M04: More good confessions; Green v. Bente on Supper

      This continues from Part 3 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C. F. W. Walther's 1876 essay “The ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon on the Part of Luther.” — Walther continues reporting Melanchthon's good confessions during the later years of Luther's life. The matters touched on are still highly contentious today, especially on the Lord's Supper. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 324-6: 

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 4 of 28  - - - - - - -

  

On February 13, 1538, he [Melanchthon] wrote to Dietrich: 

“I have spoken with Dr. Luther about the quarrel of the man who discusses with you that the symbols (the consecrated elements) should not be lifted up into the air.  But my advice is that, if he confesses that the body is really present, he must allow the elevation to be necessary. If he defends Zwingli's dogma, I believe you will not defend the man.” (p. 488) 

In 1541 Melanchthon wrote to the Goldberg Pastor J. Resting about the elevation at Holy Communion: 

“Many of us have abolished the same, we here keep it according to the old custom, and I think that you should not suddenly change this custom. Although many questions would be avoided by abolishing that custom, because the Body of Christ is given with the signs, that outward reverence cannot be condemned if one has the right understanding, and does not worship the sign, but recognizes that there is something else given besides the signs. At all times of the Church (LuW 325), congregations fall on their knees in the action of the mystery, as it is called. Therefore I do not see how you could abolish this custom; only that the people should be taught rightly. (Corp. Reform. IV, 735) 

Of other certain confessions of Melanchthon to Luther's teaching from this and the following years, Melanchthon still writes in 1543 in the preface to his Locis: 

“I accept the doctrine of the Wittenberg Church and the churches connected with it, which, apart from everything else, is the consensus of the catholic [universal] Church, i.e. of all those taught within the Church of Christ.  But Paul wants there to be judgments on doctrines in the Church, so that the truth may be preserved unadulterated and unity not rashly disturbed. I myself also recognize the meagerness and lack of stainlessness of my writings. Therefore, although I make a foolish effort to speak, it can happen, especially with the great mass of things and the great brevity, that sometimes something is expressed too darkly or not comfortably enough. Therefore I do not evade the judgments of our Churches, for I respect them for God's Church and venerate them with sincere reverence, nor will I separate myself from them and submit my words, writings and actions to their judgment”. (Loci praecip. th. Lips. 1552. Praef. A 2. s.) 

Finally, the following is very important. When the Swiss wanted to be admitted to the Smalcald League in 1545, the Elector of Saxony asked the Wittenberg theologians to express their reservations. The Wittenberg theologians issued one, and it is not only signed by Melanchthon, but also written by him. In it, however, after mentioning the political reasons which oppose the admission of the Zwinglian Swiss, it says among other things as follows: 

“This we let the gentlemen themselves, who by God's grace are gifted with a high intellect, consider.  But it is public that the Zurich Predicants write against our Church, and have several articles which are criminal.  Now we cannot respect, if we on both sides are arguing against each other with writings, that the hearts would be inclined to equal protection. On the other hand, they would understand and need this acceptance as strengthening and spreading their opinion. (Corp. Ref. V, 723) *)

——————

*) Bretschneider, the editor of the Corpus Reformatorum, says for easily understandable reasons: “I do not consider either Luther or Melanchthon to be the author of this reflection, but either Bugenhagen or Cruciger.” Assuming alone that Bretschneider was in the right, it remains certain that Melanchthon signed the reflection with his own hand and thus testified that he wanted to be seen together with Luther as an opponent of the Zwinglian life, as an erroneous and dangerous one. But there is more to this, that the Wittenberg theologians in the year 1597 in of their Refutatio historiae Peucerianae expressly testify: “The response given to the Elector on this question was written down by Philip himself, which is well worth noting, and is still present in the Saxon Archives at this time.” (Consil. Witebergens. Tom. I. f. 307) 

What could and should Luther (LuW 326) conclude from this other than that Melanchthon was also in agreement with him regarding the Swiss in doctrine? Even if it may not remain entirely hidden from Luther that Melanchthon was tormented by scruples and that his nature of aversion to disunity and conflict inclined him to achieve unity through less distinct formulas, even to compromise with his opponents, all this was enough for Luther, and rightly so, not, in view of those beautiful confessions of the pure doctrine of the Word of God, to take his dear Philip to be a man who is a conscious opponent of any article of pure doctrine and any dangerous false doctrine. 

- - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 5  - - - - - - - - - -

Walther makes the clear case for why Luther still considered Melanchthon as his associate in theological matters. Philip clearly sounded just like Luther on the elevation of the host as an adiaphoron — an indifferent matter that should not necessarily be a point of contention. (This is the error of the so-called "Gottesdienst" organization.)  In the next Part 5…

- - - - - - - -   The LC-MS Opposing Theologians, Historians: Dr. Lowell Green   - - - - - - - - -

      In Part 3, we touched on Dr. Green's errors on Church & Ministry, and the Inspiration of Holy Scripture.  This time we highlight his error concerning the Lord's Supper. In 1977, he wrote a provocative chapter for the CPH book A Contemporary Look at the Formula of Concord  attempting to drive a wedge between Luther's so-called teaching on the timing of the Real Presence in Holy Communion.  In the process, he impugns Bente's Historical Introductions… for example, the following statement (p. 306, fn 7):

“Bente paid the price [!?] of his overhasty condemnations of Melanchthon, pp. 175—185. Supposing that reformer’s [Melanchthon’s] doctrine of the Lord’s Supper to consist in covert Calvinism, he [Bente] regarded the hallmark of Luther’s doctrine to be the phrase, ‘nothing has the character of a sacrament outside of the use,’… [True! See Luther's letter to Amsdorf Jan. 11, 1545 in StL 21b, 3180, and his writing in StL 21b, 3457-59 (WABr 12, #4315); see SD VII, 85] This prompted Bente to misinterpret Beatus [Johannes] Saliger, who was probably [probably? not certainly?] a true representative of Luther [False!], calling him [Saliger] an ‘extremist … who taught that in virtue of the consecration before the use (ante usum) bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ.’ [p. 179] The term ante usum here evidently meant the time between the consecration and the manducation: Bente is espousing the Melanchthonian [?!] notion that the body is in, with, and under the bread only in the distribution and consumption [Which is the Formula of Concord’s doctrine!] (if, indeed, Melanchthon limited it to that extent), and calling the position of Luther and [False pairing of Luther with Saliger!] Saliger ‘extreme.’ Bente’s historical introduction has been very influential.”

Dr. Green uses provocative, "overhasty" terminology and methodology, the same as what Prof. Marquart uncovered in Green's doctrines of Church and Ministry (see Part 3). Luther's doctrine was definitely NOT the same as the erring Saliger. See the Wikipedia article on Johannes Saliger, Walther's Pastoral Theology, pp. 205 and 221, Pieper's CD III, p. 372) — Unfortunately Dr. Green did not stop with the three doctrines named so far, where he attacked Old Missouri, and has attracted a major following in the LC-MS even today. One could also suspect Pres. Matthew Harrison as a follower, along with Prof. John T. Pless (are you reading this, Logia?). Another of Dr. Green's deviations is planned to be revealed, the most devious.

Corvinus 4B—Easter: Women sent as first preachers… but afterwards?

      This continues from Part 4 [Table of Contents in Part 1] in a short series on Antonius Corvinus, a reformer who suffered much for his faith, even death as a Lutheran martyr. — This concludes the Easter sermon with the portion dealing with the proclamation.  What surprised me at first was that Corvinus not only tells us that women were the first sent to proclaim the resurrection, he highlights this — he does not hide this fact. This puzzled me and I wondered how Corvinus would finish this sermon.  Would he leave the matter open?… that one could conclude that women today have the divine right to preach to the congregation?  Read the following and find out. — Excerpted and translated from the 1899 CPH book edited by Prof. A. L. Gräbner. pp. 103-109:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -  [Part B]  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Proclaim His resurrection: first preachers sent by angel were women!]

Third, the women were dispatched by the angel to proclaim the resurrection of Christ, not only to the disciples in general, but also to Peter in particular, who was in great distress because of his fall. From this we learn how necessary the sermon of the resurrection is and what a miserable thing it is when the glory of that resurrection is not recognized. The dear apostles, who because of their sins were in great sorrow from the fear of death, no one could satisfy them but the sermon of the resurrection of Christ. Who can deny that they would not all have done as Peter did, if only they had been asked as he was [to deny Christ]? Have they not forsaken Christ and fled from him? But if they have fled, they have sinned, as Christ also says, “All ye shall be offended because of me this night” [KJV, Matt. 26:31] He that is offended in Christ has sinned, as it is written, “Blessed is he that is not offended in me.” [Matt. 11:6] Well then, if there has been sin, there has also been fear and anxiety of death, and God had to comfort these sorrowful consciences by the sermon of the passion and resurrection of our beloved Lord Jesus Christ; as if the angel should say to the women: Go unto the afflicted Apostles, and tell them that Christ hath overcome <109> sin, hell, and the devil, and is risen from the dead, that they only may be comforted; for it is now fulfilled which the prophet Hosea said before, Death is swallowed up in victory. “Death, where is your sting? Hell, where is your victory?” Yes, tell them, Christ Himself would proclaim these things to them in Galilee, and would be seen there, only that they might be comforted, and not doubt His resurrection. Behold, the angel thus teacheth these women doctrines, and sheweth them things which they should preach unto the apostles. Notice, however, that the women are to do a priestly ministry. God has ordained them as priests through His Son and our High Priest Christ. He that believeth on Christ, and hath received the Holy Spirit by his word, belongeth, whether he be man or woman, unto that company of whom St. Peter said, “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” 1 Pet. 2:9. Hanna, the prophetess, also performed such a priestly office. The four daughters of Philip also prophesied in this way. But that St. Paul commanded the women in the church to be silent [1 Cor. 14:34] is not because the women should not confess Christ, but that everything should be done honestly and properly, and the women should keep silent where there are men who can teach in the church. In sum, we all, men and women, must confess that we have been born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

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

We find out that Corvinus is also a Scriptural, as well as an evangelical, preacher. He explains the difference between the two texts, one showing women sent to preach and the other forbidding them to speak in a congregation, with the observation that the latter are "where there are men who can teach in the church." Women can thank Corvinus for showing that they too can proclaim His resurrection in the proper setting. — In the next Part 5 of this "Corvinus" series…

Corvinus 4—Easter: Disciples think it a fairy tale

      This continues from Part 2 [Table of Contents in Part 1] in a short series on Antonius Corvinus, a reformer who suffered much for his faith, even death as a Lutheran martyr. — The following sermonette is being split into 2 posts in order to gain the best exposure to it.  This first section presents this day as the foundation of the forgiveness of our sins, i.e. our Justification.  The balance will be published tomorrow, Easter Monday, and presents what I consider a surprising element — women as the first preachers. — Excerpted and translated from the 1899 CPH book edited by Prof. A. L. Gräbner. pp. 103-109: 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -  [Part A]  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On the Holy Day of Easter.

Mark 16:1-8. [KJV]

And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go <104> your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

[Our unbelief]

The holy evangelists have described with great diligence the history of the resurrection of Christ, and this not without noticeable cause. The article is great and among the most prominent in the confession of our faith, that we believe Christ rose from the dead and became the firstfruits of those who sleep. But that He is great and hard to grasp by carnal men is shown by so many stories and examples in this history that further proof and evidence is not greatly needed. It is written by Luke the Evangelist that when the women came and told the Apostles what they had seen, they took such words for a fairy tale [Märlein]. Christ himself had told them before that He had to be delivered to the Jews and Gentiles for crucifixion and that He would rise again on the third day. Nevertheless, they did not believe and had to be brought to faith by seeing, feeling, grasping, and by many words and miraculous works. Even the angels are not believed here until Christ himself comes to confirm their message. But as difficult as this article of the resurrection is to grasp, it is necessary for righteousness and salvation. Where this article is not grasped and believed, one can never become justified, pious and saved. St. Paul proves this to the Romans in short, powerful words, saying: “Christ was delivered up for our sins, and raised for our righteousness [Gerechtigkeit].” Rom. 4:25. [literal translation; LED]

[Our Justification]

Two things Paul indicates here. To the suffering and bloodshed of Christ he ascribes <105> forgiveness of sins, which cannot be taken away by any other work or merit. Isaiah 53. But to the resurrection he ascribes our justification [Rechtfertigung], and from this it follows that the death of Christ, however salutary, would not be enough for us if our Lord Christ had not also risen from the dead. Therefore, if we want to be freed from our sins, we must believe that this can happen through no human work or merit, but only through the suffering and death of our Lord Jesus Christ. And if we are to be justified, righteousness must be communicated to us through the resurrection of Christ. Since our saved salvation is through the death and resurrection of Christ, it is also necessary that we grasp this with true faith and take it to heart. But here, too, mere head faith will not accomplish much. Many who are called Christians confess that Christ has risen from the dead, and yet they are condemned. They confess the resurrection of Christ, but they cancel out the power of such resurrection by placing their confidence in works and ascribing righteousness to them. If you want to walk on the right path here and do not want to damage the merit of Christ, you must believe not only that He died and rose again, but also that He served you, I say, and all sinners hereby. For by His death He took away your sin, and by His resurrection He justified you. Yes, by the resurrection He began His kingdom and proved mightily that He had overcome sin, death, hell, and the devil, and that all things were subject to Him, and that as Lord of heaven and earth He graciously sustains His own and will make them partakers of His kingdom. Again, in faith we are to die to sin and walk in newness of life. <106> Here belongs the sixth chapter of the epistle to the Romans, in which the Apostle deals with this article of the resurrection in a masterly way, especially when he says: “If we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” [Rom. 6:8-11 KJV]

[All lacked faith at first]

Secondly, in this Gospel, since the flesh finds it so difficult to grasp the article of the resurrection, we see how God graciously ministered through His angels to the women who came with their spices to the tomb to anoint Christ, and proclaimed the resurrection to them by word and sign. But who would doubt such a gracious, kind and merciful God and Father, who can tolerate and bear our weakness so graciously and teach us so sweetly! Who should not be moved to faith by such love? The women who buy spices to anoint Christ mean well and show that they still love Christ in their hearts by hurrying to the grave. But what they do there is done according to the flesh. If these women had not lacked faith, they would have remembered the Word that Christ had said to them, that He would rise on the third day and go before them in Galilee. But now they forget the Word and set out to anoint Christ, which they were not commanded to do, as reason is wont not to do what it ought to do, but what it ought not to do, it does, that Lord God also commanded such presumption to be restrained in the Law. Deut. 12:8. Nevertheless, God is such a <107> kind God that He does not reject these women because of their presumption and unbelief, but wants to lead them through the angels from their carnal worship to the Word. And this is what happened: When the women went to the tomb and said among themselves, 

 

“Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb?” they realized that the stone had been rolled away. And they entered into the sepulcher, and saw a youth sitting on the right hand, clothed in a long white garment; and they were astonished. And He said unto them: Do not be dismayed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified; He is risen and is not here. Behold the place where they laid Him." Here you hear that God sends His angel not only to roll away the stone from the door of the tomb, but also to teach the women and to proclaim the glory of the resurrection to them, which was also signified by the shining garments of the angel. Notice, however, that here it is described in the most orderly way how man must become pious, justified and saved. First, the women are described as being terrified. The sermon of the Law causes such terror and trembling when it shows us our sins. Indeed, who should not be frightened by the fact that we are commanded in the Law what we are to do, and yet the verdict stands that everyone who does not keep everything that is written in the book of the Law is to be cursed? Now here must follow the angel, God's preacher, with his comfort and Gospel, as has happened here. Be not dismayed, he says, because of the joyful message that we should no longer be afraid and despair because of sin. But from where do we get such comfort? From Christ our dear Lord, who died for our sins and rose again for our justification. With such a sermon of the resurrection the angel <108> comforts the women and reminds them of the Word they had heard before about this resurrection. Moreover, he confirms his word by showing them the place where they had laid Christ. I mean indeed, that he means to instruct the women in a nice, friendly way, to teach them and to bear their weakness. Now what Christ did to the women and the apostles in this case by word and sign through the angels, He also wants to do to us through His Word to the end that we obediently believe His Word and seek our salvation in His merit alone.

- - - - - - - - - - -  Conclusion in the next Part 4B  - - - - - - - - - - - -

Corvinus's point that "If these women had not lacked faith, they would have remembered the Word"  struck me, for if one turns that around, it means that 

Faith = Remembering the Word.

How many times have I forgotten the Word in my weakness!  Lord have mercy on me, that I may always remember Thy Word! Amen!

"He is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him!"

M03: M.'s good confessions in Luther's last years; Lowell Green's attacks, Marquart's rebuttal

      This continues from Part 2 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C. F. W. Walther's 1876 essay “The ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon on the Part of Luther.” — Walther shows us the good confessions of Melanchthon, even as he complains of "more disunity" which would lead others to a false conclusion.  This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 323-4 [EN]::

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 3 of 28  - - - - - - - 

Without doubt, however, Melanchthon had only been against the meeting [for the Wittenberg Concord] because he had feared that it would only become trouble because of ill will.  Already before that he had written to Landgrave Philip in relation to the projected meeting: “Now I am worried for many reasons that this will lead to more disunity, and that more treachery, hatred, indulgence and public scolding will arise.” (op. cit. p. 56) He expressed the same concern also in letters to Veit Dietrich. (p. 65, 70) As suspicious as all this can be seen, Melanchthon is not to be believed that he should have signed the [Wittenberg]“Concord” in contradiction with his conviction at that time.  In 1537 we find Melanchthon among the signatories of the Smalcald Articles, which, as is well known, express Luther's doctrines in such clear words that an opponent of them can only sign them as one self-condemned. (Autokatakritos). In 1538 we read further in a response of Melanchthon to one of the nobility: 

“There is no reason to tear Christ apart, that He is with us according the Godhead, and is not with us according the humanity, especially since He said He would give us His body and blood etc.  Paul also says that the Lord's Supper is a fellowship of the body and blood of Christ. But if Christ were not bodily present, it would be fellowship of the Spirit alone, and not of body or blood. And this I consider to be enough for a simple teaching.  Now these words of the Supper are not contrary to other Scripture, whether they are already foreign to reason.” (p. 620)  

We find a particularly splendid confession of Melanchthon in the testament which he wrote in 1539 in a premonition of death.  In it he writes among other things:

“Of the Lord's Supper I hold fast the Concordia made here. *) I have therefore joined these churches, and I hold (LuW 324) the fact that they professed the doctrines of the universal Church of Christ and were true churches of Christ. And I command my children to remain in our churches and flee the churches of the Papists and from binding with them.  For in many articles the Papists confess a very corrupt doctrine: they know nothing of the doctrine of the righteousness of faith and of the forgiveness of sins; they teach nothing of the difference between the Law and the Gospel; they have pagan or Pharisaic opinions about the invocation of God; to these errors they add many others, as well as manifest idolatry in their masses and their veneration of the deceased people. I therefore demand of my children that they obey me for the sake of God's command in this and do not join the Papists. … New sophistical comparisons of the doctrines of the faith will perhaps arise, by which the old errors, somewhat colored, will be restored, and these comparisons will spoil the purity of the doctrines which are now being taught.  I also warn my own people against these, that they do not approve of sophistical comparisons. … My intention has not been to sow any new opinion, but to make a clear and real declaration of the catholic doctrines taught in our churches, which I believe have been revealed by a special act of grace of God in these last times through Dr. Martin Luther, so that the Church might be purified and restored, which otherwise would have been completely lost. … But I thank the venerable Dr. M. Luther, first of all because I learned the Gospel from him. And secondly for the special goodwill he has shown towards me, which he has shown through many good deeds, and I want the same to be honored by my own people only as a father.” (Corp. Ref. III, 826. f.) 

——————

*) Proof that Melanchthon had signed the Wittenberg Concord with complete conviction. 

- - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 4  - - - - - - - - - -

Walther surprisingly tells us that "Melanchthon is not to be believed" when he speaks at this time in ways that would condemn himself as a hypocrite. All those who would say that Walther (and Bente) is only wanting to put a “black hat” on Melanchthon will have to ignore several points that he makes, here and elsewhere, of the strengths of Melanchthon during this period.  Indeed, it was my pleasure to present other examples of his strengths on my blogs here and here. — In the next Part 4… 

- - - - - - -   The LC-MS Opposing Theologians, Historians: Dr. Lowell C. Green   - - - - - - - -

anti-Missourian

      Who was Dr. Lowell C. Green († 2014)? He certainly was a talented, well-read, and educated scholar. Various sources (CLTS, Wikidata, funeral sermon by Dr. John T. Pless) reveal that he was never trained in the LC-MS, but by the opposing Iowa Synod and theologians of Erlangen in Germany (doctorate, 1952 to 1955). But much more, Dr. Green taught in the LC-MS against Missouri's teachings. It was said that he was influenced by "Werner Elert, Paul Althaus, Wilhelm Maurer." He testifies in his books to having been especially influenced by Prof. Werner Elert who maintained that the "Lutheran Confessions show a deviation from Luther" and that as a "Bad Boll" participant "asked whether verbal inspiration will not lead to an intellectual and legalistic apprehension of the Bible." The result has been that Dr. Green has always taught modern German theology against Old Missouri Synod teaching. A blatant example of this was published in Logia May, 1996, Dr. Green wrote (p. 32):

“Walther expressed some positions [on Church and Ministry] that become subject to criticism when reviewed in the light of the Scriptures and the Confessions.”

Prof. Kurt Marquart († 2006) gave a masterful rebuttal to this attack in Logia 1997, no. 2, p. 31 ff. [2024-01-02: fixed link], also here. He uses strong language against Green's methodology such as 

• Green's "tangled webs of half-understood clichés from mistranslated sources", 
• "Green keeps taking away with one hand what he gives with the other", and
• "Green has made up a scarecrow.", etc. 

In the same rebuttal, Marquart highly praises Hochstetter's history of the Missouri Synod, so one could wonder that he would also praise Bente's history. May the name of Prof. Kurt Marquart be remembered for his outspoken defense against this outrageous attack of Dr. Green. — 

      LC-MS Prof. Martin Naumann explained the thinking of Dr. Green's teachers in Germany, in the Springfielder, vol. 24 (1960), no. 2, p. 19, that for them "it is impossible to present one's theology if one [Missouri Synod?] still is so backward as to believe in inspiration." — The over-arching question one has to ask is "Why was Dr. Green allowed to teach in LC-MS schools, to write for LC-MS journals?" if he was trained in opposing schools and explicitly taught against LC-MS doctrine? Unfortunately, Dr. Green's sympathy for Grabau was matched by that of Prof. Benjamin T. G. Mayes in "honor" of C. F. W. Walther in 2011! — We will later give more examples of Dr. Green's explicit charges against Walther's and Bente's (i.e. Old Missouri's) history and teaching.

Corvinus 3—Palm Sunday: Exhortation to love, humility, and service

      This continues from Part 2 [Table of Contents in Part 1] in a short series on Antonius Corvinus, a reformer who suffered much for his faith, even death as a Lutheran martyr. — We continue with the next sermon, Palm Sunday, to mark this Sunday. We hear what great things the Lord has done for us, and are exhorted to love and good works. Corvinus shows himself to be a prince among the preachers of the Reformation. His exhortation is thoroughly evangelical, never hinting that good works are necessary as a basis for salvation, only necessary for the Christian life. Prof. Bente reports in his Historical Introductions (p. 9) that 

"At Goettingen, Veit Pflugmacher vowed, in 1541, that he would preach the Gospel in its truth and purity according to the Augsburg Confession and the contents of the postils of Anton Corvinus." (Tschackert, p. 377) — 

The following was excerpted and translated from the 1899 CPH book of Corvinus's sermonettes edited by Prof. A. L. Gräbner. pp. 98-103 (In the next Part 4…):

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

Epistle for Palm Sunday. 

Phil. 2:5-11 [KJV]

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. <99>

 

In this lesson, St. Paul exhorts the Philippians to love, humility, and service, so that each Christian is obligated to serve and help others. Such a lesson also rhymes very well with today's Gospel. For as here the Apostle says of Christ that He emptied himself and took on the form of a servant, so also in today's Gospel He is described as a poor king on a little donkey, who with His humble entry into Jerusalem despised all the pomp and splendor and pride of this world and gave us an example of meekness and humility. But we want to look at Paul's text and interpret it in the most simple way, just as we strive at all times to create more benefit than to prove art. But what is the text? “Let every man be of the same mind as Jesus Christ was.”

With heartfelt love, gentleness and humility Christ always let Himself be heard towards His own; and as He came into this world for the sake of our salvation, so He also stretched out all His words, preaching, signs and wonders to snatch us out of the devil's jaws and bring us into His kingdom through the spirit and faith, as He Himself says: “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” John 10:10. Just as we must recognize and grasp the gracious will of God in Christ with faith if we want to have forgiveness of sin, righteousness and life, we must also model such love, gentleness and humility for our discipleship. For He Himself demands this of us in the Gospel when He says: “Learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart.” Matt. 11:29. St. Paul also demands it in this lesson, when he says that we should be of the same mind as Jesus Christ was. <100> But notice from the following words how Christ was minded toward us. For he interprets himself, saying thus: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.”

Christ was not only in divine form before He came into this world, but He also powerfully demonstrated and displayed His divine nature and power in the flesh He had taken from Mary through the action of the Holy Spirit, when He raised the dead, commanded the wind and the sea to be still, looked into the hearts of the Pharisees and made their thoughts known, struck the Jews in the garden to the ground with a word, and the like. Were these not glorious and divine works? The Evangelists also say that He taught with great power and prestige. It also belongs to this that He himself says of His divine power: “I and the Father are one.” Joh. 10:30. Even though He proved His divine form powerfully and sufficiently with doctrine, miracles and signs, He nevertheless emptied Himself, took on the form of a servant and was found to be like a man. And what He has done in this way, He has done for our sake. But if you consider this humility of Christ, you will find that it was unspeakable. Christ was truly God and also knew that He would not rob God of His glory if He considered Himself equal to God. But since He could have been served as God, he turned the page and served others, as He also says in the Gospel: “Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” Matt. 20:28. Is this not great humility? Moreover, He became <101> another man and was found to be a man in all his ways, except for sin, as the epistle to the Hebrews also says: “Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted..” Heb. 2:17-18. Is not this exceedingly comforting to us? But hear what more He did for our sakes: “He humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” [Phil. 2:8]

[The balance is below in the "Read more" section:]