proponents of universal grace (gratia universalis), he at times becomes quite caustic and brands their doctrine as "nonsensical and childish beyond measure." (Cf. III, 23, 1. )

Now Pieper presents the counterpoint that Holy Scripture states (page 269):

Calvinistic exegetes thus presume to delete from Scripture such clear statements as these: "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself"; "God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son"; "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world"; "Christ is the Propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Cf. 2 Cor. 5:19; John 3:16; 1:29; 1 John 2:2.

No theologian since Franz Pieper used the passage of John 3:16 more purely than he did.  And the result of Calvin's teaching?

But the situation becomes quite different as soon as man is terrified by the divine Law, that is, as soon as He experiences in His heart and conscience the verdict of God's condemnation. In that case he quite logically numbers himself among the eighty per cent whom Christ did not redeem with His blood. The result is that he will perish in despair unless he is directed to the central doctrine of Christianity, that God was in Christ, reconciling unto Himself the whole world, not a single man excepted.

I am that man... the one who was terrified by God... the one who would assume that Calvin was right and that I was probably in the 80% group that Christ did not redeem.  After all, I had rejected God, turned away from Him.  Surely I would be the last one he would accept.  But praise God!... the teaching of Scripture came back to me through the crystal clear teaching of the true Lutheran Church, through the writings of the fathers of the old (German) Missouri Synod!  It did not make any difference who I was or how bad I was because Christ redeemed the whole world!  Calvinism was completely wrong on this doctrine.

Pieper goes on to show that, like Unitarians, Calvinists must deny one of its basic teachings to enter The Open Heaven:

... if a Calvinist, in his tribulations and in his terrors at the prospect of death, wants to escape endless despair and damnation, he must become a Lutheran, that is, he must believe God's unlimited universal grace.

Now Pieper goes after bigger fish in his hunt for those who would close The Open Heaven – those who deny Grace Alone (sola gratia), Part 5.

Pieper: The Open Heaven, Part 3 (Closed by Unitarians)

In Part 2 of this blog series (Table of Contents in Part 1), Franz Pieper showed how the doctrine of The Open Heaven gives the correct world-view.
But now in Part 3, he begins to show how various groups close Heaven.  He prefaces with these comments (page 264):

But now the question confronts us, Why is it that not all men actually enter heaven? This leads us to discuss a subject that is tragic indeed - the melancholy fact that men reject the heaven which Christ has opened unto them and thus lock themselves out of it. ... Hence we must beware of all those who want to shut the open heaven.  That is the purpose of this rather depressing discussion, which we might entitle "The Closing of Heaven."

Depressing indeed!  But who would close the doors of Heaven?  Pieper describes his first group:

Heaven is being closed most flagrantly by the Unitarians and by all those religious denominations and bodies which deny that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself. The Unitarians reject the eternal, essential deity of Christ and as a logical consequence also the reconciliation of the world through Christ's vicarious satisfaction, or atonement (satisfactio vicaria).

How further do these Unitarians perversely rail against God's doctrine?

They declare that the Christian doctrine that God has reconciled the world unto Himself and thus opened heaven to all men through Christ's vicarious suffering and death is both superfluous and morally perversive. Accordingly, they – together with the Unitarian lodges – even challenge all Christians to kneel with the Jews, Buddhists, Confucianists, and other representatives of pagan religions "before a common altar."

An interesting comment indeed since the leadership of the LC-MS in recent years did just that – "...offering prayers along with assorted Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist clergy,"  Hmmm... either Pieper is completely off base, or... Heaven Is Open for all through Christ, the Saviour of the World from sin and spiritual death.
But now Pieper cites a surprising case – a noted Unitarian teacher denying his erroneous doctrine.  Pieper writes pages 267-268):

We know of a number of professed Unitarians who during their entire lifetime opposed the vicarious atonement of Christ, yet sought refuge in that doctrine when they were about to die. In our own United States, Horace Bushnell († 1876) repudiated the vicarious sacrifice of Christ as long as he lived; but in the hour of death he declared. as reported by L. W. Munhall: "I fear what I have written and said upon the moral idea of the atonement is misleading and will do great harm. O Lord Jesus, I trust for mercy only in the shed blood that Thou didst offer on Calvary." (Cf. Strong. Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, p. 739-740.) ... we find the confession of Unitarians themselves that there is an open heaven only by virtue of Christ's vicarious atonement and that all those lock themselves out of heaven who disown this vicarious sacrifice and prefer to blaze their own trail to salvation by their merits and works.

Who else wants to close the doors of The Open Heaven?  See my next post Part 4 - Calvinists.

Pieper: The Open Heaven, Part 2 (correct world-view)

In Part 1 of this blog series (Table of Contents in Part 1), Franz Pieper laid down the foundation for The Open Heaven.  He then built on that foundation for following point (page 262):

Nowadays men often speak of the correct world-view. But everything that the children of this world include under the vast concept world-view is paltry indeed. We possess the true world-view only when we know and maintain that through the reconciliation effected by Christ, heaven is open to all men. We know this to be true because Christ teaches us that the world exists only in order that the fact of His atonement may be proclaimed to all men. "And this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations: and then shall the end come." Matt. 24: 14.

So the true Christians, those who "know and maintain that through the reconciliation effected by Christ, heaven is open to all men", are the only true judges of the world, for

...the saints shall judge the world (1 Cor. 6:2)

Now there is no shortage of people and organizations that think they can judge the world.  Many publish the events in the world and their judgments of these.
One example of this is World magazine, a publication founded by conservative Presbyterians, that would call itself a Christian publication.  They lay some claim to Biblical authority.  It's basic foundation is Calvinism which denies that "heaven is open to all men".  (This error of Calvinism will be covered in a later post.)  So in spite of it's claims to Christianity, it holds to the error that God's grace is not universal.  And so it's world-view is not fully Christian.  One could go on to thousands of other examples, but the point is made.  The true world-view is completely bound to the true Christian doctrine.
So who can we turn to for a true world-view?  Who better than the 20th Century Luther, who published Christian commentaries of his world-view through several publications.  But some readers might object that Pieper died over 80 years ago († 1931) and a lot of world events have happened since then.  But spiritually speaking, Pieper is as fresh today as when his essays and articles were published from 1875 to 1931.  Why?  Because he believed God at His Word... and because he was a great Lutheran scholar and was knowledgeable of news of the world.  And so I will continue to present some of Pieper's world views in this blog as I can.
In the next Part 3, Pieper moves to discuss "The Closing of Heaven".

Pieper: The Open Heaven, Part 1 of 12

After my previous series of posts on the depressing essays from Concordia Theological Seminary (5 of 7) that in various ways call into doubt the teaching of Walther (and Pieper), I need an antidote.  After looking around, I found it.  In a previous post, I highlighted the book What Is Christianity? And Other Essays by Franz Pieper published by Concordia Publishing House.  In that post, I highlighted the first essay What Is Christianity? but this time I would like to highlight the last essay, The Open Heaven.

Two years before he died, Pieper presented this essay to his beloved Missouri Synod, a synod that he knew was entering modern times with pressures to join with other Lutheran bodies outside the Synodical Conference.  He may have already known that certain members of his faculty at Concordia Seminary were drifting away from the pure Bible teaching, from the pure proclamation of the Doctrine of Justification.  So what did he do?  Did he come down hard with the hammer of the Law to keep his Synod on track?  Did he speak of a "christological" component in the Law like Professor David Scaer does? No, Pieper spoke of The Open Heaven... and who better than The 20th Century Luther to tell us about a Heaven that is open!
Pieper speaks thus:

On the basis of Holy Scripture we assert that this heaven is open to all men.... Yes, indeed, heaven is open! (page 257)

But he explains that it was re-opened because of man's fall into sin... all men:

By the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation (Romans 5:18 - pg 257)

And he also explains that this re-opening cannot be done by man for

... by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified. (Galatians 2:16 - pg 258) 

So why was heaven re-opened?  It is because God did not reject mankind after the fall, but rather loved man.  And so

He made His eternal Son, God of God, Light of Light, to become incarnate, to assume the human nature... so that before the Father He might represent and plead the cause of the whole race of man.  He placed upon His incarnate Son the obligation to fulfil in man's place that divine Law which He had given to man. Galatians 4:4-5 (page 259)

Now Pieper gives the Bible verse from 2 Corinthians that is so hard for today's modern world:

God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them 2 Corinthians 5:19. 

It was God who re-opened heaven, not man.  Then Pieper states (page 261):

It is God's will that this wondrous fact be proclaimed to the whole world, according to His command:

• Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16: 15-16

Dear Christian! Get this book and read it carefully to have your Christian faith kindled and strengthened.  This book is easy to read, the English translation well done.
This essay of The Open Heaven is such a great synopsis of Pieper's major work Christian Dogmatics and it speaks to our world today so forcefully.  It is so good that I am doing a 12 part series of blogposts on it; here is a Table of Contents with links for each part:
Part 1 – The Open Heaven;      Part 2 – correct world-view;           Part 3 – Closed by Unitarians
Part 4 – Closed by Calvinists;   Part 5 – Deniers of Grace Alone;   Part 6 – "Lutheran" deniers
Part 7 – Am. Lutheran closers;  Part 8 – Walther battles Reformed;  Part 9 – Walther battles Am. Lutherans
Part 10 – Chain of Salvation;   Part 11 – "or else dust and ashes";   Part 12 – Missions; conclusion
I am now making this one essay (of the 6 essays in this book) available for download here and I will continue my comments of it in my next post Part 2 (correct World-View).  Below

2 out of 7: LC-MS low score on Walther (Part 7 of 7 - Scaer)

This post (Part 7) concludes the series of commentaries on the 7 essays from the 2011 Concordia Theological Quarterly "celebrating" the Bicentennial of the birth of C.F.W. Walther.  See the table of contents for the full listing.

7) David P. Scaer – Walther, the Third Use of the Law, and Contemporary Issues

This essay presents the same old grind of "celebrating" Walther's Bicentennial when actually they are an affront to Walther and his teaching.  Let me begin this commentary with quotes of words and phrases that Scaer uses in his essay:

• "third use of the law"
• "antinomianism"
• "Gospel reductionism"
• "the law's positive aspect" in providing specific guidance in how Christians are to live
• "ethical matters"
• "compromise the law"
• "serious attention ... to defining the law"
• "the paradise understanding of the law reemerges"

Scaer laments what is going on in the world today and particularly in the ELCA, with its ordination of women and homosexual pastors.  But then he makes a striking statement (page 335):

... the law-gospel paradigm as articulated by Walther ... (did) support these practices.

Scaer essentially blames Walther's teaching of the "law-gospel paradigm" for the ELCA's ordination of women and pastors!  Wow, what a "celebration" of Walther's teaching!
Scaer ends his essay with the following:

(page 341-342) Recent ELCA decisions [homosexuality, women pastors and "contemporary issues"] can be seen as offenses in the light of natural law and specific biblical prohibitions, but ultimately must be seen as offenses against Christ.  Again, this leads to the conclusion that the most significant deficit in Lutheran definitions of the third use of the law is the christological component. Current crises bring up the question whether the gospel is God's last word.  Yes, perhaps in the sense that what Christ has done comes alive in the lives of Christians. Consider these words of Jesus,  "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (Jn 15:13). That's gospel and the third use altogether.  Now, I am not so sure that the first and third uses of the law produce the same ex­ternal results.  At the end time the first and second uses of the law will pass away and only the third will remain. Maybe this is what Paul meant: "So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love" (1 Cor 13:13). 

This writing is a most confusing exposition of Law and Gospel.  Scaer attempts to hide his focus on the Law by pointing out the error of the Reformed which is to use the Law to produce good works.  But he repeatedly goes back to the Law and what he calls its "christological component".  But the Bible clearly says

John 1:17 – For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

As a contrast to Scaer's focus on the Law and ethical matters, here is Franz Pieper's teaching on the use of the Law in his Christian Dogmatics (volume 3, page 237-238):

The Formula of Concord states this truth repeatedly and lucidly. It says: If the Christians had only their new man, "they would do of themselves, and altogether voluntarily, without any instruction, admonition, urging or driving of the Law, what they are in duty bound to do according to God's will; ... But the Christian, considered in concreto, as he exists in this world, is not yet entirely a new man; he still has the old man dwelling in him. And in this respect, according to his old man, the Christian still needs the Law in all its uses, no matter how these uses are divided or designated.  ... Luther answers : "According to the spirit the believer is righteous, without any sin, has need of no law whatever; according to his flesh he still has sin.... There all manner of filth still clings to him, and evil concupiscence, worry about his daily bread, fear of death, avarice, anger, hatred; the filth always remains beside his faith, for him to contend with it and sweep it out. Now, because this is still in us, Scripture in this respect rates us as of a kind with the unrighteous and sinners, so that according to our flesh we need the Law as much as do they." (St. L. IX:881, not in Am. Ed.)

Scaer wants to make a show of the different uses of the Law (or third use of the Law), but not Pieper (or Luther).  Why is that?  It is because he is a teacher of the heterodox LCMS that is hesitant in its teaching of the Doctrine of Universal, Objective Justification, or the Gospel.  He wants to blame the Gospel for the downfall of the ELCA.  But the real situation is quite the opposite for it was the new (English) LCMS that fell on this central doctrine and so left the predecessors of ELCA (Iowa and Ohio Synods) to fall further from the true Gospel.  And without the true Gospel, they joined hands with the Roman Catholic Church in their "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification".

Scaer dreams that he understands Historical Theology when he says (page 336-337):

...influences flowing from Missouri's Zion on the Missis­sippi could reverse course and flow north into ELCA seminaries. Well, according to Carl E. Braaten, this is what happened, and details are provided in his Because of Christ, Memoirs of a Lutheran Theologian. ...but in Braaten's opinion theological anti­nomianism was at work. "The theology that backed up the 'paradigm shift' at LSTC was antinomian or a close relative."  All this laid on the shoulders of former LCMS clergy who found their way into his church.

This is why today's (English) LCMS wants to be thought of as the true descendant of the old (German) Missouri Synod... so they can blame old Missouri's doctrines for the theological ills of our modern world.  Carl Braaten is correct in blaming the LCMS for the ills in the ELCA, but not for the reason he states.

No!  It is you, modern (English) LCMS, that is largely at fault for the fall of virtually all of external Christianity!  It is you that is at fault, not because of those who walked out of the LC-MS to form Seminex, but because of your loss of the Doctrine of Justification!  Jesus said

Matt 23:37 ...how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

No!  It was Walther's teaching of the proper distinction of Law and Gospel that upheld true Christian doctrine.  Today's LCMS is lost in its own "law-gospel paradigm".

2 out of 7: LC-MS low score on Walther (Part 6 of 7 - Pless)

This post (Part 6) continues the series of commentaries on the 7 essays from the 2011 Concordia Theological Quarterly "celebrating" the Bicentennial of the birth of C.F.W. Walther.  See the table of contents for the full listing.

6) John T. Pless – Wilhelm Löhe: His Voice Still Heard in Walther's Church

Löhe held to serious errors in the doctrine of the public ministry teaching the "immediate divine establishment of the public ministry" rather than the call of the congregation (Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, III, 448).  But Professor Pless is rather crass in his slap at Walther when he states in his conclusion thus (page 328):

In more recent years, various aspects of Löhe's legacy have been retrieved in LCMS efforts to broaden ecumenical perspective, deepen pastoral theology, enrich liturgical life, give shape to an authen­tically Lutheran missiology, enhance the place of the female diaconate, sustain the church's corporate life of mercy, or to provide what is seen as a corrective to Walther's understanding of the office. ... Fresh, unbiased engagement of Löhe's work is to be welcomed as an appropriate way to appreciate his legacy, alongside that of Walther, in order that his voice may contribute to the life and mission of the Lutheran church in our day. 

What a great celebration of Walther's Anniversary!  To the invitation from today's LC-MS to "Join the Celebration" of the Bicentennial 1811-2011 of Walther's birth, I say

No!...

I will not join your celebration but rather celebrate Walther's doctrine.

Thank you Prof. Pless for stating the obvious...  that you are no longer in Walther's Church (not your Grandfather's church) but rather a heterodox church that listens to Löhe as a "corrective to Walther".  It is sad that President Matthew Harrison included you in discussions with the new NALC for it shows Harrison's weakness in judging the doctrine within his own Synod.

And to you Albert B. Collver, what do you say to your fellow teacher Professor John T. Pless on this essay?  Do you also say Walther needs Löhe's "correctives" to Walther's understanding of the Office of the Ministry?  You don't?  But you are in fellowship with Pless...

Franz Pieper said it well about the public ministry when he said (Christian Dogmatics, volume 3, pg 449):

There have been times – and such times may come again – when unbelief and false doctrine so overran external Christendom that orthodox Christians had to depend on the preaching of the Word in the homes. Of this Luther says : "It may happen that the world will become so utterly epicurean that we shall have no public ministry in all the world and the preaching will be solely epicurean outrage and that the Gospel will be preserved only in the homes by the fathers" (St. L. VI : 938) .... The Word of God is a means of grace also when merely read...

These times are now.  I have found that unbelief and false doctrine have so overrun external Christendom... Dear Christian!  God does not want you to accept heterodox teaching but His true teaching from the Scriptures... and the old (German) Missouri Synod of C.F.W. Walther leads us to it.

The last essay to be reviewed (Scaer) is in Part 7.

2 out of 7: LC-MS low score on Walther (Part 5 of 7 - Ziegler)

This post (Part 5) continues the series of commentaries on the 7 essays from the 2011 Concordia Theological Quarterly "celebrating" the Bicentennial of the birth of C.F.W. Walther.  See the table of contents for the full listing.

5) Roland F. Ziegler – Eduard Preuss and C.F.W. Walther

It was a surprise to find that Professor Ziegler is a native of Germany and so it is also a surprise to read of his understanding of Walther in this wonderful essay. Could it be that Germans are not immune to the Gospel?
Ziegler quotes from Walther's Gesetz und Evangelium freely with his own English translations, not from the published translation by W.H.T. Dau or the new CPH translation Law & Gospel by Christian Tiews.  He seems genuinely interested in the spiritual message that Walther actually taught, not historical contexts or backgrounds.

This essay provides a glimpse into the abyss of unbelief and the counterpoint of true Christian doctrine.  Eduard Preuss, a renowned German theologian, came to St. Louis and became a professor there under C.F.W. Walther.  He wrote a significant essay on the Doctrine of Justification for which Walther was impressed.  But suddenly, he left the Lutheran Church and joined the Roman Catholic Church.  He had suddenly converted from "faith alone" to "faith and works".  There are far too many details of this situation to recount here so the reader is encouraged to download the whole essay and read it.
Ziegler is thoroughly correct to use Walther's Law and Gospel writing to see Walther's answer to the downfall of Preuss. His essay is a presentation described by this quote from page 296:

I want to present to you two topics that are pertinent to the entire affair.  First, affliction in the Christian life.  Second, the difference between "dead faith of reason" and true faith, and the question of experience. 

1) On the first point, "affliction in the Christian life" Ziegler explains Walther's teaching thus (pg 297):

... it is telling that Walther does not expect some kind of resolution in history as Preuss expected (i.e., the triumph of truth over its enemies and thus the growth of the true church in time). Walther's view of the church includes that there is never any kind of rest for the church and individual pastors.

2) On the second point, Ziegler goes into Walther's magnificent teaching of true faith versus "historical faith":

(page 298-299) Walther mentions that he had for a while the suspicion that Preuss was not truly converted. Walther mentions one reason for this was his abrasive and uncharitable polemics. ... Secondly, true faith is existential faith: beyond believing the fides quae, it includes also the belief that my sins are forgiven.... Walther assumes that there are people who have a mere historical faith among the listeners of a sermon, thus the preacher has to point out this distinction as part of preaching the law. For that, though, it is necessary that the pastor himself knows this difference, not only intellectually, but personally, i.e., that he has true faith, not only historical faith.
(page 300) But beyond that, Walther also says that real faith is connected to experience. In my view, he tries to go a middle way. On the one hand, he rejects the view which he associates with Methodism, a view that grounds the certainty of salvation on one's experience. On the other hand, he also rejects the total divorce of faith from experience (quoting Walther) :

• No, God's word calls to us: "Taste and see how friendly the Lord is." He who has never tasted how friendly the Lord is may not think that he is in the true faith.

From this, Ziegler goes on to Walther's teaching against Roman Catholicism:

(page 307) It is not surprising that Walther defended the traditional Lutheran view that the pope is the antichrist and that papacy is antichristianity.... Walther points out that the antichrist, since he sits in the church, has to mask himself with Christian doctrines. The papacy is antichristianity because it alone within Christendom (i.e., the churches which are trinitarian) is an enemy of free grace in Christ because it teaches that Christ is a new legislator and the gospel is a doctrine of works. ... The Preuss affair would have therefore only confirmed Walther's view of Roman Catholicism. 

But now Ziegler does an amazing thing by applying Walther's teaching to today's world:

(page 307) We, too, hear that saying the pope is antichrist is just being cranky and reactionary or that the papacy is not the enemy of Christianity but holds to the essentials of Christianity and is the bullwark against the foes of Christianity and the tide of immorality. ... But if the gospel of free grace is still condemned by Rome, then the papacy is what it was before.

Ziegler continues his amazing essay by continuing to apply Walther to "all of us":

(page 308-309) The tragic apostasy of Preuss is a warning to all of us: "Therefore, let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall" (1 Cor 10:12). No Christian ever simply "has" the gospel, because he is always also under the condemnation of the law. May God grant to all of us that when the law comes down on us with ferocity – when we hear the murderous voice of the accuser that wants to drive into despair – that then we do not try to find a solution for ourselves, but turn to someone who will tell us the gospel so that in the midst of our death we may have life. For this we pray in the sixth petition of the Lord's Prayer, And lead us not into temptation"...

Indeed, Professor Ziegler, may God grant this to us all!
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
But... as magnificent as Professor Ziegler's essay is, he has a major difficulty in his life.  The difficulty?
Professor Ziegler – your life is a great struggle now since you are in fellowship with the other essayists who would rather find fault with Walther (and Pieper and Luther) ... Noland, Mayes, MacKenzie, Pless, and Scaer, etc, etc, etc.  You are like Eduard Preuss in the sense that you are very knowledgeable... you know the languages fluently, you know the German theologians, you know of the doctrines involved.  How can you stand there and be in fellowship with MacKenzie who said

We do not do either of these things today.  We expect our heroes both to have weaknesses and to make mistakes – and they do. Martin Luther and oh, yes, C.F.W. Walther.  But Walther is long gone and so is his whole approach to Martin Luther as hero and infallible teacher.

You should go now to Prof. MacKenzie and show him his fault.  You should explain to him your essay on Justification.  You should personally explain to him Walther's teaching of "spiritually dead" faith.
Professor Cameron MacKenzie – maybe you should yield as Chairman of Historical Theology to Prof. Roland Ziegler and just sit at the feet of Luther, Walther, Pieper, and... Prof. Roland Ziegler... and forget modern theology and it's useless questions, it's spiritually dead heroes.

Rev. Paul T. McCain – you should replace all current editors and translators (including Mayes) of the New Series of Luther's Works with this man, Professor Roland F. Ziegler.

Dear God!  There is a German native in today's world that can actually teach like Luther and Walther.  But Professor Ziegler – there is another great native German man, Walther's successor

Franz Pieper – The 20th Century Luther

Have you publicly recognized him?

The next item in this series is Part 6.

2 out of 7: LC-MS low score on Walther (Part 4 of 7 - Collver)

This post (Part 4) continues the series of commentaries on the 7 essays from the 2011 Concordia Theological Quarterly "celebrating" the Bicentennial of the birth of C.F.W. Walther.  See the table of contents for the full listing.

4) Albert B. Collver – Mission through Witness, Mercy, Life Together in Walther and the First Fathers of Missouri

The previous 3 essays (1, 2, 3) were becoming so discouraging for my Christian faith that I nearly decided to quit publishing my commentaries on the rest of them.  But then came this essay that almost completely turns around the previous judgments of Walther (and Pieper)... and this judgment by one in a leadership position in the LCMS.  Then I notice he came to that position by President Matthew C. Harrison who is the current hope by some in that synod to "turn things around".  I have already written about President Harrison who does not cut down my Christian faith at every turn like 5 out of the 7 essayists in the 2011 issue of the CTQ journal.  Further research shows Collver wrote a wonderful review of Harrison's book At Home in the House of My Fathers in

So let us listen to what Collver quotes and says, who starts out by quoting Walther:

• "Oh, how important it is, therefore, my brethren, that we make the salvation of souls above all things the chief object of our joint labor in the kingdom of Christ," said C.F.W. Walther in the opening sermon for the Synodical Conference in 1872.  (page 275) 
• Perhaps through ignorance rather than malicious intent, critics of the LCMS have stated that Walther and those who immediately followed him were not missional.  In fact, the allegations do not stop with those involved in the early days of the LCMS, but extend back to Luther and the Reformation.  (page 275) 

Indeed Dr. Collver, there have been and continue to be critics of Luther, Walther, and Pieper on their so-called lack "missions" spirit.  Many of them call themselves "Lutheran" and members of your LCMS!  I believe one of those was your past President Bohlmann.  Would you say he was "ignorant" rather than "malicious"?  Pieper was quite aware of these types of critics when he answered questions of why the old (German) Missouri Synod used primarily the German language.
Collver goes on to astound me with his insight of the error of these critics:

• For many would-be missiologists, Luther and the reformers are of little help in developing a theory for mission. To make matters worse, the Lutheran Confessions seem to be of little help in this mission task, except for a few theologians. (page 275) 
• Yet if Luther and the Confessions are not helpful in the field of missions, how did C.F.W. Walther arrive at the conclusion that the primary task of the synod was mission?   (pages 275-276) 

Collver has equated "missions" with "salvation of souls".  Not quite the same in my mind but hardly an issue to keep me away.

• ...Walther's definition of mission and use of missiological language is different from that of 20th-century missiologists.  ... as a way forward, and freely admitting that Walther and his successors did not use this terminology, we would suggest that the early LCMS mission could be categorized or described in terms of witness, mercy, and life together.  (page 276) 
• Generally speaking, Walther and his immediate successors did not sing the praises of or give ringing endorsements for the mission societies. (page 277) 
• Walther in Church and Ministry builds up­on AC VII when he says, "The church in the proper sense of the term is the congregation of saints (Thesis 1)," and that the church can be recognized by "the marks of the pure preaching of God's Word and the administration of the sacraments according to Christ's institution (Thesis 5)."  For Walther and the Lutheran Confessions, the church is where believers are gathered around the Word and the Sacraments.  In contrast, the theology of missio Dei and the missional church movement believe that missions must define the ecclesiology. (page 279) 
• This view of church and mission (focus away from creeds, confessions, preaching of God's Word, administration of sacraments, etc) is very different than that of C.F.W. Walther and the other presidents of the Missouri Synod's first seventy-five years.  (page 281) 
• Walther did not promote mission at the expense of confession, as he saw mission (witness) as inte­grally connected to the confession of the church.  (page 282) 
• [quotation from Pieper's presentation at Walther's Mausoleum:] "The entire Christian congregation is duty-bound to take on also the physical need of its brothers,... is given the concem for the spreading of the Church through the preaching of the Gospel...  is therefore the mission society established by Christ."  (page 283) 

Wow!  An actual quotation from Pieper!... and one that does not judge him but follows him!!  Let us read on!

• [Quote from Walther's sermon:] "For as the tiller of the ground must be eager to obtain good seed above all things, if he wishes to reap good fruit, so must the Church care for sound doctrine above all things, if she wishes to save souls."  (page 284) ...  Even in Walther's day, people were pitting pure doctrine against the mission cause. Yet Walther rejects this false distinction and rightly points out that confession and pure doctrine ensure that the seed being planted is good seed.  Without confession and pure doctrine, the witness or mission effort will plant bad seed that will either not sprout or will produce a sickly plant. Walther clearly ties the salvation of souls to the proclamation of pure doctrine. 
• (page 285) Pieper provides good insight on how to handle the charge that pure doctrine gets in the way of mission. He did this in an opinion on a situation Missouri Synod missionaries encountered in India in 1926. The missionaries there found that the church's teaching against polygamy hindered their mission work. So a request was sent back to St. Louis asking if polygamy could be permitted among converted people in India. Pieper wrote back, 

• [Pieper]: On the contrary, we remind ourselves that our Savior is certainly more concerned with the spread of His Church than we are. Now if the insistence on monogamy were really a hindrance for mission, Christ would not have so strictly bound the church of the New Testament to monogamy, as is the case in Matthew 19.

• Pieper's response is appropriate for handling nearly any circumstance where faithfulness to pure doctrine is alleged to hurt mission. Christ our Savior is more concerned with the growth of his church than are we; he would not give us a teaching that is harmful to his church. Once again, we see the emphasis of witness and confession working hand-in-hand.  (page 285) 
• ... it is more important than ever to recall how the Synod in the past had a holistic view of mission that in­cluded the emphasis of witness, mercy, and life together.  (page 287) 

Quite a breath of fresh air, spiritual air that is, since Walther and Pieper are given the floor to present the pure Christian doctrine... from God's Word.

However, the last part of the 3-fold emphasis for the current LCMS mission is "Life Together".  Another term I would use for this would be Church Fellowship and Church Discipline.  Unfortunately Pieper's clear definition of these Christian doctrines precludes me from joining Collver (and President Harrison) because long ago, the LCMS became heterodox.  How so?  On the "good seed", the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification - Objective & Universal ... or the Gospel!

Part 5 is next... another surprise for me – another essayist who follows Walther and even prays for his Synod!

2 out of 7: LC-MS low score on Walther (Part 3 of 7 - MacKenzie)

[2025-08-31: added links to page numbers; 2019-11-30: added note at bottom in red]
This post continues the series of commentaries on the 7 essays from the 2011 Concordia Theological Quarterly "celebrating" the Bicentennial of the birth of C.F.W. Walther.  See the table of contents for the full listing.

3) Cameron A. MacKenzie – C.F.W. Walther's Use of Luther

This series is getting tiresome for me and this essay does nothing to relieve my pain over today's LC-MS.   Professor MacKenzie starts out seemingly well by saying (page 254):

No matter the issue, no matter the time, Walther looked to Luther. On one occasion, a friend tried to call him "the American Luther"...

Are you a friend of Walther, Prof. MacKenzie?  Let's see...    MacKenzie goes on to make the following statement (page 254-255)

Anyone who has read just a little bit of Walther knows that his theological method routinely involved citations from Luther on doctrinal issues.  But why?  And was Walther true to Luther when he cited him? 

Hmmm...  why would MacKenzie raise these questions?  He goes on (page 262):

[Walther] carefully avoided any reference to sinful indulgence or weakness.  In 1867, Walther insisted that Lutherans have every reason to praise the person of Luther in response to the slanders of the papists and then went on to offer a description of someone who was virtually flawless.  ... There is not a hint of any weakness or character flaw ... [in Walther's description] Luther is extraordinarily brave, talented, and faithful – a real hero in Church history.

Flawless?  Weakness?  Character flaw?  What are you getting at MacKenzie?  Are you praising Walther and Luther... or are you questioning them?  Are you setting up to be their judge?  We find our answer in the many quotes that follow:

• (page 263) ...it seems reasonable also at least to acknowledge Luther's sinfulness. Luther did, but not Walther. 
• (page 264) ...Walther did not conceive that Luther ever actually did get it [Christian doctrine] wrong
• (page 266) ... Did Walther understand Luther correctly and apply him fairly? The answer is ... not always to both of those questions – understanding and application. 
• (page 266-267) ... one must readily acknowledge that Walther did not always raise the same questions regarding Luther as our contemporaries do.  For example, in his discussion of justification by faith, Walther does not consider whether Luther believed that faith effected a "union with Christ." ... 
• (page 267) ... [Walther] has not probed into Luther's doctrine as deeply as we might like today. 
• (page 267) ... it is more interesting to analyze the instances in which Walther was wrong about Luther.  

Ok, Herr Prof. MacKenzie!  Let's hear what the great judge of Walther and Luther has to say!

MacKenzie Point 1

• (page 268) Clearly, Walther understands "gospel" in the Ninety-five Theses as Luther and Lutherans later defined it; many of us today would be hesitant to understand the theses in a similar manner.  But Walther's "mistake" – if we can call it that – arose out of a misunderstanding of Luther's biography.  For Walther, Luther had come to a correct understanding of justification by faith before the Indulgence Controversy.  Already at the time of his pil­grimage to Rome when he climbed to the top of Pilate's stairway, he heard a voice resounding in his head, "The just shall live by faith." That Luther came to his new understanding of the gospel at that time or shortly there­after was a commonplace in Luther biographies at the time...

Strike 1: Walther misunderstood Luther's 95 Theses [2025-08-31 updated link] (and his Doctrine of Objective Justification?) and Luther's life.

MacKenzie Point 2

• (page 269) A second error in Walther's citing of Luther is more serious but quite understandable also. Walther is concerned to shield Luther from the charge of Calvinism, especially with respect to the Bondage of the Will. On the one hand, Walther knows that Luther thought this one of his best 
• Walther gave a qu
• (page 270 ...[Walther's quote of Luther] is also somewhat misleading, for it contains an ellipsis of over 40 lines (in the Walch edition to which the Proceedings refer) that qualifies greatly what Luther is saying. Walther has omitted the reformer's statements regarding the hidden will of God that is very different from the revealed will. So, for example, Walther has omitted this statement, "But God hidden in his majesty neither deplores nor takes away death, but works life, death, and all in all," and this one, "God does many things that he does not disclose to us in his word; he also wills many things which he does not disclose himself as willing in his word. Thus, he does not will the death of a sinner, according to his word, but he wills it according to that inscrutable will of his." ...
• (page 270) ...Walther's citation from Luther in this instance is not a sufficient representation of what the reformer actually said. Walther omitted the evidence that did not immediately confirm Walther's own position.

Strike 2: Walther misunderstood Luther in his major treatise Bondage of the Will where Luther, according to MacKenzie, apparently exhibited Calvinism.  And Walther is guilty of omitting key statements of Luther...

MacKenzie Point 3

• (page 271) In one other matter, Walther also skews evidence from Luther in order to draw a conclusion that Walther prefers but that is not exactly the same as Luther's position, and that has to do with the separation of church and state. 
• (page 272) Walther produces many passages from Luther to the effect that government has authority in temporal matters only, not spiritual. The only problem with this approach is that Walther suppresses the evidence that shows just how broad was Luther's understanding of "temporal."   [MacKenzie produces 2 instances of what he judges as inconsistencies in Luther on the doctrine of separation of church and state – Commentary on Psalm 82 and the preface to the Small Catechism.
• (page 272-273) ... [Walther] should have known that Luther's position on the role of the godly prince in the affairs of the Church was considerably greater than he made it seem in his essay.  Obviously, Walther was willing to see errors in later Lutherans, but not in Luther himself – if in fact, it was Luther who was wrong and not Walther.  (MacKenzie: take your pick – Walther or Luther, but both cannot be right!)
• (page 273) ... we can see the weaknesses of Walther's approach to Luther's doctrine.  ... Walther typically interprets it as "orthodox" even if that means glossing over some of the counter-evidence.  Similarly, with respect to Luther's biography, the life validates the doc­trine. Therefore, Walther overlooks or explains away what others might see as sinful. 

Strike 3: Walther misrepresented Luther in his teaching and inconsistencies of the doctrine of separation of church and state.

Wow, you're really smart Professor MacKenzie!  How hard you worked to find these "differences" between Walther and Luther, and the "inconsistencies" in Luther.  How wonderful to hear you say that Luther and Walther were not so great teachers and heroes, at least not infallible ones. How uplifting to hear of their "weaknesses" and "mistakes".  I don't know where my Christian faith would be without your outstanding research and scholarship!  Whew!  Now I can really celebrate Walther's Bicentennial!

But MacKenzie isn't finished yet... let's hear his grand finale:

(page 273) ... we can see the weaknesses of Walther's approach to Luther's doctrine.  ... Walther typically interprets it as "orthodox" even if that means glossing over some of the counter-evidence.  Similarly, with respect to Luther's biography, the life validates the doc­trine. Therefore, Walther overlooks or explains away what others might see as sinful.
     We do not do either of these things today.  We expect our heroes both to have weaknesses and to make mistakes – and they do. Martin Luther and oh, yes, C.F.W. Walther.  But Walther is long gone and so is his whole approach to Martin Luther as hero and infallible teacher. Nonetheless, Walther remains correct in the main things: Luther's doctrine is true because it is scriptural, and God used Luther mightily to recover the gospel. And also with Walther, I find it hard to comprehend how the Lutheran church can really remain Lutheran without a hearty dose of Martin Luther. 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
As Chairman over the Department of Historical Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary, Professor MacKenzie should be the one to teach Historical Theology in a way that Franz Pieper spoke about when he described true Historical Theology:

Where things are as they should be, the Church will, therefore, elect only such men as professors of church history as are thoroughly conversant with the Scripture doctrine in all its parts, well informed in dogmatics, in order that the instruction in church history will not confuse but aid Christian understanding.

Unfortunately Professor MacKenzie's essay does confuse Christian understanding...  and shows his blindness in spiritual matters.

• Luther is the Reformer
• Luther, for the sake of the Word, defied pope and emperor 
• Luther, for the sake of the Word, refused to accommodate Zwingli and the Reformed
• Luther was extraordinarily brave, talented and faithful
• Luther's 95 Theses did have at it's heart the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification (Objective!)
• Luther never taught Calvinism
• Luther always taught separation of church and state
• Walther's Luther (not MacKenzie's) is the real Luther!
• Luther is a real hero in Church history!

MacKenzie is no friend of Walther or Luther.  Dear Christian, don't be confused by the "Historical Theology" of Prof. Cameron MacKenzie, Ph.D., but go

Back To Luther!

Yes, today's LC-MS, your Professor MacKenzie said it well for you:

Walther is long gone and so is his whole approach to Martin Luther as hero...

I just wish MacKenzie had not nailed your coffin so tightly!
As an antidote to this poisonous essay of MacKenzie, read my series of 8 blog posts (starting here) on the real Luther that Pieper and Walther brought to life again. But some relief is on the way as the first of the 2 praiseworthy essays will be reviewed in my next Part 4 of this series of 7 essays.
- - - - - - - -  -
2019-11-30: Richard O. Johnson, Changing World, Changeless Christ, The American Lutheran Publicity Bureau, 1914-2014 (WorldCat), p. 151, paraphrased the Bureau's magazine, the American Lutheran from 1947, the centennial year of the Missouri Synod, that the founders of the Missouri Synod "were not perfect, of course". This appears mild compared to MacKenzie's comments above.

2 out of 7: LC-MS low score on Walther (Part 2 of 7 - Mayes)

Continuing this series from Part 1 (of 7), (see table of contents)

2) Benjamin T.G. Mayes – Grabau Versus Walther: The Use of the Book of Concord in the American Lutheran Debate on Church and Ministry in the Nineteenth Century

Mr. Mayes is

• Book Editor of Professional and Academic Books at CPH 
• Managing Editor, Luther's Works – American Edition, New Series
• author of the blog Lutheran Orthodoxy

Grabau was the leader of the Buffalo Synod in the 1840s through 1860s who held to errors in the doctrines of Church and Ministry.  I quote the opening sentence from Mayes' essay:

This is not a story of good against evil, but of two justified sinners, each filled with anger at the other and often completely misunderstanding the other, due in part to their totally contrary experiences and fears. 

Mr. Mayes says that Walther was "filled with anger" at Grabau and "often completely misunderstood" Grabau.  Strike 1 against Walther.  Quite an honor for C.F.W. Walther!

In footnote # 3, Mayes says:

... Walther and the Missouri Synod advocated a kind of Lutheranism found in the Book of Concord, early Luther, earlier Lutheran Orthodoxy,...

Early Luther?  Not the later Luther?  Mayes implies the Missouri Synod did not follow the later Luther on the doctrines of Church and Ministry.  Strike 2 against Walther. (Modern theology loves to try to find inconsistencies in Luther.)

On page 248, Rev. Mayes makes the following point about "tension between two poles":

Both sides seemed to be grappling with how to coordinate the inherent power of God's word with the divine institution of the office of the holy ministry. These two facts, held in faith to be true by confessional Luth­erans, have caused many to ask questions such as these:  If the word is powerful by itself, what need is there for the office of the holy ministry?  If God instituted the office to preach the word and administer the sacraments, are the word and sacraments administered by someone out­side this office, and thus contrary to the order willed by God, able some­how still to do God's will by forgiving sins through the word and sacrament? These questions show the tension between the two poles of divinely-instituted office, and word and sacraments efficacious in them­selves. The natural human tendency is to abolish one or the other. Both Grabau and the Missouri Saxons avoided this temptation, though they came up with differing answers of how to deal with the tension.

Could it be that Rev. Mayes is one of those asking the questions about the office of the holy ministry?... and presenting them in such a way as to suggest that the Missouri Synod doctrine of the Ministry is somehow open to debate?  Later he states:

Grabau and Walther: both sides in this 19th-century debate focused on "rights."  This made the whole issue a power struggle and put pastors and people at odds with each other from the start. The best situation is when pastors teach their people aright, and the people have "ears to hear"; and when not just the pastor, and not just the voters' assembly, but rather only the theologically catechized Lutherans – pastors and people together – are making decisions for the good of the church.

Walther's doctrine is focused on "rights" and his doctrine causes a "power struggle" between pastors and lay people.  Strike 3 against Walther.  (But isn't Walther's doctrine Biblical... from God?)
Now we see Rev. Mayes position with regards to Walther.  Walther is to be put aside and used as a point of comparison... and maybe even questioned.  Happy Bi-centennial, LC-MS! Have a wonderful celebration!

The next post Part 3 handles MacKenzie's essay Walther's Use of Luther.

2 out of 7: LC-MS low score on Walther (Part 1 of 7 - Noland)

I ran across last year's issue of Concordia Theological Quarterly (volume 75:3-4, July/October 2011) that supposedly would "honor C.F.W. Walther on this 200th anniversary of his birth", and "so that Walther may be understood in his context and continue to be a blessed voice in our synod as we face the future."  I'm not in the habit of keeping up on current publications emanating from the LC-MS anymore because I know it has become heterodox long ago and it's writings rarely build my Christian faith.  But this issue purports to "honor C.F.W. Walther" so I slogged through it.  And I found that only 2 out of 7 essays actually honor Walther without dishonoring him.  Actually I'm surprised that even two did honor him.  Here is a listing of the articles highlighting the 2 praiseworthy essays:

1) Martin Noland – Walther and the Revival of Confessional Lutheranism
2) Benjamin T.G. Mayes – Grabau Versus Walther: The Use of the Book of Concord in the American Lutheran Debate on Church and Ministry in the Nineteenth Century
3) Cameron A. MacKenzie – C.F.W. Walther's Use of Luther
4) Albert B. Collver – Mission through Witness, Mercy, Life Together in Walther and the First Fathers of Missouri
5) Roland F. Ziegler – Eduard Preuss and C.F.W. Walther
6) John T. Pless – Wilhelm Löhe: His Voice Still Heard in Walther's Church
7) David P. Scaer – Walther, the Third Use of the Law, and Contemporary Issues

So what about these 7 articles from the great "conservative" Fort Wayne seminary?  I won't review these essays in detail but will point out the position of each towards Walther and his doctrine:

1) Martin Noland – Walther and the Revival of Confessional Lutheranism

Rev. Noland was formerly a past Director of Concordia Historical Institute from which it has been suggested that he was forced to resign.  He describes himself as a "conservative Lutheran".  But after largely praising Walther for his confessional Lutheranism, he uses the Bethel Confession from Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Hermann Sasse to confirm Walther's correct position.  This is poor praise indeed since the best German theologians were weak at best!
Then he goes on to make this statement (page 214):

More difficult to answer is the question whether or not Walther was right to uphold the Book of Concord in light of its challenges from ration­alism and modern thought.

Difficult?  Why difficult?  Is there something about "rationalism and modern thought" that has a hold on Rev. Noland?  He further reveals his difficulty in a later statement:

Francis Pieper answered the rationalist problem of certainty by appeal­ing to the doctrine of the testimonium Spiritus Sancti and by asserting that "theology is the perfect science, the only reliable science on earth."  Frankly, these answers of Pieper did not solve the problems posed by rationalism.  Although that defect does not affect the rest of his theology, which is perfectly orthodox, his approach is not persuasive to anyone who has imbibed from the fountains of modern theology or philosophy.

Wow!  Could it be that Rev. Noland is one of those who has "imbibed from the fountains of modern theology or philosophy"?  What does he use to solve the "challenges from rationalism and modern thought"? Here is his answer:

A better way out of Lessing's Ditch is suggested by American philosopher Alvin Goldman, professor of philosophy at Rutgers Univer­sity.  Goldman is a leading proponent of "reliabilism," which posits "degrees of reasonableness" instead of the false dilemma of either certainty or uncertainty.  Also useful is the work of Richard Swinburne, professor of philosophy at Oxford, who has demonstrated that the existence of God is the most "reasonable" explanation for the universe, though it cannot be "proven" by traditional logic or scientific means.

Double wow!  Perhaps Rev. Noland should switch from being a pastor of the Christian faith to being a philosopher of the world for he is not satisfied with the testimony of the Holy Spirit but rather places human wisdom (a Jewish philosopher!) above the Holy Spirit.

So much for Rev. Noland's honoring of C.F.W. Walther.  I am not too surprised because previously I had read of his confusion on the doctrine of Universal, Objective Justification.  Beware, Beware! ... of so-called "conservative Lutherans" who take their highest wisdom from the world's wisdom.

= = = = = = = = = = = =
Did any of these 7 essayists praise Walther for his pure teaching of the Gospel... that is Universal, Objective Justification?  No.  Not so the old (German) Missouri Synod who especially by Walther's successor, Franz Pieper, praised Walther to the heavens.  For those who are tired of hearing of only the false teachers on Walther, you can skip to Part 4 and Part 5 of this series for the 2 essayists who in truth praised Walther.

See Part 2 for my comments on the article by Rev. Benjamin T.G. Mayes.

Surplice, stole, cassock... but what about the Gospel?

The newspaper Christian News (CN) by Herman Otten recently reported about Berthold von Schenk, a noted pastor in the new (English) LC-MS during the days of my youth.  He is noted as being a "Pioneer of Lutheran Liturgical Renewal".  I recall in my boyhood that some pastors in the LC-MS were using more vestments than others.  As I was growing up in our congregation, a change in pastors brought one who wore a surplice (or cassock?) instead of just a standard suit. I recall it was something different... but I recall now that it did not add to (or subtract from) my Christian faith.  But I have noticed that most of the founding fathers of the Missouri Synod were not pictured in any kind of vestments... they did not lean on outer appearances to appear religious but rather delivered a pure Christian message... the Law that shows our sin, the Gospel that shows our Savior.

In the CN article, quotes are presented from the autobiography (probably from the 1960s or 70s) of von Schenk:

• I introduced ceremonies, liturgical vestments, and so forth.
• Of course I introduced the surplice, stole and cassock.
• The Liturgical movement is the greatest movement in the history of our church.
• Walther was as much an anti-Holy Spirit as was the Council of Trent which produced the Roman Church.
• Walther and Pieper's museum theology...
• ... the Bible cannot stand by itself.
• Dogmaticians like Walther have been the blight of the Missouri Synod.
• Missouri theology is most rationalistic.
• How much time and thought has been wasted by insisting on absolute truth in dogmas! 
• Luther fell into a trap in his controversy with Zwingli and split the Reformation.

For anyone who has followed this blog, they can see quite a difference between the viewpoint of Berthold von Schenk and this blog BackToLuther.  Berthold von Schenk is considered a "maverick", a pastor "outside the box" in today's LC-MS.  His autobiography is considered a "must read" by Prof. David Scaer in his book review (pgs 377-378). (Scaer is Editor of journal Concordia Theological Quarterly).  But to the extent that both the LC-MS and von Schenk have fallen on the Doctrine of Justification, both have fallen in Christian doctrine.  And all the liturgical vestments and movements they can muster won't make them more (or less) Christian or religious.  They have lost the Word and don't know how to find it again.

Who are you going to trust your eternal soul to?  Christianity or "Christianity"?

Matthew 7:15 – Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

2 John 1:10 – If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

I will continue to publish the hated Pieper, Walther and Luther.
(See my later full review of Berthold von Schenk in this blog series)