"A history of our youth education" - from 1929

     To build on the previous posts regarding congregational schools, I am presenting a short article from the 1929 issue of Lehre und Wehre (Doctrine and Defense) that Franz Pieper published about the important subject of "youth education".  This is nearly 40 years after Pieper so eloquently had written about the importance of congregation schools... and this article was just 2 years before his death.  The article was in Lehre und Wehre volume 75, September 1929, pages 282-284.
     There is a question on terminology that some older German Lutherans could probably answer better than I.  It has to do with the term "Hochschule" or literally "high school".  Some translations render this "college" or even "university", but I think by this article it actually means what we now call "high school" or grades 9 through 12.  My father was a farmer and only had an eighth grade education.  All his children had at least some education from universities.
     Pieper makes extensive use of an article from a Missouri Synod pastor in Nebraska, again in 1929:

From the Synod.  We share parts of the following historical overview of our youth education that is found in the "Southern Nebraska District Messenger":

"While twenty years ago [~1909] it was the exception that our children attended high schools [Hochschulen] and other higher educational establishments, today it has become almost the rule.  After the children have completed the eighth grade in the congregational school, they attend high school.  Admittedly, the children still remain in their parents' home during these years. They go to church, to Holy Communion, to Bible class [respective to Christian doctrine], belong to the youth association and to the singing choir.  There they still remain under the sound of the Word of God.  However, do we parents and pastors not notice with affliction that the idea of evolution is inculcated into our children already in high school?  But God's Word proves to be powerful and after a few years our children, along with many others, forget the idea of ​​evolution that they have learned in high school and again believe that God created the world as it is in the Bible.  But what if our children have graduated from high school? Then some want to yet continue studying, and so they come to the university.  Our church members have come into a prosperity that they can afford to let some of their children partake in a university education.  Thousands of young people in our congregations are now attending colleges and universities in our country each year.  Here in our State of Nebraska alone, there are 150 young people in our congregations who attend the university in Lincoln.  Truly, a very good number!  Now have small-town high schools begun to undermine the faith of our children, so it is even more true in the case of the University.  The children sit at the feet of such teachers who have earned a doctoral degree in their field.  Here are the clever ones of the world and the worldly wise, but also the unbelievers.  Yes, doubts, unbelief (page 283) and modernism are at home.  Here not only is the following said to our children:

'No educated person believes in our day the creation account as it appears in the Bible; only people with low education believe that; distinguished people today believe in evolutionism',

but such debates are still the least because our children are told this:

'The belief that the Bible is God's Word is plain nonsense.  It is nothing but a collection of human writings.  It contains probably some truth, but also a lot of myth and superstition.  That Christ, the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary is a true man, that he willingly went to his death for our sins and on the third day was raised for our justification, which simple people have well believed for centuries, but that in the modern twentieth century educated people no longer believe.  Such a God is far too cruel for modern man. You want to be really educated people!  Then you cannot take everything at face value what the pastors preach to you.'

"What I say here is truly not exaggerated. This is the spirit which rules where our children have to study four years and even longer if they want to become doctors, lawyers, teachers, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, etc.  These children do not live in the parental home any more, but among wild strangers, unbelievers.  Is it then a surprise that one complains about the fact that our children, after they have attended such a school, do not any more want to go to church and to holy Communion and are lost for the kingdom of God?  – What now should we parents say to this?  Can we watch quietly, without doing anything for our children?  Are these then not our children?  Are they not as dear to us at the age of 18 to 20 years as at the age of from 8 to 10?  Does this not suggest to us on this occasion the truth of this proverb: Small children, small worries; big children, big worries?  Does it not matter to us as a church that the devil now wins our children, whom we have brought up with some trouble and worry, in droves for the kingdom of unbelief and worldly wisdom?  To overcome this loss, now for several years our church has set up the office of university pastor.  We pastors are now to address the specific difficulties that face the children of our congregations, and especially in these dangerous times bring them close to the Word of God so that they are preserved for the kingdom of our Saviour.  Yes, it is the nature of our work that through private interviews, Bible classes and exhortations for  attendance to church and to participation in the Holy Supper to keep the precious youth of our church for the kingdom of heaven."

We share the following announcement from Valparaiso University:

"The fall semester at Valparaiso University will open Thursday, September 19. The University comprises a College of Liberal Arts (accredited by the North Central Association), a College of Pharmacy (accredited by the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy), and a School for Law (accredited by the American Bar Association). The College of Liberal Arts maintains fourteen departments, with offerings as follows: Biology, Botany, Zoology, Business Management, Chemistry, Education, Psychology, Engineering (Civil, Electrical, and Mechanical), Industrial Arts, English Language and Literature, Fine Arts (Art and Music), Foreign Languages (page 284) and Literatures, Geology, Health and Physical Education, Home Economics, Mathematics, Physics, Religion, Philosophy, and Social Sciences (History, Economics, Political Science, Sociology)."

Whoever desires more notifications apply to The Registrar,Valparaiso University, Valparaiso, Ind.    F.P.

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

Dear God!... this has been a most heart-wrenching article to translate!  How I had to get up and walk around awhile... how the tears flow!  Dear God, you are a witness to these tears!  Have mercy on us!  Do not forget us... we need thy Word to guide us.  We need teachers who teach the true Christian doctrine to our children... and to us!

Who are you dear reader?  Are you a youth, a parent, a grandparent?

• If a youth, can you not confirm what the Nebraska pastor said about your teachers in the public schools and universities?
• If a parent, can you not confirm your anxiety for your children to be taught rightly?
• If a grandparent, can you not confirm from your past or your parent's past that the situation was as the pastor reported?

Ken Ham speaks of the youth being "already gone", already gone in the sense that even while the youth are still in their parents' home, they are already doubting their Christian faith, even have completely thrown it off.  And where does this doubt spring from?  It is more than the false teaching of evolution, it is more than the "scientific" teaching that refutes the centrality of our Earth among the planets, it is this:  the Doctrine of Justification, as the dear pastor from Nebraska so beautifully spoke (and Franz Pieper happily repeats).

The reader will note that although the old (German) Missouri Synod highly valued a good education for its youth, yet they valued more highly the teaching of Christian doctrine, Bible teaching.  This mirrors Luther's thoughts on education.  And so when "Christian education" drops its Christian nature, it ceases to be Christian education and in fact becomes anti-Christian.  And even more, when "education" teaches against Christianity, against Bible teachings, then it ceases to be any education at all.  So much for a "good education".

And you, Valparaiso University, although Franz Pieper gave you column space and a blessing by listing your schools of learning, yet it was without comment.  Could it be that even he was not certain that your founder, W.H.T. Dau, could keep your institution on the true Lutheran path?  Could it be that he was not so sure that your inclusion of the subjects of "Psychology" and "Sociology" could be taught from a Christian perspective, from the perspective of the Bible?  You should stop calling yourself "Lutheran" and "Christian" and only call yourself a public university.  Stop being worse than a public university with your pretense of "Christianity" for you teach the very thing warned against in this article – evolution.  You fight against Christianity, you destroy what Christian faith your students might have!

Dear Christians, even the unbelievers know to "Teach Your Children Well"... so must you!  Teach them first and foremost what the pastor from Nebraska spoke of... exactly what the unbelievers scoff at.  It is a matter of spiritual life and death!

Pieper – Foreword 1891 – Pt 3b: Congregational schools

This continues from Part 3a, Franz Pieper's foreword to the 1891 Lehre und Wehre journal.  In this section, Pieper details the opposition sects (papal and Reformed), then hammers home the extreme importance of congregational schools as God's command:

Conclusion. - continued from Part 3a

     We Lutheran Christians will also not try to make the state schools Christian.  We differ in this respect from the Pope's church as well as the sects.  The Pope's church even works in our country towards the aim to make the popish schools the state schools.  This plan the Archbishop of Ireland yet in the last year quite unceremoniously laid before a meeting of public (page 36) school teachers.  Even most sect preachers up to this day have in mind to make our public schools Christian in their sense as an ideal.  Only recently were prominent sect preachers gathered somewhere in the East to trim a Christian religion into one which could be introduced in public schools.  It is precisely the character of both the Pope's sect and the Reformed sects to mix church and state.  However sober Lutheran Christians distinguish sharply between church and state.  Thus they also do not want to turn the schools of the state into church schools.  The state does not deal with the propagation and preservation of the Christian faith.  Thus the schools which it establishes, maintains, and controls also should not teach the Christian faith.  If it tries to establish such schools, it does things which are not commanded of it, and the result will be an oppression and tyranny of conscience.  Therefore Lutheran Christians go for state schools, when they are necessary, that are without religion.
     These Lutheran Christians certainly cannot allow themselves to be satisfied for their children at the state schools without religion.  Before their eyes is the commandment of God: Ye fathers, ... bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. (Ephesians 6:4).  From this commandment of God the congregational schools grow.  However the Christian education of their children is first for the Christian parents, and even the Christian congregation has to take care that they do not trespass on the rights of parents.  Where individual Christian parents are able and want to completely retain the education of their children in their hand, so the congregation may not want to make them to sin.  But since it is now, as Luther already reminds, that most parents have neither the time nor the skill for the necessary training of their children, so the Christian congregational schools are a necessity.  The Christian congregational school is under these circumstances the means by which Christians fulfill the commandment of God to educate their Christian children.  And because this command is an international one, that is it concerns all Christians all over the world, it also binds Christians of America.  The fact that presently even Christians call the establishment and preservation of congregational schools "un-American" in our country, is an awful delusion.  We do not want to be dragged into this delusion, but rise above it through our counter testimony.
     Briefly, we do not want to let us have our congregational schools made suspect or even wrestled from our hands through the opposition which rises in this country against them.  We want to rather look after the congregational schools, by God's mercy, as one of the most marvelous facilities of our church and nurture them.  Only so can we, under the prevailing circumstances, fulfill the duty imposed by God to bring up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.  Only in this way are (page 37) our children so established in the pure doctrine of the Word of God that they can defend themselves against unbelief and all sorts of erroneous beliefs.  Only with the help of the congregational schools will the church of the Reformation in this country gain a firm foothold and have to show a healthy growth; for when the increase of the sects is not insignificant without congregational schools, so it must be remembered that they refrain from the beginning from the purity of God's Word and unity in doctrine.  Finally, we also need the congregational schools as a means to missionize in the still standing remote districts of the church.  God bless our congregational schools!    F.P.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     What congregational schools?  In Indiana, the LC-MS lists 105 schools, but only 3 are listed for high school education. The breakdown is approximately this: 39 are "preschool" only, 63 go to grades 6 or 8, and the balance of 3 are for high school ages, grades 9 -12 (Fort Wayne, Indianapolis, Seymour).  These schools are a vestige of the old (German) Missouri Synod, even if most are weak at best in maintaining the purity of truly Christian doctrine.  How could they maintain purity when their seminaries and church leaders have largely fallen on the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification?
     Dear God! How Pieper hammered home the importance of these schools, but how Lutherans have been led to the disastrous, wretched situation of being satisfied with having to leave their children to the religionless public schools.  And even worse, a "Lutheran" university in our state rather leads those students in its charge to the ravages of non-Christian teaching. (I'll have more to say about Valpo later.)

     Dear God, grant that not only may the glory of Thy Grace shine again through the pure Doctrine of Justification, but also that those parents enlightened by this faith may again see their duty to see to it that their children be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord!  God grant it to the glory of thy Grace and to the furtherance of thy Church, through thy dear Son Jesus Christ!  Amen!  Amen!

Pieper – Foreword 1891 – Pt 3a: Congregational schools

This continues from Part 2, Franz Pieper's foreword to the 1891 Lehre und Wehre journal.  This Part 3 is the February continuation from the initial installment in the January issue – volume 37, pages 33 - 37. In this section, Pieper details the situation with its congregation schools.  Who needs congregational schools?  Christians...

(Conclusion.)

     Finally, we have also been referred to as un-American in this, that we will not be satisfied with public schools, but in addition build and maintain our own schools, namely congregational schools.  We even had to face German political newspapers coming to us during the recently conducted "school fight" in which the "state" almost was prompted to prohibit the construction and maintenance of church schools beside the public state schools on the grounds that church schools are dangerous for the well-being of the state.  These omissions came initially from the radical unbelieving side and have therefore not particularly baffled us.  Hatred of Christianity proved stronger than a certain love for the German language.  But not only the spokesman of the professional unbelievers demanded the suppression of congregational schools.  Also newspapers from the church sects themselves described congregational schools "as contrary to the institutions of the country" and went into the fierce battle against our schools.  This must be most disconcerting for every sober Christian.
     We stand here in America before an anomaly for which we find no example in other countries.  Wherever the Christian Church yet is even only a small power, there it urges with Christian schools.  Wherever there is still a reasonably Christian mind, there one recognizes that the Christian school belongs to the Christian church.  If Christian missions want to gain a foothold in a country and assert themselves in it, they direct their attention from the beginning to the establishment and preservation of Christian schools.  The American missions make no exception to this.  In Africa, Asia and everywhere they work, they maintain with special zeal just also the Christian school.  But here in America it stands differently.  Although the Christian church is a power in this country, yes, although there is scarcely any country on earth (page 34) where the Christian church has such an influence on public life as we see in the United States of North America, yet we see apparent here the astonishing fact that the vast majority of Protestant Christians have no church schools and want to know nothing about Christian schools.  Just the most numerous sects, the Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians with their 100,000 congregations have no Christian schools.  The people who want to be with earnest Christians, trust their uneducated children year after year throughout the week to the non-religious state schools, until only on Sundays is it remembered that Christian children belong in Christian schools.  One is satisfied with "Sunday Schools."  And this is generally not considered an emergency – for where would the state of emergency be in the complete freedom of the church and the rich earthly means that these congregations have mostly come from? – but it is viewed as the right state of affairs.  Among the Protestant sects are only the Episcopalians and the German United Church a partial exception.  Also, not all who want to be Lutherans have Christian schools.  In the General Synod and the General Council, with the exception of the Swedish Augustana Synod, there is usually no congregational schools, although it is recognized that there are more exceptions to the rule in the Council than in the General Synod.
     How could it come to this wretched state?  In general one can say that it has been with the majority of America's Christians as it was with some pagan peoples of ancient and modern times.  If certain gross sins were public among the heathen and were in vogue a long time, finally the natural conscience was stifled and it lost the sense of sin.  So also was the conscience dulled for America's Christians by the long habit concerning the lack of the Christian school.  Through the long bad habit has it reached the point that only very occasionally is the feeling stimulated that the school without religion is an impropriety for the Christian Church.  If we question further as to the causes which underlie this abnormal state, so no doubt several factors here work together.
     At once the Christian sects bear throughout the sap of the Arminian type.  The real essence of Christianity, the Gospel, the doctrine of the justification of a sinner by faith in the Gospel, is withdrawn; in contrast, an outwardly legal essence is pushed into the foreground, "to keep the commandments", as the real essence of Christianity.  The specific difference between nature and grace is blurred.  Christianity is often perceived only as a higher morality, and is developed under a certain care of natural morality.  Thus one can calm down with religionless public schools, so long as they imprint the morals of "to do right".  (page 35)  If a chapter from the Bible is read still now even in public schools at the beginning of the lessons, one easily says to himself that public schools are nevertheless one more kind of Christian school.  However the principal reason, why one is content with public schools and looks basically at every congregational school as an "attack on our American institutions", is still another.  The average Americans, not just the "native" but also often the "foreigner", sees the establishment of "public schools" with the rich resources thrown out by the State for the non plus ultra [no further beyond] political-social wisdom.  Even though individual sober men, also from anglo-American circles, have always warned about the overestimation of public schools, nevertheless public schools have become a sort of national idol in the country in the course of time.  From this current has even the great majority of American Christians been taken captive, and with them the duty to establish and maintain religious schools been taken completely out of sight.
     We Lutheran Christians do not want to be carried away by this current through God's grace, but remain mindful of our Christian duty.  We are not enemies and opponents of non-religious state schools. We leave them in all honor in their field.  The non-religious state schools are schools for the non-religious people.  However, there are also enough people without religion in America.  Although it is incumbent not first upon the state, but the parent's duty to provide for the education of their children.  As it first comes to the parents by natural law to nourish and dress their children, so it is obvious also that first have the parents to teach their children according to natural law.  Meanwhile the state may, when experience teaches that many parents would not or could not otherwise follow their duty, come to the assistance of parents by the fact that it establishes, maintains and makes available schools for them at its cost.  The State may tax its citizens for this purpose and few Christians will refuse among its citizens to pay these taxes.  The state has an interest in ensuring that its future citizens are equipped with a certain amount of knowledge.  So we recognize the relative necessity of state schools and we leave these schools their value in their field.

(continued in Part 3b)
------------------------
     Not only did today's LC-MS give up the German language, but it has also largely given up on congregational schools.  Where I grew up, we only had confirmation classes on Saturday mornings – there was no congregational school.  We also attended "Sunday school" for maybe one hour on Sunday mornings. Today, the few remaining Lutheran congregational schools offer more in the way of sports programs, movies, Boy Scouts, fund raising auctions, etc.  But do they teach the true Gospel as Pieper and Walther taught it?
     It is notable how Pieper speaks of public schools – that Christians should pay taxes that support public schools while they have the duty (and expense) to setup congregational schools.  In recent years, Indiana has passed a law for "school vouchers" where Christians can save paying this tax and can use state money to send their children to non-public schools such as religious schools.  But even this is not sufficient reason for Christians to establish congregational schools for they already have this duty whether or not they pay taxes for public schools.
     How is it that today there is a resurgence of "home schooling" but congregations cannot offer "congregational schools"?  Why is it that whenever I hear of people "home-schooling" their children, that I assume they are of Reformed (conservative Baptists or "old-orders" such as Amish or German Baptists) and not Lutheran?  It is because long ago, the LC-MS gave up its birthright on doctrine.  And so it does not matter so much that its children go to public schools where they are filled with un-Christian teachings.  Even the unbelievers extol the education of their children, but not you, today's (English) LC-MS.

Yes, today's LC-MS, it is your children that you have given up!

In Part 3b, Pieper speaks on separation of Church and State, and the duty of parents for their children's Christian education.

Pieper – Foreword 1891 – Pt 2: German or English language?

This continues from Part 1, Franz Pieper's foreword to the 1891 Lehre und Wehre journal.  In this portion of his essay, he brings out the subject of why the Missourians maintained the use of the "foreign" German language.  I have blogged on this subject before here and here but Pieper hammers home the spiritual reasons even more in this article.  The reason was not because of convenience:

     It is also charged against us Missourians as "un-American" that we do not accelerate the process of anglicization in our mostly German congregations.  With regard to this point, we repeat here what has already been often spoken by us: we do not consider it our mission to get a German Lutheran church here in America in all circumstances.  For our holy duty, applied to us by God, we hold only so far to us is to ensure that the Lutheran Church will remain in this country.  Thereto we strive.  To achieve this goal, we seek to be diligent in the training of orthodox preachers and teachers.  Whether the Lutheran Church speaks English or German, is not essential to us.  To us everything comes on the fact that she is Lutheran.  We subordinate to this aim everything, also the language.  If it stood in such a way that we would have to accept as quickly as possible the English language to receive in this country the Lutheran church and to spread out, we would not hesitate for a moment to offer quickly to anglicize our congregations.  But now it is generally the reverse that is the case.  The target set us by God, the preservation and propagation of the Lutheran Church, imperiously demands that we still cling to the German language as a church language.  The attempt to introduce the English language would destroy not only most of our existing congregations, but would also take the possibility from us to gather the scattered material, which we turn first our concern, into Lutheran congregations.  The fact that here in America much unchurched German material exists which can be reached only by the medium of the German language is already illuminated by the fact that also the English-speaking sects feel constrained to form German congregations to supply the Germans ecclesiastically and to win them for their fellowships.  It is also a mistaken view if one believes that the Lutheran church has lost so many members to the sects in this country in 17th and 18th centuries because she held too long and too tenaciously to the German, or Swedish or Dutch language.  The reason for this deplorable fact lay in the neglect of the youth in the higher education of pure Lutheran doctrine, particularly in the neglect of congregational schools, and in the unionistic direction of the majority of immigrant Lutherans.  We want to make nothing artificial of what concerns the language question, but allow the Lord of the church to lead us.  Where the Lord of the Church calls to our stated goal, namely the preservation and expansion of the Church of the Reformation, there we want to make use of the English language.  Among the English-speaking Negros we missionize in English language.  Also we enter with joy where a door opens to us among the English-speaking whites with the (page 5) English language.  Where, however, the aim put to us demands the retention of the German language, there we want to pursue this, and not to be deterred by the foolish accusation that we harbored "un-American" feelings.  That we are reduced to the necessity of having to understand two languages harms neither us nor our new fatherland.     F.P.

(continuation follows) [in February issue]

(continued in Part 3a)
--------------------------
Yes, today's LC-MS, you are the "anglicized" version of the old (German) Missouri Synod... not so much because you now use entirely the English language, but you have given up the doctrine of the pure Lutheran church.  Franz Pieper could speak and write English fluently, so also C.F.W. Walther.  But they chose to stay with German language for spiritual reasons.
And it need not be hardly mentioned that the old (German) Missouri Synod had a heart for the black people as Pieper describes, to bring the Saviour to them.  Unfortunately most black people have been influenced by the Reformed doctrine, and Methodism.
Part 3a follows next where Pieper hammers home the importance of congregational schools.

Pieper – Foreword 1891 – Pt 1: Too American? Un-American?

Although I call Franz Pieper the 20th Century Luther, he was very active in the German Missouri Synod in the 19th Century.  In 1891, he wrote the Foreword to the journal Lehre und Wehre at the beginning of the year to assess how his church body stood.  And it provides a striking view of not only the Missouri Synod, but also Lutheranism in the world and in America.  He begins by detailing how other so-called Lutherans viewed the Missourians (LuW volume 37, pgs 1 - 5):

     From Germany has ever and always come the reproach to us Missourians that we have become too "American".  

Yes, Germany's theologians knew about the Missourians in America.  The fact that Germany's theologians hardly ever mention those "Missourians" is because they would not admit that they were the legitimate Lutheran Church.

In particular one has expressed the view that our doctrine of church and ministry, of church order and church government, etc. were modeled and designed to the prevailing love of democratic trends in our country.  Hence, we had to lead the proof towards the German theologians that what was called "American" of us is genuinely biblical and Lutheran.
     For several years, and particularly determined in the past few years, has the opposite accusation against us been raised from our own land. The accusation is namely that we are not "American" enough, but still cherished "foreign ideas" too much, in particular, yet too much of German ideas. This is suggested to our own detriment, to the detriment of the church, yes, even to the detriment of our Republic. We remember an article which was published a few years ago in the "Lutheran Observer". Initially great praise – effusive praise – was paid to us by them. The Saxon immigration to Missouri was compared with the immigration of the "Pilgrim Fathers" and it was thought the courage of faith and ecclesiastical work of our fathers in such a way that the latter themselves would have rejected such praise in their presence. But even in this article it was finally pronounced that we Missourians only had a future in America and would look to be quite a blessing to the church if we were more Americanized. Whenever since the "Lutheran Observer" had often rejected "foreign" Lutheranism for an "American Lutheranism", in view were us "Missourians" especially in those discussions.
     What have we to respond to this accusation? First, we must reject even the expressions "foreign Lutheranism" and "American (page 2) Lutheranism" as unseemly. These expressions lead to the idea that Lutheranism changes its ways depending on the countries in which it finds a church home. If this were the case, Lutheranism would thereby issue a testimonium heterodoxiae of itself before all the world. The religion which changes in the course in time or from the climate of the country is not the true Christian religion. The Christian religion is bound as we know well to God's Word, as it is revealed in the Holy Scripture. God's Word is only for the whole world and all peoples. The true Church of God sharpens one therefore everywhere and at all times, no more and no less than by God's Word. What is written, it always praises on earth; what is not written, a Christian shall never and nowhere believe or do with it. As surely now as Lutheran church is the church of the pure Word, so surely it stands with all its teachings on the clear unchanging word of God, so surely it is only one in doctrine and practice in all countries. The differences can only be minor things, indifferent things, related things that actually "belong not to the Christian church" as the Apology speaks of. 1) [Müller, pg 259, Triglotta, pg 399, Apolgia Confessionis paragraph 38] There is therefore no "American Lutheranism" in the sense as if here in America the Lutheran Church in its teaching and practice would differ from the Lutheran Church in other countries.
     But in what parts therefore does one find us "Missourians" missing in "American Lutheranism" and finds the reprehensible "foreign ideas"?
     We start with the main points. Above all is our closed church position called "Un-American", the practice that we want to foster church fellowship only with those who profess with us in all things true doctrine. How they get to this call of "un-American" is easily explained. The American Protestant sects are mostly unionist through and through. Although they maintain their special fellowship and even fight among themselves, nevertheless they carry no concerns, and they do not feel it a self-contradiction to maintain church fellowship at every opportunity. The General Synod also takes part in this way entirely. The Council has even not bothered further the pastor who explained at the meeting in Minneapolis that if he "feels" in such a way, he will invite pastors "from other denominations" to his pulpit and even preach in other pulpits. If it is thus almost completely with the American sects and also for a large part of the Lutheran fellowships, it is understandable if one cannot understand our church position and so calls it "un-American". (page 3)
     And how does such ones look to explain our position? Beside other explanations it also emerges again and again that we would still be controlled too much by foreign ideas. One therefore speaks of the hope that a more "liberal" Lutheranism takes place among us if we would take on a more American spirit by a long stay in the country.
     But the "special position" reprimanded to us may already therefore not be "foreign", i.e. "German", because the same unionism, which dominates the sects here and part of the Lutheran Church fellowships, is nothing unusual also in Germany. In today's German state churches, the Union is either officially proclaimed, or nevertheless is really in custom and practice. Also in the so-called Lutheran State churches one maintains safely, as is well known, church fellowship with the grossest false teachers. Therefore can our church "special position" not be of German origen. It will also not be supported or maintained by the immigration. On the contrary! The religious material that we are fed by immigration from Germany is for the most part of such a nature that it would result in something of a General Synod, at most a General Council fellowship if it would be left to itself.  But for a so-called "Missourian" fellowship, they must be educated only by us here in this country. Yes, this conviction that one may maintain fellowship only with the church which confesses the true doctrne and has the corresponding practice to this conviction, rather actually has her home on American ground.
     What one calls "un-American" has here in America its real cooker. The conviction that one should avoid religious fellowships leading to false doctrine was awakened here in America and received through our congregational schools, through our confirmation classes, through the teaching in our colleges, as well as by public preaching and teaching the catechism. Briefly, our church position is a result of the fact that here in America a true Lutheran Church emerged by God's mercy that in the matters of Christian doctrine and church practice is not changing by the fashion, but is determined by the clear and unalterable Word of God. So frankly the true Lutheran Church has always admitted that there are faithful children of God even in the heretical communities which still hold key parts of Christian doctrine, yet it decided to reject church fellowship with these sects. And this position is required by God's Word. False teaching should one – the word of God calls everywhere – not confirm, but punish. The Word of God commands all Christians not to visit the fellowship of those who have written on their banner false teaching, but to avoid, Romans 16:17. (page 4) Our church's "special position" is not "foreign", but Christian. If we were Americanized in this matter, we would fall in this teaching of God's Word.

(to be continued in Part 2)
---------------------
     How Pieper shows that the true Lutheran Church regained its footing here in America!... not in Germany, for the German immigration brought people who had been fed false teachings by German theologians.  It was in America that God had mercy on us to see His true Gospel again.

Yes, America, God did bless you.  He sent the American Luther, C.F.W. Walther!

     In Part 2, Pieper discusses the language question.

Pieper: Liberal vs "Positive" Theology? neither -> Confessions

Our "modern" world is so steeped in its own ideas of theology.  It seems whole libraries have been written on "theology".  Franz Pieper commented in May 1930 on these "theologies" in the following article about a German newspaper finding (CTM, vol. 1, pg 388):

Where the great need of Germany lies.  We read in the "German Teachers' Journal": "Without a doubt serious moral hazards lie in the industrialization of the masses; but we see the cause of our religious national emergency in the influences of theological liberalism dominated by the modern human spirit, which extends stones instead of bread to the people. Where God's Word is proclaimed loud and clear, it proves itself even today a divine force that brings salvation unto to every one that believeth."  This is an absolutely appropriate judgment.  “Theological liberalism” is maintained not only by the normally so-called “liberal theologians”, but also by the theologians going under the Lutheran name who deny the infallible divine authority of the Scripture and base man's conversion and salvation not only on God's mercy, but also on man's good behavior.  Ever has emerged in our time a misleading theological parlance.  We distinguish between "liberal" and "positive" theologians in the sense that we call those "liberal" who avowedly want to make the Christian religion a product of human reason, while those theologians who still want to retain parts of the Christian religion, the title attribute of "positive".  But this title comes properly speaking only to those who remain in all respects with what is set once and for all in Scripture.  Whoever is allowed deductions from it, carries no more "positive", but negative theology.  The same is true of the term "confessional theology".  Confessional Lutheran theologians are just that in their theology.  Knowledge is encouraged to the extent that they have recognized the doctrine of the Lutheran Confessions as scriptural and are able to teach effectively.    F. P.

Pieper picked up on the term theological liberalism coming from Germany.  He had been fighting this onslaught against Christianity for his whole life.  But Pieper knew how the devil works and so he commented on those who proposed to fight against "Liberal Theology" with half-truths and called it "positive" theology.  Today most theologians and commentators are falsely labeled with labels like those Pieper points out:

• "positive" theology (not really positive)
• "confessional" theology (but not teaching Confessions as scriptural)
• Neo-orthodoxy (but not orthodox; neither is there new true orthodoxy – Scripture never changes)
• Dialectical theology (supposedly like "neo-orthodoxy")
• etc., etc, etc. (whatever modern theology dreams up)

Yes, Dr. Pieper, "Ever has emerged in our time a misleading theological parlance."
Dear reader, listen to the President of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis (in 1930).

Don't call Pieper to be a teacher in old Missouri Synod

     Ah, the old (German) Missouri Synod... so long ago, so far away.  But Franz Pieper brings it to life again in his writings in Lehre und Wehre and the first two years of Concordia Theological Monthly.  Pieper revealed how teachers were selected in the following brief article in August, 1930  (CTM volume 1, page 620):

A list of Lutheran teachers for Lutheran schools has been sent to us by the treasurer of the National Lutheran Educational Conference. The letter reads: "Since the directory was last published of Lutheran teachers, more Lutheran teachers have asked to have their names listed.  Mr. Dorner Keyser has compiled this additional list, and I am pleased to enclose a copy herewith.  I trust that it will be of some service to you.  As you know, the conference has voted to discontinue the publication of a directory.  We hope however, to continue a bulletin service announcing from time to time the names of Lutheran teachers who are available for positions in Lutheran institutions.”  The list includes 46 names. The applicants specify their degree in most cases and name the institutions of which they were awarded.  The titles range from A.B. to Ph.D. inclusive. More examples of those titles registered are B.S., M.S., B.D. S.T.M.  The applicants indicate the salary they expect in almost all cases.  The salary varies between 1,500 and 3,000 dollars.  From this information, it follows that the list doesn't fit our circumstances.  The candidates for permanent employment in our Synodical higher institutions do not even contact us, but are nominated by the congregations. The election is performed by an electoral college appointed by the Synod, in which the local supervisory authority has only one vote. The appointment of assistant teachers from the local supervisory authorities is also limited by synodical regulations. The electoral college maintains a very responsible office. It's decision on the election is not based on academic qualifications, but on the basis of known or researched teaching ability in the relevant disciplines.  Above all things besides the gift of teaching, consistently Christian character and a particular youth-loving attitude will be considered. It is the nature of things that candidates are generally preferred who have proven themselves at least a few years in the ministry and in pastoral care.      F. P. 

Can the reader see Pieper's attitude toward those "Lutheran" teachers with high degrees?  They mean nothing to him without the other qualifications he outlines in his writing – consistent Christian character, love for the youth, and pastoral care.
     Walter A. Maier (WAM), a professor at Concordia Seminary (see my earlier blog posts), had received his Ph.D. from Harvard in 1929.  There was a celebration of this event when he came home to St. Louis.  A report of this was given by his son Paul L. Maier in his book A Man Spoke, A World Listened: The Story of Walther A. Maier:, page 93:

Seminary President Franz Pieper embraced him cordially...

It was a cordial embrace, not like the celebration that C.F.W. Walther gave Pieper when he first arrived in St. Louis to be a professor there.  For Pieper was not so much impressed by WAM's Harvard degree.

German pastor in 1931: Back To Luther! Part 2

This continues Part 1 in which Franz Pieper introduces a rare pastor in Germany who speaks like the American old (German) Missouri Synod...  in 1931.

Franz Pieper goes on to continue his lengthy quote from the Preface of a new (in 1931) 6-volume publication of Luther's works in Germany.  It was Pastor Ernst Herrmann that President Franz Pieper wrote of and Pieper was anxious to bring his message to America:

     But we will bring the greater part of the "Preface" to follow here: "Luther is and remains the German prophet and the Christian world's greatest teacher since the days of the Apostles, and whoever does not know his message and does not listen to him, brings in more than he knows.  The times in which the church did not allow Luther's voice to be heard any more have not been its best. She became impoverished internally.  Not only did she lose the connection with her history and splintered in the hunting of human pursuits, but she also forgot the simple baselines of sober and true Christianity as they were drawn by Luther, and was tempted to all kinds of fanaticism. She took on a new form that may have been finer, yet it was a much more dangerous form of man's righteousness that Luther had conquered in his fight against the papal and monastic nature.
    "Thus the slogan for our present times must be taken seriously: Back to Luther!  We must read him again and learn to contemplate; not as if his writings were the Gospel itself, but because he teaches us to understand as no one else the gospel purely; not as if we had to acquire him sentence by sentence, but because since the time of the Apostles to this day no one knew how to say as simply and clearly what it is about Christ and his kingdom, about faith, repentance and love, about law and gospel, about vocation and good works, about church and world.
     "Back to Luther!" That is what to say to all those whose pious searching has never led them to the door of peace. They are searching in man's life and in his own soul, but can never find it there.  They are looking to redeem themselves by increasing their inner strength, through performance of a particular work ethos, perhaps even by their own creation of a Christian 'faith'; and with it they never come out of the internal lie and never hold firm for life and death.  In Luthers school', one learns to refrain from himself completely and rest on what is outside us.  Luther is found by us not on our own reason but by God's Word which is given to us in the Holy Scriptures; he points us instead of our own works and skills on God's mercy in Christ, so that we are assured in this word and promise; he shows us the gift of a lively and creative faith, that comes from that word to us and saves and renews us.  Just because he had been a seeker himself on the wrong track, this is why he is capable after he had been allowed to find another signpost that brings one to certainty and peace.  And because there is no other way even today, so also no other fulfilment is possible for the religious longing of the present time as it witnesses Luther's message of Christ.
     "Back to Luther!"  Our church has much to say of this slogan as a whole.  From the topsoil of the Reformation has arisen a (page 311) varied and diverse wealth of church establishments.  For as Luther and his followers proclaimed the freedom in Christ, they were averse to any external entity; they left with joy free space for every country and every nationality to make accordingly the religious life of their own kind.  The more they put all the emphasis on the internal unity of the faith; for their sake, they were willing to be pursued and be scorned by all those who pay homage to the spirit of the times.  If we go to school through Luther, also we must again learn better that external really means external, and to risk everything that we remain obedient in faith in Christ of the Scriptures so that our fellowship is a fellowship in spirit and our unity is a unity in truth.  But to do this means to turn from all mere religious activity and overestimation of the organizational, and to turn to the essentials, to Christ and his Word, and in addition there is no one better than Luther, whose message even still is just that necessary to reflection on.
     “It will be a vital question for our evangelical Christendom whether she wants to allow herself today that same spirit become strong again in her from whom she was born four centuries ago.  Only in this way will she defend herself against disunity, that she reflects on her history and becomes what she should be.  If she ignores what the Holy Spirit has worked up to now in her, she forgets under what slogan she has freed herself of the papacy and has separated against fanatics, so may she then look on what spirit is then alive in her and what slogan she then follows.  If the church wants to not allow itself to be cheated on the Gospel, it must get bright eyes again to see the essential things and to judge the spirits.  She will nowhere find a better guide in the Gospel than with the doctor of the Holy Scriptures Martin Luther.  With a unique emphasis he has repeatedly pointed to the one thing needful.  Therefore, he is now again given as the collecting point for all those who want to hear the Christ of Scripture.  Thereby we would like to help by adopting again with this choice of Luther's writings, that what is given us in Luther, the tool of God, does not remain lying unused and also thereby to honor God.  If they may open here and there someone's eyes to the depth and magnificence of the biblical, Reformation Gospel, they have fulfilled their purpose.”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Could it be that Pastor Ernst Herrmann of Germany got hold of some of Walther's writings from America and took them to heart?  I wonder that it is so.  May these blog posts honor this German pastor for all time!

But Pastor Herrmann's voice in Germany was largely drowned out by its modern "great" theologians.  And the voice of Pieper went silent in 1931 when he died.  His synod had enough of him.... and all hell broke out.  Not in the way the world sees it in World War II, but in the fall of the old (German) Missouri Synod.  All things German are practically spit on today, including Luther, the German language, and the Fraktur font.  But they contain the greatest message since the days of the Apostles.

Back To Luther!

German pastor (not Bonhoeffer) in 1931: Back To Luther! Part 1

There is a lot of "buzz" in today's religious media about Bonhoeffer... just type "Dietr" into a Google search box and it returns everything about Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  But it was a different pastor in Germany in 1931 that Franz Pieper took note of... one who is not popularly known.  Who was he?  In the last year of his life, 1931, Pieper wrote of this pastor in Concordia Theological Monthly (CTM, vol. 2, pgs 309-312).  I posted a blog last year in November from this same article to show Pieper's comments against modern Germany's misunderstanding of Luther.  But this time I will bring out Pieper's amazement over this German pastor in 1931.  Who was this pastor? Franz Pieper begins:

A "Back To Luther!" reputation of a German Pastor.  Pastor Ernst Herrmann of Esslingen has planned for the people an edition of Luther under the title "Martin Luthers Ausgewählte Werke" [Selected Works of Martin Luther].   The edition will comprise six volumes, of which the first has just been published.  Pastor Herrmann was not able to carry out himself what he planned. The "A.E.L.K." reported: " In a long illness, which banished him to the bedside, he was still at work... . But still he wrote an excellent preface that is pre-printed in the first volume, and it also shows what a pious and ardent spirit for God and his Church that this work was produced."

The pastor was Ernst Herrmann.  He had written the "Preface" [Geleitswort] to this new German publication of Luther's works.  And Pieper had obtained a copy:

When the first volume of this work came before us, our eyes were fixed on the "Preface". 

What was it that caught Pieper's eye?  Was there yet a spark of life in Germany?  Pieper had written so much of the apostasy of Germany's "great" theological teachers such as Harnack, Ritschl, and others. But whenever something catches Pieper's eye, all Christianity should turn its attention to it.  He goes on:

It is most suitable what we have read about the unique value of Luther's writings.  Pastor Ernst Herrmann covers the points of damage to today's piety. He shows that this devotion is not for peace of conscience, nor can it lead to certainty in the truth, because it is not confined to the objective Word of God, but ultimately is based on one's own reason; and not on God's mercy in Christ, but (page 310) is based on man's own work. Of genuine biblical Lutheranism Herrmann says: “In Luther's school one learns to refrain from himself completely and rest on what is outside us.”  From the modern model the pious "never come out from the inner lie and never to a firm support for life and death".  Therefore Herrmann admonished: "Back to Luther!" and sees in the return to Luther "a vital question for our evangelical Christendom".

(continued in the next Part 2)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1931.  In the waning years of the Weimar Republic, not long before the Nazi party gained power in Germany's government, there was a German pastor who fought against the tide of unbelief in his land of Germany and cried out:

Zurück zu Luther!... Back To Luther!

But Germany had long before thrown Luther off.  Even great German Lutheran teachers thought of today by some so-called "confessional" Lutherans, such as Hermann Sasse and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, were not the true Lutheran leaders the Germans should have listened to.  They should have listened to this Pastor Ernst Herrmann.  But just like today's LC-MS which ignores Franz Pieper, so the Germans ignored Herrmann.

I will have more to comment on Dietrich Bonhoeffer at a later time... and it will not be a comment like that of Herman Otten of Christian News, for there was at least one aspect of Bonhoeffer that a Christian cannot overlook... it was near the time of his death.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer apparently took no notice of Franz Pieper and the old (German) Missouri Synod... and neither did Franz Pieper take notice of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  But it was Franz Pieper who was the 20th Century Luther, not Bonhoeffer.

Pieper: Ohio's great error (old ELCA) – on Justification

I have read somewhere of interest to find out exactly what the Ohio and Iowa Synods taught (old American Lutheran synods)...   and what were their errors?  The Ohio Synod of Columbus, Ohio was one of several American Lutheran synods that merged into the ALC synod in 1930, and then into today's ELCA synod.  It should be noted that the Ohio Synod was one of the original members of the Synodical Conference in 1872 (with the Missouri Synod) even though the Wikipedia article on the Synodical Conference does not mention it.  And these Ohio and Iowa synods were identified by Professor Theodore Graebner in 1938 as the ones that had the right Doctrine of Objective Justification, along with his LC-MS.
But unfortunately the Ohio Synod broke away from the Synodical Conference because they held to doctrinal errors, chiefly the Doctrines of Justification and Election.  Franz Pieper spoke of the great error of the Ohio Synod in the pages of Lehre und Wehre in June 1889 (vol. 35, pgs 195 - 196) [2019-10-21 fixed link].  Here is what he reported:

Ohio. It is a great deception that the Ohioians and all synergists still speak of justification by grace through faith for Christ's sake, by which they cover themselves and alas! also inexperienced Christians with their utter waste of the central doctrine of Christianity. For the origin of faith is not merely at the mercy of God, but also by the good behavior of man as the Ohioians teach, faith itself includes a human achievement or a work of man in himself, and justified "through faith" then means  justified in so far as through a partial work of man.  Of a justification by grace in the biblical sense, there can no longer be talk of.  As Luther says, "Justification, which is done by grace, that suffers no work or no merit."   "And St. Paul thrusts" (with the "by grace" of Romans 3:24) "to the ground both the Pelagians with all their merits, and the Sophists with their few or small merits".  (The Bondage Of The Will. Dresden edition, page 300) [see section 149 (CXLIX) here].  So this subject has been discussed by all sides in the last fight.  But now there is something new to report.  For some weeks the Ohioians therefore fight expressly against the doctrine of justification as heresy, which they confessed at the first meeting of the Synodical Conference in 1872 with the whole Synodical Conference.  (Report of the first meeting of the Synodical Conference, 1872, page 43 ff.)  Will this possibly help to open the eyes of at least some of those under the unfortunate seduction of the spirit of error?

This is the error that modern Lutherans (such as Prof. T. Graebner in 1939 and today's Prof. David Scaer) want to ignore and overlook.  I have given the following quote many times before, but I want to rub your nose in it, today's LC-MS.  Here is what your Professor Theodore Graebner said in 1939:

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

All the women and homosexual pastors in today's ELCA (and NALC) cannot roar louder against the true Doctrine of Justification than Professor Theodore Graebner did in this quote.  Theodore Graebner, the great Editor of the Lutheran Witness and chief popular spokesman for the LC-MS in 1938, set himself on a mountain top, way above C.F.W. Walther, way above Franz Pieper, and roared:

The fathers of the old (German) Missouri Synod were wrong!  ......  I am the one who knows the Doctrine of Justification!  I am the one who knows the central article of Christianity!  Listen to me!

And unfortunately today's LC-MS did.

Not so for the old (German) Missouri Synod.  From the perspective of old Missouri, the Ohio Synod was already beginning to return to the Roman Catholic (Sophist) doctrine and would not be so surprised (but would be saddened) that the descendants of the Ohio and Iowa Synods, the ELCA, would sign the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification with the Roman church.  The old (German) Missouri Synod believed the Bible.  Do you?

If by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. Romans 11:6

Walther's Formula of Concord – high drama, doctrine – Part 3

This continues from Part 2 which contains a Table of Contents to this new book, a translation of Walther's book on the Formula of Concord.

As I begin to read this book, I am a bit stunned by how much this book speaks to the Lutheran, that is the Christian, faith.  I had been thinking I was too harsh when I spoke of "hypocrites" in Part 1 who write on the Formula of Concord while ignoring C.F.W. Walther.  But now, I wonder all the more that it is true.  When I look around me, I want to exclaim, "Dear God, that time is now!".  When Franz Pieper closed his eyes in death, all hell broke loose, just as when Luther closed his eyes.

Lord, have mercy on us!  We don't deserve anything from thee, but I pray thee to send teachers who follow Luther, Walther and Pieper!  Dear God, I pray this in the name of thy dear son, Jesus Christ!  Amen.

Dear reader, read this book of Walther.  Put aside any other books by LC-MS/CPH authors and others that purport to give "historical backgrounds" and listen to Walther!
There is high drama, not like the Olympics, or any of a million other sources of drama, action, and entertainment of today, ... but real drama, spiritual drama.  You want excitement?  Maybe entertainment?

• Who was fed by a raven and a laying hen while hiding from the murdering Papists? (pg 22)
• What document was thrown into a roaring fire by an old Lutheran preacher? (pg. 24)
• What was mixed with water for Baptism by the Papists? (pg 26)
• On whose head did Emperor Charles put a price? (pg 27)
• Who said "The dubious Lutherans now no longer hold the pope to he the Antichrist."? (pg 27)

No one, ... no one knows Luther and the Lutheran Confessions better than C.F.W. Walther!

I am a weeping Lutheran, I weep for Christianity!  I beg you to read C.F.W. Walther!

New book: Walther's Formula of Concord-Kern und Stern, Part 2

This continues from Part 1 concerning the new book, an English translation of Walther's Formula of Concord...
As promised, I am producing a basic Table of Contents for this new book so people can get a glimpse of its contents.  In addition, I am supplying links on some of the key words and subject to sources of background, especially Wikipedia articles.  But Wikipedia can cause confusion in spiritual matters, so read Walther for the true spiritual meaning.  And Mr. Howes also does a good job of explaining some of the subjects in footnotes – another good reason to purchase this book.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

The Formula of Concord - Core and Highlights 1

Translator's Preface 3

Foreword 7

Historical Introduction

Chapter 1 – Luther's Predictions, What Would Happen After His Death 11

Chapter 2 – What great concerns Luther's death first awakened among the Lutherans 15

Chapter 3 – How, Soon After Luther's death, a War Most Unfortunate for Germany's Lutherans, Namely the So-called Smalcaldic War, Broke Out 17

Chapter 4 – The Sort of Disputes that Arose over the So-called Interim and Adiaphora in the Year 1548 in the Lutheran Church. 21

Chapter 5 – How, After Luther's Death, a Controversy Broke Out in the Lutheran Church over Justification Before God and over the Necessity of Good Works. 29

Chapter 6 – How after Luther's death a controversy arose in the Lutheran church over free will and over original sin. 33

Chapter 7 – How, After Luther's Death, a Controversy Arose over the Distinction of Law and Gospel and over the Third Use of the Law 37

Chapter 8 – How after Luther's death secret Calvinists, called Crypto-Calvinists, sneaked into our church and in there stirred up very dangerous disputes. 39

Chapter 9 – How, for the resolution of the controversies that arose in the Lutheran Church after Luther's death the Formula of Concord was composed. 51

Chapter 10 – How the Formula of Concord was introduced into the Lutheran churches 59

Conclusion 63

Formula of Concord – Epitome, Comprehensive Summary of the Disputed Articles

OF THE COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY, RULE AND NORM 67

I. Of Original Sin 70

II. Of Free Will 74

III. Of Justification of Faith before God 78

CONTRARY TEACHING REJECTED 80

IV. Of Good Works 81

V. Of the Law and Gospel 84

VI. Of the Third Use of the Law 86

VII. Of Christ's Holy Supper 88

VIII. Of the Person of Christ 93

IX. Of Christ's Descent Into Hell 98

X. Of Church Customs which one calls Adiaphora or Middle Things 99

XI. Of the Eternal Foreknowledge and Election of God 101

XII. Of Other Factions and Sects That Never Acknowledged the Augsburg Confession 104

Erroneous Articles of the Anabaptists 105

Intolerable Articles in the Churches 105

Intolerable Articles in Government 106

Intolerable Articles in Households 106

Erroneous Articles of the Schwenkfelders 107

Error of the new Arians 107

Error of the Anti-Trinitarians 108

[Conclusion] 109

The Doctrine of Election in Questions and Answers 111

Preface 113

The Doctrine of Election in Question and Answer 121

Afterword 147

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

It was especially the Doctrine of Election that Walther used the FC to combat the errors that arose over it. And it took this mighty teacher of God's Grace to separate out the error, that again this doctrine too can be a comforting doctrine for Christians – it is an Election of Grace and no other.
I may yet produce an index for this book.  See the next Part 3 for further comments on this important book.

New book: Walther's Formula of Concord-Kern und Stern, Part 1

     In an earlier post, I had commented about Walther's book Concordienformel – Kern und Stern and how Walther towers over today's theologians and editors like Robert Kolb and Paul T. McCain when it comes to presenting the Formula of Concord, part of the Lutheran Confessions.  Although I was tempted to tackle a translation of Walther's book at that time, I decided against it since the new book by CPH edited by McCain did an adequate job (with a few exceptions) of presenting the Lutheran Confessions to the people.
     But now I notice that there is a brand new book out that is published by Herman Otten's Christian News and is the first English translation available of Walther's German original (that I know of).  It is entitled The Formula of Concord – Core and Highlights; The Doctrine of Election in Questions and Answers.  It is only $7.95 plus shipping and I have purchased it.
     The translator, Kenneth E.F. Howes, had evidently tried to get it published by Concordia Publishing House (according to Otten, CN July 23, 2012) but was turned down.  I wonder that he finally gave up after waiting many years since the date of his Preface is February 27, 2008, over 4 years ago.  His experience mirrors that of Pastor Joel Baseley who also could not get CPH to publish Walther or Luther.  Does the reader see the false honor that the LC-MS, CPH, and CHI pays to C.F.W. Walther in their "Bicentennial Celebration"? I wonder that McCain deemed Walther's book would compete too well with other publications, and likely cause too much of a "black eye" to put it into the public's hands.

     Mr. Howes makes several good points in his preface. I quote:

1) "... less than half of ...[Walther's work] has ever been translated into English."

At least there is some movement on this now with the work of Pastor Joel Baseley, yourself, and my blog.  

2) "That is largely the result of the very sudden and swift abandonment of German by the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod in the 1940's."

Well said, Mr. Howes!  In case you did not know of this, see Pieper's answer to the question of why the old Missouri Synod held to the German language in my earlier blog post.  ... And do we even recognize that God has truly given our Internet age a gift, not as Robert Kolb extols "psychology" and "sociology" as gifts of God, but this: free online translation tools like Google Translate, Promt Translator, and Microsoft Translator?  These tools allow not just a few like you, but our whole generation that has been denied the German language by our ancestors to at least begin to unlock the tremendous treasures stored away in the old German Missouri Synod.

3) "This book... is one that should long since have been translated and placed in the hands of the laity."

Indeed Mr. Howes!  I almost beat you to it!  Now I am glad that I did not...  But why hasn't it been published before?  (Read my whole blog and find out.)

4) "Today's American Lutheran laymen are almost entirely unaware of the scope of the Lutheran Confessions and their contents."

But why is that? Isn't there an organization called the Lutheran Laymen's League and don't they see that their members get the literature of the basics of Christian teaching?  No? Maybe they should also get Franz Pieper's book What Is Christianity? and read his essay The Laymen's Movement in the Light of God's Word.

5) "... the typical Lutheran's beliefs could be described as those of a Baptist who believes in the Real Presence in Communion"

But it is more than that Mr. Howes.  Maybe you hint at it, but I must explain, Mr. Howes, that you have not quite hit on the primary error of today.  It is rather The Doctrine of Justification.  It is only when I finally realized that, through God's mercy, the BIG problem for today is the Gospel itself, or rather the lack of a true understanding and proclamation of it – it is called Universal, Objective Justification.  Pastor Herman Otten, your publisher, does not proclaim it even though he publishes some books by Walther such as yours.  Now I must ask you, Mr. Kenneth Howes, do you believe what Walther taught – Universal, Objective Justification (UOJ)?
- - - - - - - - - - -
There are remarks to be made about this book:

• No reference to the exact German name of the original book, so that readers wanting to verify the original can find it.  
• A minor point – Howes translates "Kern und Stern" as "Core and Highlights"; I prefer "Core and Star" or "Heart and Star" or "Seed and Star", but perhaps he has it more correct to the meaning of Walther.
• No Table of Contents?  
• No Index?  

I would like to correct these last two shortcomings... in Part 2.

Mr. Howes has done a fine service to the church.  Thank you!! This book offers a new and magnificent way to go back, back to Walther, and the Lutheran Confessions!  All Lutheran laymen should read this book instead of (or at least before) McCain's or Kolb's writings, for it was C.F.W. Walther who truly brought the Lutheran Confessions to today's modern (or post modern?) age.  Anyone who ignores Walther when writing of the Confessions is a pretender, or an actor – as the Greeks would say – a hypocrite (also search for "Greek language" here).

Vom Schem Hamphoras – by Martin Luther (a translation, Part 9)

    This continues from Part 8.  See Part 1 for an introduction and Table of Contents.

     I have decided to set aside the balance of Luther's "little book" – the portion on the lineage or genealogy of Christ – for awhile, since this is quite labor intensive and there are 40% more paragraphs than in the first section.  I don't know CPH's schedule to publish the new volume of Luther's Works with this portion. I may get back to it as time permits.  But I will publish the first two paragraphs by way of introduction (and to prod CPH to get their translation published ASAP):

... and the Lineage of Christ, Matthew 1. – by Martin Luther

     83.  From the beginning, according to the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, has the following question been raised:  Why are the two evangelists so different (or how much they have interpreted as contradictory to each other) on the persons or members of the lineage of our Lord Jesus Christ, and why especially that they both carry harmoniously the line or ranks of the people in the lineage and ending on Joseph, and not on Mary and Christ; from this the clever ones would like to say that there is no proof that Christ was of the tribe of David, because he came not from Joseph, whom first the evangelists describe of the lineage of David but then they suddenly leave Joseph and put in Mary.

     84.  Here they all are entangled, especially the Jews, and after that Julian the emperor with his heathen; again, many of the old teachers, and not a few of the new teachers; it is surprising of those who have to cope with this, as if our Christian faith would be false, uncertain, or completely dark.  This is why we also want to talk a little bit of it, however with leave for we gladly allow everyone to make it better than I.

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dear Dr. Luther, no one will make it better than you! No theologian, scholar, commentator, or editor since the days of the apostles has or will make it better than you!  The devil has caused this writing of yours on Christ's lineage to be locked away from the non-German speaking world, in part because it follows the first part of your Vom Schem Hamphoras "little book".  It is a writing that so wonderfully strengthens the Christian faith... and refutes the Jews!