Justification – The Larry Darby Situation (Part 4b - a long letter)

This post Part 4b is a continuation of Part 4a, my last letter to Larry Darby in which I pour out all I had to try to convince Mr. Darby that his veiled attacks were exactly wrong (see Part 1 for Table of Contents):
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Another source for Luther's doctrines is from the book "What Luther Says" by Ewald Plass.  (1 volume version of 1994) Page 712, section 2223
To be sure, they {faith and works} never appear alone.  Justifying faith always produces good works, and good works are always the fruits of a faith that justifies.  But works never justify, Luther affirms in exposition of Gal. 5:16 (1531).
2223 Men Are Not Justified Because They Are Sanctified
Covered and protected by this umbrella, the heaven of the forgiveness of sins and the throne of grace, we begin to love and to fulfill the Law.  But because of this fulfillment we are not justified or accepted by God while we live here below.
See footnote 13:  In notes (1530) by Luther on a proposed work on justification there is this statement: "If we are justified because of the works that flow from faith, then we are not justified by faith itself or because of Christ but because of ourselves, because we perform works after we come to faith.  This is denying Christ"
Page 713, section 2226: So Abraham was justified, Luther points out in his lectures on Gen. 15:6.
2226 Abraham Was Justified by Faith
... Here no reference is made to any preparation for grace, to any faith that had "received its form" by works, or to any preceding ability.  But reference is made to the fact that at the time Abraham was in the midst of sins, doubtings, and tremblings, that his soul was very deeply disturbed.  How, then, did he acquire righteousness?  Only in this way that God spoke, and Abraham believed what He said.  But to this end the Holy Spirit comes, a Witness worthy of credence, and affirms that this very believing or this very faith is righteousness or is imputed by God for righteousness and is considered as righteousness by Him.
Page 709, section 2215
In a New Year sermon of 1522 on Gal. 3:23-29 Luther strongly emphasizes the fact that the nonimputation of guilt to the sinner is not rooted in the sovereignty of God but is based on the vicarious atonement of Christ.
2215 Christ's Righteousness Must Be Imputed
.... Since, therefore, this was impossible for us, God ordained for us, in our stead, One who took upon Himself all the punishment which we had deserved and fulfilled the Law for us; thus He averted the judgment of God from us and appeased His wrath.  Grace, therefore, is indeed given us gratuitously.
Page 1418, section 4566
In the opening words of his exposition of Psalms 22 Luther refers to what our subject heading was designed to express.
4566 What "Vicarious Satisfaction" Is
In His Passion Christ actually (utique) assumed or took upon Himself the sins of all men.
Page 1420, section 4575
4575 "The Lord Laid on Him the Iniquity of Us All" (Isaiah 53:6)
Isaiah says (53:6): The Father laid on His shoulders the sins of all men, no one in the world excepted.
Page 1421, section 4577
"The Lamb of God...Taketh Away the Sin of the World" (John 1:29)
Christ is the Person who carries on His body, and has burdened Himself with, all the sins of all the people of all the world, with the sins of all who have ever lived, live now, and are yet to live.  Not as if He had committed these sins Himself, but that He took them from us, who had committed them, in order to atone for them with His own blood.
Page 1426, section 4590
This astounding fact {our sins are not our own in justification} lies at the very center of the Christian religion, says the Doctor a few paragraphs earlier.
4590 Here Beats the Heart of Christianity
The expressions "of us all" and "on Him" must be carefully noted, for this is the chief article.  We must believe the prophecy that our sins are not our own but have been laid on Christ.  This one article is the foundation of the church and of Christianity.  If it remains intact, no heresies can harm us.
Page 1426, section 4591
Therefore Luther can make the following sweeping statement in his sermon study on Matt. 2:1-12
4591 The Basic Christian Belief
No repentance, no satisfaction for sin, are of any avail; there is no attaining grace, no salvation, except by simply believing in Christ, believing that He alone has rendered satisfaction for our sin, has gained grace and saved us....
Page 1427, section 4595
God be praised for this marvelous redemption - praised and glorified here in time and hereafter throughout eternity.  Such thought fill Luther's soul as he reflects on the wonders of this substitutionary atonement in his exposition of John 1:29 on Nov 3, 1537.
4595 "To God, Our Savior, Be Glory... Both Now and Ever.  Amen" (Jude 25)
This truth should certainly be worthy to be sung, preached, and spoken about constantly; and we certainly ought to love and praise God in recognition of such a blessing as this.... For what is it?  The Son of God becomes my Servant and humbles Himself so deeply that He actually takes my misery and sin, nay, the sin and death of all the world, upon His shoulders, takes them away, and says to me: You are no longer a sinner.  But I am.  I step into your place.  You did not sin.  But I did.  all the world is in sin.  But you are not in sin.  I am.  All your sins are to lie on Me and not on you.  No one can comprehend this. We shall be eternally blessed in yonder life by contemplating this love of God.... Indeed, who is able to be sufficiently thankful to our Lord God for this grace?
Am I to believe that the English translation by Plass is distorted also?   How many more translations should I question?  As long as the translation offers the doctrine of universal grace?
And what about the Lutheran Confessions?  Triglotta, Page 1071, Formula of Concord, Thorough Declaration XI:
"Therefore, if we wish to consider our eternal election to salvation with profit, we must in every way hold sturdily and firmly to this, that, as the preaching of repentance, so also the promise of the Gospel is universalis (universal), that is, it pertains to all men, Luke 24:47.  For this reason Christ has commanded that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among ALL nations.  For God loved the WORLD and gave His Son, John 3:16.  Christ bore the sins of the WORLD, John 1:29, gave His flesh for the life of the WORLD, John 6,51; His blood is the propitiation for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD, 1 John 1:7; 2:2.  Christ says: "Come unto Me, ALL ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rests, Matt. 11:28.  God hath concluded them ALL in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon ALL, Romans 11:32.  The Lord is not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance, 2 Peter 3:9.  The same Lord over all is rich unto ALL that call upon Him, Romans 10:12.  The righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto ALL and upon ALL them that believe, Romans 3:22.  This is the will of Him that sent Me, that EVERY ONE that seeth the Son and believeth on Him may have everlasting life,
But let us go on to further clear passages of Scripture not already quoted above:
Ezekiel 33:11 - Say unto them, [As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live.
2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
John 4:42  And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard [him] ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.
1 John 4:14  And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son [to be] the Saviour of the world.
Matthew 25:24-26  Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, [there] thou hast [that is] thine.  His lord answered and said unto him, [Thou] wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
John 5:39 -Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
John 6:63  It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
2 Corinthians 3:6 - Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
Jesus said:  "I am the way, the truth, and the life".  Larry Darby, there is no truth, no beauty, no rest, no peace, no joy, no life apart from His work of perfect redemption.  All else darkens and becomes pale without this glorious beauty, the shining gem of God's work.  In Genesis 22:14 we read "...In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen."  On Calvary is the beginning of truth, beauty, rest, peace, joy, life.  All other doctrines
point to Calvary.
The teaching that would rob the doctrine of universal grace is against F. Pieper, Walther, the Lutheran Confessions, Luther, and the Scriptures- I will gladly take their "theological constructions".  The teaching against universal grace is at war with Christianity and is therefore not Lutheran.  It is not the gist of Christianity.  What good is memorizing multitudes of Bible verses if the central doctrine is not grasped?  What good is textus receptus if the doctrine of justification is blurred?  What good is it to hold to the biblical doctrine of women in the church if faith in Christ for the forgiveness of sins is put into question?  What good is the doctrine of Scripture if the central doctrine of justification is attacked?  What good are missions if the good news is turned sour?  What good are the doctrines of creation and geocentricity if the Creator/Redeemer is spurned in His greatest work?  What good is the doctrine that the papacy is the very anti-Christ if the true Christ is not understood as the Saviour of the world?  What good is the warning against psychology in the church if it can't be refuted with God's true wisdom - Christ Crucified for the sins of the world (foolishness to man)?
Larry Darby- this is not a hidden thing.  My first letter to you mentioned the doctrine of universal justification.  You did not attack it then.  At least Mr. David Hartman was honest in his direct attack on Pieper's Dogmatics- he did not claim there was any false translation.  Your August 23, 1994 letter to me recommended F. Pieper's Christian Dogmatics (I am reading it now, taking several months to get through it because it builds my faith so much) and Becker's "Foolishness of God" (which I read last year and was so joyful over the rich teaching).  Now you want to tear down the Scriptural teachings of these two???  I took your advice on Pieper.  Now I give the counsel back to you- read Pieper's Dogmatics to build your faith in the Saviour.
The false teacher to the Galations would say the same things to Paul as you have to me in your last letter.  He too would say to Paul that he had made up a "theological construction".  I will repeat my former confession to you:
If Jesus didn't die for the sins of the whole world, then I am going to hell.
Luther says it like this:
"When the article of justification has fallen, everything has fallen." What Luther Says, #2232,pg 715
Paul stated it thus:
Gal. 1:8: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
1 Peter 1:24-25  For all flesh [is] as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass.  The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever.  And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
By the way, here's another set of verses you can use against Scripture as you did with John 17:9, 20.  It's the one the Calvinist Baptist minister used against universal grace with me.  See John 10: 15, 26.  If Jesus died for his sheep, and not everyone is a sheep – there you have it!  But just look down and see Luther's answer in verse John10:35: "and the scripture cannot be broken".
My prayer is that the apparent love for Scripture will lead you back to the true doctrine.
Doctrine is heaven, life is earth. - Martin Luther

[Signed] Xxx Xxx [BackToLuther]
Indiana

Sadly, further correspondence from Mr. Darby in the 1990s showed a hardening in his unbelief.  In my next post Part 5, I am publishing a file I made of my thoughts at this time which showed God was working in me a faith that I do not deserve...  how could I, one who had rejected my Lord Jesus, give me this assurance of salvation so firmly?

Justification – The Larry Darby Situation (Part 4a - a long letter)

In the previous post Part 3, I presented my 2nd letter to Mr. Larry Darby expressing my concerns over whether he was spreading false teachings about universal, objective justification.  (See Part 1 for Table of Contents)  In this Part 4a, I am presenting the first half of my last extended correspondence with Mr. Darby.  Part 4b will present the last half.
This situation was (and is) a "life and death" situation for me...  I was trembling over whether my Christian faith was unfounded and that my basis for assurance and certainty was false.

2/8/95
Larry Darby

XX Xxxxx Xxxxx
St. Louis, MO  XXXXX

After receiving your last letter, I asked God for his forgiveness in not treasuring his gifts by His Word and Sacraments enough.  I then determined to re-read several things to see if I had "read" something into them that were not there.
Here is what I re-read:
C.F.W. Walther:  Law and Gospel (pages 191)
page 191: "Luther is right also in advising men not to inquire at all about the quality and sufficiency of their contrition.  For any person to build his hope on that means to build it on sand.  On the contrary, a person is to praise God for the absolution he has received; that makes his contrition salutary.  The right procedure is not to base the validity of absolution on our own contrition, but to make our contrition rest on our absolution"
. Luther insists on faith in the declaration of Christ: "Thy sins are forgiven thee."  To disbelieve this statement is tantamount to making Christ a liar.  Though a minister pronounce the absolution to such a person ten time, it would not benefit him.  We cannot look into people's hearts; but that is not necessary at all; we are to look only in the Word of our heavenly Father, which informs us that God has absolved the entire world.  That assures us that all sins have been forgiven to all men."
Page 372 middle: When the Pietists had brought a person to the point where he considered himself a poor, miserable sinner, unable to help himself, and asked his minister what he must now do, the minister did not, like the apostles, answer him:  "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved," but, as a rule, they told him the very opposite.  They warned him against believing too soon and against thinking that, after having felt the effects of the Law, he might proceed to believe that his sins had been forgiven.  They told him that his contrition must become more perfect, that he must feel contrite, not so much because his sins would call down upon him God's anger and hurl him into perdition, but because he loved God....
page 373 bottom - 374: To tell a person that he may not believe is, in the first place, contrary to the perfect redemption of Christ from all sins and to the perfect reconciliation which He has accomplished.  For in 1 John 2:1-2 the apostle says: "If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous.  And He is the Propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."  The entire world, then, has been reconciled.  The wrath of God which hung lowering upon the whole world has been removed.  Through Jesus Christ, God has become every man's Friend.  That is the reason why the holy angels sang even over His cradle: "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good will toward men." Luke 2:14.  In Christ, God showed His good will toward all men.
. 2 Cor. 5:14 we read:  If One died for all, then were all dead.  By this precious statement the apostle means to say that, since Christ died, it is the same as if all men had suffered death for all had atoned for their sins by their death.  Now that the entire world has been redeemed and reconciled to God, is it not a horrible teaching to tell any person he may not believe that he has been reconciled and redeemed and has the forgiveness of sins?  By that doctrine the completeness of redemption and reconciliation with God is shamefully denied."
Page 374 bottom -376: Nor does this harmonize with the fact that God has already declared in the presence of heaven and earth, of angels and men: "My Son has reconciled the world to Me.  I have accepted His sacrifice.  I am satisfied.  He was your Surety, and I have set Him free.  Therefore rejoice, for you have nothing to be afraid of."  By the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead God has absolved the entire world of sinners from their sins.  Is it not horrible for men to say that this is indeed a fact, but that a person may not yet believe it?  Does not that mean to charge God with lying and to deny the resurrection of Christ from the dead?
. Furthermore, this teaching is also contrary to the doctrine of absolution.  Christ says to His disciples, Matt. 18:18: "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"; and in John 20:23: "Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; speak of certain qualities which persons must possess, but simply says: "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted"; "Whatsoever ye shall loose shall be loosed."  Only a genuine Lutheran believes this; to all sects it is an abomination to hear it.  They twist these precious words from the Mouth of Truth so that they are made to say something altogether different from what they really do state.  However, it is verily true, my friends, that Jesus Christ, after redeeming the entire world, has given Hiss followers power to forgive every one's sins.....
. To illustrate: Suppose a king has declared that a rebellious town has been granted full amnesty, and no one is to suffer for his sedition.  In a case like that anybody can say:  "The king has quelled the rebellion; he has conquered you rebels, but you can be of good cheer, because he has pardoned you.  I know this for a certainty, because I myself heard the king say so."  If the speaker, in addition, were to bring a document signed and sealed by the king which contained the same statement, everybody would rejoice and begin to celebrate the event.  The situation is identical with the case now under discussion.  By the resurrection of Christ, God has declared that He is reconciled with all mankind and does not intend to inflict punishment on anybody.  He has this fact proclaimed in all the world by His Gospel and, in addition, has commanded every minister of the Gospel to forgive men their sins,..."
. To some people this looks like a horrible doctrine, but it is the most comforting doctrine imaginable and is firmly established on the blood of God that was shed on the cross.  Sin really has been forgiven, and all that God is now concerned about is that we believe this fact.  We absolve men from their sins for no other purpose than to strengthen the faith of those who ask absolution in what they have heard proclaimed from the pulpit.  Accordingly, none of them can say: "How can the minister know the condition of my heart?  What is absolution to profit me when I am impenitent?"  Answer:  "Indeed, in that case it is of no benefit, but it is of benefit when it is believed.  However, this is certain that you have been absolved.  Your eternal punishment will be of the more grievous because you did not believe the absolution which God Himself has pronounced to all sinners and which He has ordered His ministers to continue to pronounce to them."
Page 377 middle: It is, likewise, great folly to appeal to one's good intention.  Pietists and many preachers among the fanatics have reasoned that, to make the conversion of their hearers thorough, they must not allow them to appropriate what does not yet belong to them because it would prove a false comfort to them.  but this reasoning is a great piece of fanaticism.  They ought to reflect that our heavenly Father is wiser than they.  He knew very well that, when the consolations of the Gospel are imparted to all hearts, many will imagine that they, too, can believe them.  But that is no reason why these consolations should be hushed up.  We must not starve the children from fear that the dogs would get something of the children's food, but we are cheerfully to proclaim the universal grace of God freely and leave it to God whether people will believe it or misapply it.
Page 378 middle: In a sermon on Easter Sunday, Luther says (St.L. Ed. XII, 1586):  "Now, then, the benefit of the suffering and resurrection of Christ is this: He did not undergo these things in His own behalf, but in behalf of the entire world; He trampled under foot the devil and my sin which on Good Friday were suspended on the cross together with Him, and the devil must now flee at the mention of the name of Christ.  If you wish to make use of these great treasures, behold, He has already bestowed them on you as a gift.  Do but accord Him the honor of receiving them with thanks."  Ponder this last statement: The gift has already been made; it is only for the sinner to accept it.
. Again, Luther says in a sermon on Pentecost Monday (St.L. Ed. XI, 1104): "It is none of our doing and cannot be merited by our works; it has already been bestowed on us as a gift and handed over to us.  All that is necessary is that you open your mouth, or rather your heart, and let God fill it. Ps. 81:10.  That can be done in no other way than by your believing these words {"God so loved the world," etc.}, as you are here told that faith is required for appropriating this treasure in its entirety."  This is what is missing in all the churches: They do not believe that redemption has been completely bestowed as a gift on all men.  They imagine that the Gospel is merely an instruction regarding what man must do in order to be reconciled with God after he has been reconciled by Christ.  This is a self-contradiction.
Will you contend the English translation was distorted also for C.F.W. Walther?
At the risk of further charges of mis-translation, F. Pieper (Christian Dogmatics II, 350) quotes Walther's Pastorale in footnote 39:

"Walther points out that if men would only understand that Christ has perfectly redeemed the world of sinners, they would at once give up their opposition to absolution.  'He, of course, who does not believe that Christ has actually essentially the absolution of the entire world, which absolution is based upon this redemption already accomplished and which absolution, in order to serve its purpose, needs simply to be believed and accepted.... "

Luther has already been quoted by Walther (something F. Pieper also does liberally).  An article by Kurt Marquart reprinted in CNE page 1106-1108 entitled: The Doctrine of Justification- Lecture II- Who and What is "Evangelical".  This article references Martin Luther also:

69.  This position is a disaster (Calvinism) the magnitude of which can hardly be over-estimated.  For as soon as the universality of God's serious, saving will in Christ is denied, no objective, reliable grounds remain for any assurance of salvation.  It is said that Luther was once asked whether John 3:16 would not read even better if it said "God so loved Martin Luther..." instead of "the world."  "Heaven forbid," Luther shot back, "then I would always have to wonder whether there was another Martin Luther in the world!"  It is precisely the universality of grace, the sacrifice of the Lamb of God for the sins of the world which is the absolutely indispensable basis of certainty.

Also Pieper (Christian Dogmatics, II, 23 note 47, Am. Edition 22, 162-169) quotes Luther on this doctrine:

Consider his powerful words on John 1:29: "In yonder life it will be our eternal joy and delight that the Son of God condescends so deeply and shoulders my sin; not only my sins, but also the sins of the whole world, committed from Adam on down to the very last man, He takes upon Himself as committed by Him, and He suffers and dies for them that I may be without sin and obtain eternal life and bliss.... And this text is God's Word and not our word, devised by us, that God slew this Lamb and that this Lamb in divine obedience to the Father took upon Him the sin of the whole world.  But the world will have nothing of it....What more should the Lamb do?  The Lamb says: You are all condemned, but I will take upon Me your sins; I have become the whole world, have assumed the person of all men from Adam on.  In place of the sin which we got from Adam, He will give us righteousness.  And I should certainly say: That I will believe.... That men, however, do not believe, is not due to a failure of the Lord Jesus, but the fault is mine.  If I do not believe it, I remain in my condemnation.  I must simply say that God's Lamb has borne the world's sin and that I am earnestly enjoined to believe and confess this, yea, to die in this faith.  Ay, but you might say, who knows whether He bears also my sins?  I can easily believe that He bore the sins of St. Peter, St. Paul, and other saints; they were pious people; if only I, too, were St. Peter or St. Paul!  Do you not hear what St. John here says: 'This is the Lamb of God that bears the sins of the world'?  You cannot deny that you are a part of the world.... If, then, you are in the world and your sins are a part of the world's sin, from the beginning of the world down to us and to the end of the world, and remain in the world, you, to, will share in enjoying the good things of which this text speaks." (St.L. VII:1717 ff.)

Before I leave Pieper, two more quotes from him (Christian Dogmatics, Vol. I, 539):

"As to the justice of this action of God {imputation of hereditary guilt}, we must bear in mind the further fact that Scripture parallels the imputation of the sin of Adam and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to all men. Rom 5:18-19:.... Those who reject the imputation of Adam's sin as an injustice are compelled, if they would be consistent, to declare the imputation of Christ's righteousness to be an injustice and to reject it; thus they take their stand outside the pale of Christianity."

(Christian Dogmatics, Vol. II,311)

"...for as surely as the wages of sin is not merely temporal death, but eternal punishment in hell, and as surely as Christ has borne all punishment of all sinners in the world, it is Scriptural to call Christ's suffering an enduring of the torments of hell."

.....

 continuation of this letter on the next post Part 4b.

Justification – The Larry Darby Situation (Part 3 - Darby)

In the previous post Part 2, I introduced my involvement in "The Larry Darby Situation".  (See Part 1 for Table of Contents)  In this Part 3, I will continue publishing my correspondence with Larry Darby with my 2nd letter to him.

1/26/95
Mr. Larry Darby
XX Xxxxx Xxxxx
St. Louis, MO  XXXXX
This is a letter in response to something I heard about you recently.  It concerns the teaching of people associated with the Kokomo, Indiana area.  I became familiar with their doctrine first through two papers given to me by my pastor (then WELS) when I had questions about remission/forgiveness of sin.  I thought I had forgiveness but sometimes doubts would come- what EXACTLY does the Bible have to say?  He gave me the two papers I've enclosed.  I think both were written by Siegbert Becker, although only one is identified with his name.
I studied these in great detail and the supporting Scripture passages.  Could it be true- all men's sins are forgiven?  This would seem to be "too good to be true" according to what most would say.  Most would say there is something that must be done first, even if it is to believe it (cp. R.C.H. Lenski).  My Bible (then NIV) became drastically marked on the pages of Romans chapter 5 showing clearly that the word many means ALL.  I was translated into God's Kingdom- I no longer had to doubt that my sins are forgiven- because all men's sins are forgiven.  I no longer had to believe that it was anything in me that I had to live up to.
I now understood what Jesus meant when He said to Judas, the betrayer: "Friend" (Matt 26:50)   A few years ago, as I started re-attending church with Dad, I entered a Bible study of the book of Matthew.  We approached the section of the Lord's Passion.  I remember thinking: "Jesus, here comes Judas.  You know what he is going to do to you.  You know everything.  You know he was a thief.  WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?  Then Jesus said "Friend".  How could Jesus call Judas "Friend"?  It was because the Savior loved even Judas and would suffer and die for Judas' sins as well.  That was not fair Jesus.  Jesus said "You're right.  That's grace."
Now I knew Jesus loved even me.  I knew in my heart I was no better than Judas.  How many times I had turned my back on Him.  How many times I had denied Him.  There was no way He would take me back.  Then He called me "Friend".  He is my Savior, Redeemer.  I knew there was absolutely no reason to doubt that I had forgiveness of my sins.
Larry Darby - the one who has written so beautifully regarding the dangers of psychology (esp. in the church), the one who clings to the Scripture doctrine on women in the church, the one who counsels to stay with the orthodox fathers: Luther, Walther, Pieper, Chemnitz and cautions on Stoeckhardt, Kretzmann, Preus.  If you have corresponded with Mr. David Hartman or Elmer Boniek and have any thoughts regarding fellowship with them, I have one quote of Mr. Hartman to share with you:
"I ... find no comfort in the words of men like Dr. Becker, Dr. Pieper, etc., when they contradict the clear Word of God."
This response was regarding the specific doctrine of universal grace that Becker and Pieper clearly taught from Scripture.  The following was stated in my earlier letter to Mr. Hartman:
"The doctrine which I think you hold to denies universal grace- just like the Calvinists which I heard with their "particular grace" and "limited atonement".  As Franz Pieper said it:  "As the Calvinists must forget their limitation of the universalis gratia, so the synergists must forget their limitation of the sola gratia if the truth that the Scriptures are God's own Word is to be of any practical value for them." Christian Dogmatics Vol. 1, page 276  "Whoever considers himself as being better before God, or less guilty than other men, is eo ipso excluding himself from grace (Luke 18:9-14; Romans 11:22)" Volume 1, pg 276.
I confess to you as I did to Hartman:
If Jesus didn't die for the sins of the whole world, then I am going to hell.
If there is any truth to the report of your uniting with this group, then I would say to you also that you would be robbing me of heaven.  God had the Scriptures written that I might believe and not doubt of my forgiveness.  He also did it for you.
If the report was totally in error, then I rejoice greatly and may you rejoice also in John 3:16 -
"For God so loved THE WORLD, that He gave His only begotten Son, so that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."  John 3:16

[Signed] Xxx Xxx [BackToLuther]
Indiana

Although my first letter in Part 2 expressed joy over the "conservatism" of the writings of Larry Darby in the newspaper Christian News, now I had some serious misgivings about this writer.  And at some point, Herman Otten stopped publishing the writings of Mr. Darby, surely because of the controversy Darby caused with his attacks on Objective Justification.

In Part 4, I present my 3rd letter to Mr. Darby – after receiving a copy of his magnum opus "The Historical Development of Objective Justification" and letters that refused my concerns and warnings... but not yet saying "Go to Hell".

The Second Walther!

I was the one who gave the main epitaph to Franz Pieper in my original website www.franzpieper.com back in 1999.  After much reading of many writings, it became clear to me who spoke the clearest for Christianity and Lutheranism in the 20th Century... it was Franz Pieper – The 20th Century Luther!

I will now add a second epitaph for Pieper that has come to me.  It springs from the epitaph that was given to Martin Chemnitz as the "Second Martin" because of his faithfulness to Luther's pure doctrine.  The story of this faithfulness has been preserved by 2 essays now hosted by the Wisconsin Synod.  J.A.O. Preus and Eugene Klug both presented essays in 1985 for the "Reformation Lectures" at Bethany Lutheran College of the ELS Synod:

Chemnitz and Authority by Dr. Eugene Klug
Martin Chemnitz on the Doctrine of Justification by J. A. O. Preus II

Martin Chemnitz is a true hero of Christianity and the reader is encouraged to download and read these essays.

Now C.F.W. Walther is the theologian of Christianity since the days of Martin Chemnitz.  Like Chemnitz, he too sat at the feet of Luther theologically and "gathered the luminous rays" of the Gospel like no theologian since.  Lutheranism was languishing under Germany's waywardness, but it was in America that God restored the glory of His grace, the glory of the pure Gospel through C.F.W. Walther.  Those who recognized this have given him the epitaph of The American Luther!

Ah, but God did not stop there, but gave us another theologian to follow Walther, to show the true beauty of the Gospel that had been restored by him.  The Missourians under Walther lamented that he did not write a complete systematic textbook on theology but rather edited an older textbook by a previous theologian, Johann Wilhelm Baier.  Although Walther made good comments in this textbook (see here for English topics), it was not the best vehicle for presenting the pure doctrine.  And Walther did not have the time to write his own textbook.  But Walther's successor did write the textbook that Walther did not – it is Franz Pieper's 3-volume Christian Dogmatics (or Christliche Dogmatik), not to be confused by other textbooks of the same name.  This was Walther's textbook because it followed him perfectly.  And so I will call Walther's successor

Franz Pieper – The Second Walther!

Justification – The Larry Darby Situation (Part 2 - Darby)

In the previous post Part 1, I made notice of Paul T. McCain's blog post that raised again the subject of "Objective Justification".  (See Part 1 for Table of Contents)  Before I go on to commenting on the essay by Prof. Kurt Marquart that McCain re-published, it is well to go over "The Larry Darby situation" that developed in the mid-1990s.

Who was Larry Darby?  Before I explain that, I believe my last communication with him was

"Go to hell, Larry Darby".

What?  I, BackToLuther, after just extolling the beauty of Franz Pieper's essay entitled "The Open Heaven" would reveal that I have stated such a pronouncement on anyone in the world?  Indeed, I stated this in all seriousness.  How could this be?

The background of this story is my own journey of faith, from a weak faith (a faith nevertheless!) to an unshakable faith.  This was happening in the mid-1990s.  I revealed portions of that journey in an earlier post (here) that prefaced quotes of Walther on the doctrine of Justification.  A major milestone in my journey was "The Larry Darby Situation" and it was this milestone that produced a faith that says No! to all of Satan's attacks on the free grace of God for all, no exceptions!

But let us go back to the time of my weak faith... it was a time where I felt I had returned to Christianity after a falling away.  The Lord said 

O taste and see that the Lord is good (Psalm 34:8)

... and so it seemed the Lord Jesus had died for me.  But my past rejection of Him would loom up at times and make me wonder – was it really true?  Maybe I should insure my position with God by living right.  Or maybe I wasn't one of the elect...? 

Anyway, I somehow came across the weekly newspaper Christian News (CN) by Herman Otten, a longtime critic of the LC-MS who nevertheless wanted to be officially recognized by that church body.  There were many articles in that publication by many different writers, some of whom seemed to bolster my Christian faith.  One of those writers was Larry Darby, who seemed to strongly uphold scriptural teaching.  And so I wrote my first letter to him:

7/20/94
Mr. Larry Darby
XX Xxxxx Xxxxx
St. Louis, MO  XXXXX
Mr. Darby:
I have wanted to write so often to you.  After reading your latest response to Dr. John Klotz in the 7/18/94 issue of CN, I sat down at the computer.  After last weekend spent at the Dr. Martin Luther Institute of Sacred Studies in Decatur, Indiana (Lutheran Churches of the Reformation- LCR) I decided to put words to paper.
First a few words about me:  42 years old, raised LCMS, left church at about 20- heard enough; engineering and business degrees; married Greek Catholic lady- 2 sons were born; divorced- (a good description of death); attended church again with my aging father; heard the outrageous message that God has been reconciled to me in spite of all my sin for the sake of His Son because of the cross; joined Bible studies; married again (she's Baptist); left LCMS church due to unionism practices and sympathy of pastor for "social work" and psychology (I had enough of these- their drugs and group therapy were all wrong); joined local WELS church thinking it was surely more faithful to doctrine; left WELS church 3 months ago- not attending church currently- looking for church faithful to Lutheran Confessions, Luther, Walther, solid Lutheran/pure/biblical doctrine.  On the weekends with my boys I teach them Small Catechism and now using the beautiful teaching of Luther's "On the Jews and Their Lies".
Enough of myself- I have been reading CN for about 1 year.  I remember very well the first and all subsequent writings of Larry Darby.  They spoke directly to me from the beautiful truth of Scripture (I still remembered pure doctrine from my confirmation training) and the poison of false teaching/practices.
I no longer want to depend on the mailman for each issue of Christian News with possible writings of Larry Darby.  I want a church that holds to teachings that you seem also to hold to.  I have been accumulating the books of men recommended by you, Greg Jackson, John Drickamer and others: Luther, Walther, Chemnitz, Concordia Triglotta, Siegbert Becker, and other orthodox Lutheran teachers.
I investigated the Church of the Lutheran Confession based on their doctrine of church fellowship which is quite scriptural.  Have discovered where they seem to err in area of Church and Ministry - Walther's clear teaching.  They also teach psychology and sociology at their school with no apology.  Was there no church group that held to ALL pure Lutheran doctrine?  Had America become a country to consider leaving as Walther left his fatherland?  Walther and Luther kept telling me "PURE doctrine".  Luther says in his Galations commentary: "Doctrine is heaven, life is earth".
I read Forum letters and saw a letter by Pastor Alfred Tschopp in the 7/11/94 issue (page 18 bottom).  He was right!  And, Decatur, Indiana was not so far away!  Imagine my joy at seeing a library (at the Dr. Martin Luther Institute for Sacred Studies) filled with the above authors and other faithful teachers (Stoeckhardt, Kretzmann, Robert Preus).  Pastor/Professor Twenge does not currently teach a course on pastoral counseling, but when he does he will tear down the teaching of this world first then build up the Scriptural teaching as the only true teaching.  This doesn't sound like "psychology".  How many doctrines are there: lodges, Jews, universal justification, reconciliation, Bible translations and "textus receptus", church and ministry, inspiration, creation,....AND CHURCH FELLOWSHIP.  This is the one area you must consider in the light of Scripture.  Your defense of your pastor who does not raise the false doctrine issue must be viewed in light of Romans 16:17.
I would like to correspond with you more.
[Signed] Xxx Xxx [BackToLuther]
Indiana

The reader will notice that at this time, I held Larry Darby in high regard because of his great knowledge and his conservative Lutheranism.  So why would I later tell him "Go to Hell"?  Read on in Part 3 of my next correspondence with him.

The Doctrine of (Universal,) Objective Justification again (Part 1)

In Paul T. McCain's blog "cyberbrethren" was a May 24, 2012 post about the subject of "Objective Justification".  A notice of this blog post was published in the June 11, 2012 issue of Herman Otten's newspaper Christian News.  Whenever or wherever this topic is raised, I immediately sit up in my chair to take notice... maybe, hopefully, there will be a resurgence of this doctrine again.  McCain begins his blog thus:

From time to time, I hear that there are still some Lutherans who are very confused about the doctrine of justification, specifically the aspect of it known as objective justification, the teaching that God was in the world reconciling it to Himself through the death of His Son. This was an issue of some moment years ago when a dear friend of my mentor, Kurt Marquart, had a member of his congregation that was unduly influenced by false teachers. He turned to Dr. Marquart for assistance in refuting errors regarding objective justification being spread by this layman. Dr. Marquart prepared this excellent response to errors concerning objective justification...

At this point, McCain's blog publishes Professor Kurt Marquart's essay in its entirety without further comment.  He does not mention who the other parties were in this situation and he does not say any more about the doctrine of Objective Justification, implying that Marquart's "excellent response" is enough to cover the subject, both the background and the doctrine itself.

Why would McCain bring up this topic at this time?  Who are these "Lutherans who are very confused" about this doctrine?  Could it be he hears my charges of the downfall of his LC-MS on this very doctrine?  ... and so he attempts to justify his LC-MS with this essay?

So I searched McCain's blog for other instances of the specific phrase "objective justification" and found only one other reference to it in his entire blog and that reference was not by him but rather by commenters on a blogpost in October 2007 about Absolution in a public worship service.  In that blogpost, McCain laments "loveable knuckleheads" who teach falsely about it.  Are these "knuckleheads" pastors in the LC-MS?  McCain does not reveal this. But he seems rather upset by these "Lutheran" pastors, and rightly so.

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

CTCR Theses on Justification

Rev. McCain – do you not know that your own LC-MS published an official statement on the doctrine of justification in May, 1983 by the Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) entitled Theses on Justification (CTCR page, PDF here) [2019-01-16 links updated]? This statement largely defends the terminology of "objective" or "universal" justification.  It is "official", Rev. McCain.  Why is this document hardly mentioned by anyone today?  Why must Prof. Marquart to be the authority on this doctrine among "conservative" or "confessional" Lutherans?  BTW, Rev. McCain, who were the members of that CTCR panel in May, 1983?  I see the WELS was quite pleased about this statement and it was said by one of them:

It is heartening to discover that on this vital doctrine we and our former brethren in the LC-MS speak with one voice.

It is striking to me that this CTCR document was published under the presidency of Ralph Bohlmann who seemed to enjoy audiences with the Pope (search for Bohlmann in this PDF essay and this essay).  
***** Update September 19, 2012 *****
I ran across an article by Pastor Rolf Preus that states who the author of this CTCR document was:

"... a fine statement from the Commission on Theology and Church Relations [CTCR] of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod on the doctrine of justification, authored by none other than Robert Preus."

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

McCain is not the first one to publish Marquart's essay of "response" – it has been online some years now by a member of the ELS, David Jay Webber, also one who would call Prof. Marquart a "mentor".

Now Rev. Herman Otten (Christian News) does discuss the background of this situation and who the parties were in some detail – it was the "Larry Darby situation".  He then summarizes Marquart's essay.  He also editorializes elsewhere in this issue of his newspaper claiming Marquart as a great "peace maker" and theologian, and his supporter.  But he also does not expound or proclaim the doctrine of Objective Justification because he is very confused on it.  So we see both Paul McCain and Herman Otten claim Marquart as their friend or mentor... and a great theologian.

= = = = = = = = = = = = 

Well I have some news for you, Revs. McCain and  Otten – I, BackToLuther, was a party in that Larry Darby situation.  I have hinted at my involvement in previous posts of letters to Fort Wayne and St. Louis seminary professors.  I started to reveal my involvement in the post dealing with Professor Kurt Marquart's error on the authorship of the essay delivered at the 1872 foundational meeting of the Synodical Conference.  I said then that I would have later posts giving more details and I see now Paul McCain has given me the opportunity to do this.  It is largely the reason I am writing this blog and why I can judge both of you and your LC-MS, and all of "Lutheranism", and indeed all of Christianity today (1 Cor. 6:2).  It is this doctrine that you seem a bit reluctant to proclaim, at least in this terminology – 

The Doctrine of Objective Justification

(or the Gospel)

There is so much information related to the "Larry Darby situation", that it cannot be covered in this blog.  I touched on it in my blog post [see Part 2] regarding my letter to Professor Kurt Marquart.  But I will cover the main aspects of it in the next several posts, primarily of letters with the various parties involved in this situation.  See next Part 2 for the background of Mr. Darby and my first letter to him.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Updated November 10, 2012:
Because of the large number of posts on this series, I am now adding a Table of Contents for ease of reference:
Part 1 – Universal, Objective Justification (UOJ) – Paul McCain publishes Marquart essay
Part 2 – Intro of "Larry Darby Situation" - 1st letter to him (Before reviewing Marquart essay)
Part 3 – 2nd letter to Darby – digging into his pronouncements against OJ
Part 4a – 3rd letter to Darby, part 1 – admonishing him w/ quotes of Walther and Pieper
Part 4b – 3rd letter to Darby, part 2 – admonishing w/ quotes of Luther, Confessions, Scriptures
Part 5 – Notes to myself – disgust over unbelief of God's true Gospel
Part 6a – Letter to Pastor Rolf Preus, a true defender of UOJ – part 1
Part 6b – Letter to Pastor Rolf Preus, part 2 (challenged him on his fellowship)
Part 7a – 1st letter to John Drickamer, another defender, but weak – part 1
Part 7b – 2nd letter to John Drickamer, part 2 (challenged him on his fellowship)
Part 8a – Letter to editor (Otten) by Steve Stranghoener, a strong defender of UOJ!
Part 8b – Letter to layman Steve Stranghoener - to encourage and challenge his fellowship
Part 9a – Introduction to my review of Marquart essay on OJ
Part 9b – Finally! My review of Prof. Kurt Marquart essay on Objective Justification

Today celebrates Franz Pieper's birthday 160 years ago

Not only did God bless America with the arrival of C.F.W. Walther from Germany, but He also doubled that blessing by sending a man to immediately follow him. Walther's great work of teaching and preaching the pure Gospel, and rightly distinguishing the Law from the Gospel, was to be lifted up as God's great work of mercy for us modern people even now to this day.

Who was that man to follow C.F.W. Walther (The American Luther) and point to his great work?  It was Franz Pieper, born June 27, 1852... 160 years ago in Germany.  And so that Walther's great work would not be forgotten, God sent Franz Pieper to America also.  Pieper lived until 1931 and tirelessly carried the true doctrine to us – to me and you – through his writings.  Franz Pieper, first before anyone else since him, should be the one we go to for pure Christian teaching, the glorious Gospel, and the Grace of God.

Franz Pieper – The 20th Century Luther!

Pieper: The Open Heaven, Part 12 (Missions; conclusion)

Continued from Part 11 –  Table of Contents in Part 1.  In this last installment of this series, Pieper goes from keeping the doctrine pure to getting the message out, i.e. missions.  Now this teaching is one where Pieper, Walther, and Luther are attacked for not emphasizing it, but we see here that this charge is false.  Pieper (and Walther and Luther) never lost sight of getting the message out.  Thankfully, Albert Collver's essay in the 2011 (vol 75:3-4) issue of Concordia Theological Quarterly seems to recognize this.  And Rev. Dr. Collver, who is currently Director of Church Relations in the LC-MS, could have also used this essay of Pieper to show the old (German) Missouri Synod's heart for missions.  But let us go on to listen to this mission message (pgs 289-290):

     Venerable fathers and brethren, let me finally show you in a few words what behooves those who by God's grace believe and teach the heaven which Christ has opened, and then let me add a few words of warning. Since the matter is so self-evident, I need not multiply words.
It certainly behooves us who by faith see heaven open to manifest the utmost zeal in publishing the Gospel of the open heaven. As the time of our Savior's death drew near, He hastened, as it were, to Jerusalem to suffer and die in order that He might fling open the gates of heaven to the whole world, Mark 10: 32. So we, too, must not be languid in spreading the message of the open heaven, but must, so to speak, speed forth into the world, especially in view of the fact that our Savior expressly commands us: "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature."  Preaching the Gospel means nothing else than proclaiming the message of the heaven opened by Christ.
     For this reason also we who believe and proclaim the open heaven cannot think of restricting the training of ministers and teachers; in fact, we must expand this enterprise. Our Savior Himself admonishes us: "The harvest, truly, is plenteous, but the laborers are few; pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest that He will send forth laborers into His harvest," Matt. 9: 37-38. At the present time let us also not forget the injunction of our Lord which He directed to His disciples at Jacob's Well: "Lift up your eyes and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest," John 4: 35.
     As we consider this statement, let us think of the enormous mission-fields which have been opened to us, for example, in India, where by God's providential direction not merely a few hundred Samaritans, but hundreds of thousands of Hindus come to us and beseech us to send Christian missionaries among them. Surely under these circumstances it behooves us to show zeal and enthusiasm for the work of missions.
     However, as we examine ourselves, we must discover something, too, that does not behoove us in view of the fact that we are gazing into the open heaven. In our mission-coffers and in our Synodical Treasury in general there exists a huge deficit, and certainly the open heaven and depleted church treasuries are not compatible with each other. The means by which we may remove this unfortunate state of affairs are well known to us. We must think of the glorious heaven which is flung open by virtue of our dear Savior's suffering and death and which we already possess by faith. If we do this, then our love for our precious Lord and our devoted service in His vineyard will revive us to new consecration. Oh, that we may gaze into the open heaven, not only occasionally, but without ceasing! To this end may God grant us all His grace! Amen.

What a powerful message promoting missions for the old (German) Missouri Synod!

But a note to the reader:  what occupied Pieper for most of his essay?  It was about keeping the message of the Gospel pure, about defending it against errors that break the chain of salvation, whether it be against universal grace or by grace alone.  It shows that Pieper kept that chain strong so that the message for its mission efforts would enable the Holy Spirit, not man, to be the one to build His Church.

Now I, BackToLuther, will update Franz Pieper on what is now "the most deplorable event in modern history, secular as well as ecclesiastical" (see Part 6).  It it the downfall of his dear beloved Missouri Synod!  It is these doctrines of universal grace and by grace alone that have been pushed aside and downgraded by the allowance of false teachings to be taught side-by-side.

Rev. Dr. Albert Collver: You would do well to go backwards a bit and concentrate on getting the message right, like Pieper does.  I think you already know this since you say in your review of Matthew Harrison's book At Home in the House of My Fathers:

 We would do well to follow in their path.

You will have to battle the error that is in your own church body...  you will have to set aside for awhile your (and Matthew Harrison's) concentration on "witness, mercy, life together", on "missions", on "service", on disaster and world relief, "human care", "social work", even on "church relations".  Rather you should encourage Prof. Roland Ziegler in his writings on the pure doctrine of Justification.
Here is a good suggestion for you, Dr. Collver – show how the old Iowa, Ohio and Norwegian Synods of the past were wrong in their teachings on the Doctrine of Justification.  This will do 4 things:

1. It will show how Walther and Pieper were correct in their teachings and warnings against opponents
2. It will show where your  LC-MS went astray when it did not discipline Professor Theodore Graebner on his article in the American Lutheran.
3. It will show the way that the ELCA (and NALC -10/24/12) can return to Christianity (instead of David Scaer's way)
4. It will show how the blessed Synodical Conference could be re-established today

If you do that, you will be going back, back, 

Back To Luther!

Pieper: The Open Heaven, Part 11 (or else dust and ashes)

Continued from Part 10. (Table of Contents in Part 1) In this installment, Franz Pieper repeats a striking statement of warning by the man who battled to re-open and keep open the doors to Heaven – C.F.W. Walther.  And then he adds his own warning (pages 288 - 289):

For the same reason Dr. Walther, at the dedication of our seminary in St. Louis on Jefferson Avenue in 1883, also stated so earnestly that he would rather see that stately and beautiful edifice crumble into dust and ashes than that the doctrine of divine grace be perverted and truth and error, side by side, be taught or tolerated in it. In the same spirit, three years ago [1926], we dedicated our new group of seminary buildings on De Mun Avenue to their sacred use. And this is true of all our seminaries and colleges and other synodical buildings at home and abroad. Before they degenerate into institutions in which the Christian doctrine of divine grace is perverted and souls purchased by Christ unto everlasting life are thus prevented from entering heaven, may they rather fall into ruins! And so far as our synodical periodicals are concerned, let me say: May our Lutheraner, our Lehre und Wehre, our Lutheran Witness, and our Theological Monthly pass out of existence with that number in which truth and error are taught side by side, especially the pernicious error that man's conversion and salvation depend not solely on God's grace in Christ, but also on man's own good conduct – an error which is of such a nature that, as we have already heard, it closes the Christ-opened heaven to every sinner. God grant us His grace that we may overcome all temptations to make room for this damnable error!

Pieper now mentions the dedication in 1926 of the newest facilities in St. Louis, facilities that are still largely part of today's Concordia Seminary, the flagship teaching seminary of the LC-MS.  The dedication of these facilities was mentioned in a previous post about a video that was made of this event.

• Why would C.F.W. Walther want to see the 1883 Concordia Seminary "crumble into dust and ashes"?
• Why would Franz Pieper want to see the 1926 Concordia Seminary "fall into ruins"?
• Why would Franz Pieper want to see today's Lutheran Witness, Reporter, Concordia Journal, and Concordia Theological Quarterly "pass out of existence"?

Because of this: 

perverted teaching on grace alone and universal grace, taught side by side with truth 

Do you hear that, today's LC-MS?  Walther and Pieper want your seminaries to "crumble into dust and ashes" and your periodical publications to "pass out of existence"!  The sad truth is they largely have passed out of existence because today's (English) LC-MS is not yesterday's old (German) Missouri Synod.  And so your facilities and periodicals are only husks of the real Missouri Synod from above.

What?  What did you say CPH?  Oh, you say you still sell this book by Franz Pieper?  That may be, but it is only by God's surpassing grace that it is still available, not because you are worthy of it.  

In the last Part 12, Pieper relates all this to missions.

Pieper: The Open Heaven, Part 10 (Chain of Salvation)

In this installment of this series (Table of Contents in Part 1) from Pieper's essay The Open Heaven, Pieper drives home the importance of the doctrine that keeps the gates of Heaven open – grace alone, sola gratia.  pages 286-288:

     Dr. Walther was wont to remind his hearers that every chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Now let us suppose that a chain has twelve links and that eleven of these are strong enough to carry a thousand pounds apiece. But notwithstanding the fact that the eleven links do not cause us any worry that the chain might break, yet the twelfth link, so weak that it could hear only ten pounds, would reduce the carrying power of the whole chain to merely ten pounds.

What a wonderful analogy of a chain and its weakest link that Walther draws on to view the absolute importance of the this doctrine!  Pieper now expands on this analogy:

     Let us apply this truth to the chain of salvation. The chain which God has prepared for our salvation is indeed very, very strong, so strong that it can support heaven and earth and all mankind. That chain is the eternal mercy of God in Christ offered the whole world of lost sinners. "It is that mercy never ending, Which all conception far transcends, Of Him who, with love's arms extending, To wretched sinners condescends." The links of this heavenly chain are these: God's reconciliation of the whole world unto Himself through the vicarious sacrifice of His incarnate Son. The result: The message of the consummated reconciliation, – not a human message, but God's own, – proclaimed through the divinely ordained means of grace, the Gospel and the Sacraments (Baptism and the Lord's Supper). Moreover, the divine operation of the Holy Ghost to produce and preserve faith in the hearts of men, by which they are established upon the impregnable rock of God's promises. "For the mountains shall depart and the hills be removed, but My kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of My peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee," Is. 54:10.

Note well Pieper's emphasis on "the divine operation of the Holy Ghost".  This emphasis is impugned by Martin Noland in his essay on Walther and prefers instead philosophical ideas such as "reliablism" and "reasonableness".
Now Pieper shows how this chain can easily be weakened to nothing...  here is how it is done (pgs 287-288):

     But, alas, men have conceived the idea that they can improve the divine chain of grace by adding to it man's own good conduct. But what is the value of this good conduct with respect to the Gospel? How many pounds' weight can it bear? Neither ten pounds nor a single pound nor a thousandth part of a pound. And why not? There is no such thing as upright human conduct with respect to the Gospel and the operation of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel. That is mere fiction. Holy Scripture teaches the very opposite when it declares: "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto Him; neither can he know them," 1 Cor. 2: 14. Christ Crucified, that is to say, the opening of heaven through Christ Crucified, is to "the Jews a stumblingblock and to the Greeks foolishness," 1 Cor. 1: 23. According to these words there is not a single man whose conduct is truly good with reference to the grace of God which Christ has obtained and which is now offered to men in the means of grace.
     Now, if this figment of human reason is woven into the heavenly chain, then the message which we preach must be: Divine grace indeed exists, but only for those who can give evidence of their right conduct; God is indeed merciful, but only toward those who freely decide for themselves to accept His grace; the Son of Man indeed came to seek and to save that which was lost, but this is conditioned upon the upright behavior of those who are lost. The Gospel, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper are indeed means ordained by God to appropriate the forgiveness of sins, but these are dependent on man's good conduct.
     In this way man's proper attitude, by which God's heavenly chain is to be improved and strengthened, looms up as a monster between the gracious God and all poor sinners and actually brushes aside the one Mediator between God and men, who has given Himself for the redemption of all. It is for this reason that Luther uttered his cry of agony: "You have seized me by the throat! You want to choke me!" when Erasmus urged him to infuse into the divine chain the right conduct of man, or man's ability to apply himself to divine grace, his facultas applicandi se ad gratiam.

The world likes to talk and be entertained by the idea of "monsters" – monster trucks, monster drinks, monster movies, etc.  But the monster that Pieper identifies is a very real monster, one that keeps man from The Open Heaven.  But Pieper is standing in the way, saying Nein, Nein, no, no! Don't listen to this monster, stay with the Grace of God in Christ!

In the next installment Part 11 of this series, Pieper speaks about the man who got those doors to Heaven open again by clearing away all these false teachings, The American Luther! ... and a warning.

Pieper: The Open Heaven, Part 9 (Walther battles Am. Lutherans)

In Part 8 (Table of Contents in Part 1) of this series, Pieper recounts the great battle where Walther defended the attacks of a German Reformed teacher against the Lutheran Church.  But now it was teachers within the Lutheran Church in America who had to be faced.  Pieper introduces the participants in this battle (page 283):

     About eight years after this Reformed attack on the doctrines of God's universal grace had been repulsed, there followed a public assault upon the doctrine of "grace alone." As already stated, this assault was made by Lutheran theologians in our own country and was carried on with a vehemence heretofore unknown.
     In oft-repeated statements it was contended – and represented as Lutheran doctrine – that man's conversion and salvation depend on his right conduct, namely, on his self-determination for, and willing acceptance of, divine grace. In short, man's eternal destiny, so it was said, is rooted in his own free will; for it is entirely a matter of man's own choice as to whether he wishes God to have compassion on him or not. (Cf. Monatshefte, 1872, pp. 87. 88.)
     The additional charge was made that the Missouri Synod, which refused to accept this doctrine as truly Lutheran, had become Calvinistic, that is, it had fallen away from the doctrine of universal grace, just as Luther had denied universal grace until about the year 1527, especially in his book against Erasmus. (Monatshefte, 1872, p. 21.)

The charges in the journal Monatshefte were from Professor G. Fritschel of the old Iowa Synod, a forerunner of today's ELCA.  One has to almost laugh when someone charged the old (German) Missouri Synod of "Calvinism".  Even more serious is the idea that Luther denied universal grace until the year 1527.
Pieper recounts how Walther battled this pernicious error (page 283):

Dr. Walther made a detailed reply to this attack upon the sola gratia from within the Lutheran ranks in Vol. XVIII of Lehre and Wehre (1872), in an article entitled "Is It Really True Lutheran Doctrine that Man's Salvation in the Last Analysis Depends on His Own Free Decision?"  ... It shows most convincingly that according to the doctrine of Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions man's conversion and salva­tion depend on God's grace, not only in part nor only for the greatest part, but wholly. He shows also that the contrary opinion, according to which God's counsel of grace and His compassion on man are conditioned upon man's good conduct, reduces the doctrine of God's grace in Christ to an empty phrase, so that it "goes up in smoke," thus closing to man the heaven that Christ has opened. (Lehre and Wehre, 1872, pp. 322ff. 329.)

But Pieper shows how Walther, Martin Chemnitz and the Lutheran Formula of Concord also bear witness to the distinction between true Lutheran doctrine and Rome (pgs 284-285):

     In the same volume of Lehre and Wehre Dr. Walther writes: "A theology which changes faith into a work of man and seeks to show that the reason why certain men are saved while others are lost is to be found in man's own free decision or in his conduct or in his cooperation is distinguished from the papistical doctrine of justification only as to its terminology," that is, not actually, but only nominally. (1872, p. 352.)
     As Dr. Walther, sixty-seven years ago, declared every theology to be papistical which makes man's salvation dependent on his good conduct, so Martin Chemnitz, the chief author of the Formula of Concord, also maintained this three hundred and fifty-one years ago at the Colloquy of Herzberg. The Formula of Concord, which teaches that those who are saved must plead guilty of the same evil conduct as those who are lost, since otherwise the Christian doctrine of grace would be discarded, was completed as early as 1577. However, at the Colloquy of Herzberg in August, 1578, the delegate of Anhalt asserted that he wished to adhere to the view that the difference in human conduct is the cause of conversion and salvation, just as the later Melanchthon had done. But Chemnitz countered with this reproof: "Then send your confession concerning the free will to Andradius in Spain or to Tiletanus in Louvain; indeed, send it to Rome, so that the Pope himself may give his approval to it."

 Now Pieper holds up the real champion of Christianity of "modern" times ... C.F.W. Walther!  It was C.F.W. Walther, through whom God brought back the Church from the devil's onslaughts (pgs 285-286):

     Now, God in His infinite grace has led the Lutheran Church in America back to the doctrine of the Church of the Reformation: but He has at the same time entrusted it with the duty to resist every "counter reformation," that is, every return to the camp of Romanism, which has cropped out in our country under the Lutheran label and still wields its influence.  Walther was right indeed when he said that every theology which seeks the reason why certain men are saved while others are lost in their own free choice or in their conduct or in their cooperation differs from the papistical doctrine of justification only in its terminology. Hence the actual result of this theology, reduced to practise, can only be Romanistic, that is, it can cause only doubt and despair with regard to divine grace and in that way closes the portals of heaven.

Unlike his colleague Professor Eduard Preuss who had "abrasive and uncharitable polemics" (and left the Lutheranism to become Catholic), Walther was not this way.  Pieper refers to both Walther and Luther on this this topic (pages 283-284):

     In spite of all this Dr. Walther was very careful, mild, and gracious in judging the actual personal convictions of his opponents. (L. c., p. 329.) He assumed the possibility, in a spirit of love, that his adversaries were traveling along their "dangerous path of error" against their own will and that, as far as they were Christians, they were really teaching doctrines which they themselves did not believe.
     Regarding this last statement it may be pointed out that Luther expressly states in his writings against Erasmus that even Christians are capable of such things. Erasmus had pointed out to Luther that "saints," that is, persons whose faith Luther did not deny, had attributed to man a free will in spiritual matters. Luther made this rejoinder: Those saints have indeed done this, but only inter disputandum, that is, while they were disputing among men. But when they approached God in prayer, they entirely (penitus) forgot about their free will in spiritual matters, despaired of their own righteousness, and besought for themselves "only the pure grace" of God, solam et puram gratiam. (St. L. Ed., XVIII, 1729.)

What a wonderful essay this is by Pieper!  If the reader wants to know Luther, Lutheranism, the Lutheran Confessions, Walther and indeed what Christianity is, then read this essay!  How Pieper poured his heart into this.

In the next installment of this series, Part 10, Pieper goes on to talk of The Chain of Salvation and how to keep it strong.

Pieper: The Open Heaven, Part 8 (Walther battles Reformed)

Continued from Part 7.  (Table of Contents in Part 1)

Now that Pieper has proclaimed God's doctrine of The Open Heaven and showed how various groups have attempted to close it, he goes on to show that this doctrine needs to be defended (page 278):

In view of these conditions it is our manifest duty to maintain, by God's grace, in the face of all hazards and against all human strictures, both Scriptural truths – that divine grace is universal (universalis gratia) and that divine grace alone justifies and saves (sola gratia). 

"In the face of all hazards and against all human strictures" – Pieper knew the hazards and human strictures were manifold and powerful.  A witness to this is today's modern world which attacks the Christian faith continually from all sides, not just in the killing of Christians in Africa and the Mid-East by Muslims, but in our own backyard, in our homes, and in our hearts by those who would close the doors to The Open Heaven.

We see that Pieper taught this doctrine but he now shows the great champion of Christianity in recent times: C.F.W. Walther!  It was Walther who openly took to the battlefield against the errors from various groups.
The first battle that Pieper points out is against the Reformed (pages 279-280):

In 1863 the Reformed theologian Emil Wilhelm Krummacher, licentiate of sacred theology, published an article in the Calvinistic Kirchenzeitung of Erlangen entitled "Why Are We Reformed and Not Lutheran?" German Reformed periodicals in the United States reprinted and disseminated this article of Dr. Krummacher for anti-Lutheran propaganda purposes, in the interest of Calvinism. In reply to this assault there appeared in Vol. IX of Lehre and Wehre (1863) an article by Dr. Walther under the heading "A Few Remarks on a New Apology of the Reformed Church," which extended through four numbers (September to December). I may say that it is an exceptionally thorough refutation of all the Reformed errors that are taught in opposition to the Lutheran doctrine.

Krummacher is noted in the Wikipedia article for writing favorably about Luther but he remained Reformed in doctrine.  So it appears there would be similarities between him and James Swan of today who holds up Luther in certain ways in his Beggars All blog yet remains Reformed in his doctrine.  So what is it about the Reformed that Walther battled for the true Christian faith? (quoting Pieper page 280):

The doctrines of conversion and predestination, of course, are given due attention in this analysis of the Reformed principles. In the skirmish with this Reformed licentiate, who sought to invade and sequester the Lutheran camp, Walther emphasized two doctrines in particular as distinctively Lutheran: the unrestricted universal grace (universalis gratia) and the unqualified "grace alone" (sola gratia).

Why would the Reformed licentiate attempt to invade and sequester the Lutheran camp?  Because it is the Lutheran Church from above that Satan is tireless in attacking.  Pieper goes on to expand on the specifics of Walther's defense of the Christian faith (pgs 280-282)

    Why was it necessary to lay particular stress upon these two doctrines? For this reason: Ever since the Fall, man is an odd creature indeed; for even though he knows that there is a God, he refuses to believe His revealed Word. Now, as we have again convinced ourselves at these sessions, God's Word teaches both the universalis gratia and the sola gratia. However, supercilious man deems it intolerable that he be required to believe both these doctrines, and for that reason he indignantly rejects both of them.
    The Calvinists assume the liberty of making this conclusion: If we must believe that God saves men by grace alone, then we are forced to discard the doctrine that God really desires to save all men; for human logic cannot concede both facts. The Arminians and synergistic Lutherans, on the other hand, draw this inference: If we must believe that grace is universal, then we are compelled to surrender the doctrine of grace alone; then indeed we are forced to reach that man's conversion and salvation does not depend solely on God's grace, but also on the attitude man takes toward the Gospel, or on his facultas applicandi se ail gratiam.
   Dr. Walther inveighs against both these false deductions in his article against Krummacher and proves that the Lutheran Church in its Confessions believes God's Word absolutely, that is, it retains both doctrines side by side: universal grace and grace alone. He contends that it is but a seeming contradiction which our limited human reason here finds and that the difficulty will be solved in the light of glory. He argues that God's Word does not go beyond Hos. 13. 9: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself, but in Me is thine help."
    Among other things, Dr. Walther declares: "The Calvinists draw the conclusion: If God out of pure grace has elected a certain number of men and Himself performs everything by which they are converted and preserved in faith and finally saved, man himself being altogether unable to contribute even the least part, it follows that, since all men by nature are in the same condemnation, God alone is responsible for the fact that the others do not come to faith or do not remain in faith and hence are damned instead of being saved. . . . And it is indeed true that unenlightened reason, or reason which is not subject to God's Word, cannot think otherwise: it must needs draw this conclusion if it refuses to consult Scripture and follows its own dictates.
"However, neither our esteemed Formula of Concord nor the entire orthodox Lutheran Church reasons this way. True Lutheranism never draws such a conclusion, but declares: If men are saved, this is due to God's free grace alone; but if men are lost, this is caused solely by their own sin and guilt. . . . Both these truths are taught in God's Word, namely, that God has predestinated the elect from all eternity according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, and that the lost are condemned solely on account of their own guilt and sin, for God desires the salvation of all. Hence the Formula of Concord believes, teaches. and confesses both doctrines and, unlike Calvinism, does not stretch a rationalistic bridge across the yawning abyss of this unfathomable mystery, but allows both to remain: in true humility it bows before God's unsearchable wisdom and awaits the solution of the apparent contradiction in the life to come." (Lehre and Wehre, IX, p. 298f.)
    This article by Dr. Walther points out in particular also this paramount truth, that whoever has not yet learned to maintain both doctrines side by side, without qualifications, namely, the doctrines of universalis gratia and sola gratia, has not yet passed the final test of his ability to teach in the Christian Church. (L. c., p. 297.) Every man whose conscience has been assailed by the damning verdict of the divine Law needs both these doctrines in order to be rescued from despair, as has been pointed out in greater detail in the second part of this treatise.

There are a lot of teachers in the Christian Church today, but almost none have passed "the final test".  

A modern day example of the Reformed teachings and polemics is James Swan's essay about "Assurance of Salvation, Roman Catholicism, and Calvinism".  In this essay he defends against the doctrines of Romanism and Arminianism, but from the standpoint of Calvinism.  After refuting the errors of Rome and Arminianism like he is a Lutheran, he then attempts to offer a teaching on the assurance of salvation that does not hold water in the mind of the terrified conscience that can hear only the Calvinist teaching that denies universal grace.  I had that terrified conscience... I am the one who did not believe that I was in Calvin's 20% saved class.  It took God's Word in John 3:16 and Walther driving home the universality of God's grace to put Heaven in my lap!

Beware! beware of Reformed teachers who hold up Luther and yet tenaciously hold to either error of giving up universal grace or grace alone!  This is why the Reformed like to call themselves "Protestant", but the truth is that the true Protestants were strictly Lutherans!  They were the ones who protested Emperor Charles attempts to force the Lutherans to go back to the Roman Catholic Church.  All the Reformed are sects of those true Protestants who held strictly to the Word of God and did not waiver.
That is why we have to go

Back to Pieper

Back to Walther

Back To Luther

In the next post Part 9, Walther battles against erring Lutherans in America.