M08: “ambiguous behavior”, Calvin: “bread adoration”; "Banned Books" Ban Bente

[2023-08-10: added note in red at bottom about Pastor Donovan Riley]

      This continues from Part 7 (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 translates and introduces Melanchthon's surprising correspondence with Calvin. — This portion is taken from LuW, 22, pp. 331-332 [EN]:

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 8 of 28  - - - - - - -

John Calvin

Even Melanchthon's most intimate friends repeatedly complain about his ambiguous behavior, that he never speaks with any real conviction, but continues to dissimulate, and is eager to be taken for his own by opposing parties. Thus, for example, Calvin, annoyed by Melanchthon's silence on Luther's attacks on the Swiss, wrote to Melanchthon: 

“In fact, we leave the descendants a horrible (foedum) example, in that we would rather give away all freedom without constraint than to touch the mind of a single man unpleasantly with a small annoyance. … If this example of tyranny appears at the very beginning of the rebirth of the Church, what will happen in the short term when things have worsened? … I confess that what you teach is perfectly true, and that you have so far endeavored to keep minds from quarreling by a mild doctrine; I praise your wisdom and moderation.  But by fleeing this point as a cliff, so that you do not offend certain people, you leave in uncertainty and darkness very many who ask of you something more certain, on which they can rest.  However, as I once said to you, it does us little honor to not even sign in ink the doctrines that many saints leave behind sealed with their blood.” (J. Calvini epp. Lausannae, 1576. p. 135. f.) 

In 1551, Calvin reproached Melanchthon: 

“With a few turns of the wheel you alone have aroused more lamentations and sighs than a hundred insignificant persons with their manifest apostasy.” (L. c. p. 213) 

In 1554, the same wrote to Melanchthon: 

“The other day I wrote to you about that point of doctrine in which you dissimulate your opinion more than you dissent from us. … Nothing is of so great importance that your dissimulation should loosen the reins of the raging men” ([Joachim] Westphal and others [Gnesio Lutherans]) “for the confusion and dispersion of the Church.  To say nothing of how precious a sincere confession of sound doctrines should be to us.  You know that for more than thirty years the eyes of an innumerable multitude have been fixed on you, and they have desired nothing more than to learn from you. Indeed, is it unknown to you today that so many are in doubt because of that ambiguous doctrinal form which you hold all too fearfully?” (LuW 332) (op. cit. p. 298. f.) 

In the following year, the same person [Calvin] wrote to him: 

“About artolatry” (Bread adoration, by which Calvin understands the Lutheran faith in Holy Communion) “the inner opinion of your heart has long been known to me, which you also do not conceal in your letters. But I resent that indecision of yours (tarditas).” (p. 339) 

In the same year Calvin wrote to Sleidan: 

“How much I should congratulate myself on Philip's approval of one thing, I would not know, since in the most important main parts he either openly denies the healthy doctrines by selling himself to the philosophers, or, in order not to incur the hatred of certain people, cunningly, at least not quite sincerely, conceals his opinion. (Historia motuum by Löscher. II, 37) 

The same exhibition that Melanchthon was dissimulating, deliberately speaking ambiguously, was made by Calvin's friends. Blaurer wrote to Calvin in 1558: 

“I had expected better things of Melanchthon, and I am very surprised that this great man is not of equal courage (animo), but always, when the time comes, takes on the old weakness. … May he” (Melanchthon) “at least dissimulate, he will not be able to deny himself. To many he has written many things with great humility, whereby he does not vaguely attest to how far he is from the opinion of those who superstitiously think and speak of the Lord's Supper” (Melanchthon). (Calvini epp. p. 431) 

Even [Jacob] Sturm, Melanchthon's great admirer, must confess: “Philip would have been right if he had presented his opinion simply and without ambiguity. (Antipappus sec. p. 139) Zanchi writes to Bullinger: “Philip is fearful, so that he often does what he himself does not approve of.” (Unschuld. Nachrr., 1730, p. 385) The Elector Johann Frederick was so well known of Melanchthon's inclination to make a false peace that in 1535, although Luther himself was responsible for sending Melanchthon to France, the former wrote to [Dr. Gregor] Brück: 

“We are not a little worried that if Philip travels in France, he will, with his great wisdom and diligence to bring the king to an opinion, let up much that Dr. Martin and the other theologians will not be able to concede.” (Corp. Reform. II, p. 909) *) 

——————

*) Melanchthon himself complained to Calvin, who therefore wrote to [Guillaume] Farell about this: “Either he himself does not know his own attitude, or he conceals it (dissimulat). (Epp. Calv. p. 30) 

- - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 9  - - - - - - - - - -

Even Melanchthon's admirers were critical of his ambiguity. — In the next Part 9…

- - - - - - - -   The LC-MS Opposing "Podcasters":   - - - - - - - - -

Pastors Christopher Gillespie and Donovan Riley

      "Banned Books"?  What does the title of their podcast mean? What books are they referring to in their title?  Who is banning them? Ostensibly the title suggests certain books have been "banned" in the past and they are going to recover them for their "good" content. — 

      As with "The Thinking Fellows" podcasters, the "Banned Books" pastor podcasters Christopher Gillespie and Donovan Riley also have nothing good to say about Prof. F. Bente's Historical Introductions.  The following is a condensed transcript of a Dec. 5, 2018 podcast dealing with books they recommend, and don't recommend, for a Southern Baptist student listener:

• Gillespie (~57:15): Here's a good one. Um, I hope to purchase more. Okay. So this is a, a Baptist, Southern Baptist going to the Southern Baptist Seminary. Well, there you go. …he's been reading our, our books and say they're a blessing, the ones we've been recommending. Good. … he wants recommendations on books that help better understand Lutheranism and its history. Please send me a long list. (57:51) Well, Lutheranism is kind of a muddied mess of, uh, history, right? I think it's not uniform. … (58:16) Early the beginning of the show, we dealt with that hard question on Election, and you quoted Formula of Concord 11 in the the old Concordia edition, the Triglotta beginning, it had Bente's kind of history of Lutheranism, at least in the era of the Confessions. And, uh, but it's, it's got a pretty strong bent to it, you know, as to who he's rejecting. You know, it's not, there isn't really a, what do you wanna say? an analytical treatment.  Everybody's got a horse in the race, right? I mean, or some kind of agenda. So regardless of what…

"Strong bent"? "No analytical treatment"? "Everybody's got a horse in the race"? "Some kind of agenda"?  These phrases all echo what Drs. Scott Keith and Adam Francisco, "The Thinking Fellows", charge against Bente's history as "biased", "partial" (See Part 7). At this point our pastors go into their opinions of the history of "Luther Scholarship" and the need for works of "critical scholarship", presumably to avoid a "strong bent" and an "agenda", and not "have a horse in the race". Mention is made of books by Bo Giertz, Wilhelm Pauck, and probably Jaroslav Pelikan. Presumably these are the "Banned Books" their title speaks of, that these books don't have a "strong bent" or "an agenda". — 

• Riley (1:02:08): And so like that, you've mentioned Bente, Bente is he, he doesn't, he's not a big fan of Philip Melanchthen <laugh>. [Is Riley "a big fan" of Melanchthon?]
• Gillespie (1:02:17): [hearty laughing] That's an understatement. [laughing by both] 
• Riley (1:02:18): And thus you, if you read Bente, his Introduction then to, uh, the Book of Concord, you might get the impression that Melanchthon was a bumbling idiot who derailed the, the Reformation and ruined everything. [This hyperbole betrays a lack of "impartiality."] Um, which isn't true entirely. [Not entirely?? How “not entirely”?] He just wasn't Luther… 
• Gillespie (1:02:34): <laugh>. Right. I mean, Bente is caught up in the whole Unaltered Augsburg Confession Controversy. [So "Banned Books" pastors are not defenders of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession?] And that, and thus to my point, is every generation is embroiled in its battles and thus how it does history and how it confesses its doctrine will be filtered through that particular time and that particular debate and that particular context. [i.e. its "strong bent", "agenda", "bias"]

Bente's history is the butt of laughing and snickering by these LC-MS pastors. — A little later in this podcast, the pastors identify the mission of their podcast:

• Riley (1:03:42): Our goal is essentially to attack and eliminate anything that gets in the way of Christ being for you, for the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation.

Admirable goal indeed!  So their attack on Bente’s history means that Bente "gets in the way of Christ being for you, for the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation"? But "Banned Books" does not, and cannot, prove this in any way.  For it is even acknowledged by Dr. Robert Kolb, who is no friend of Bente or the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, that Melanchthon played a significant role in the "Leipzig Interim" and stated in his 2001 Fortress Press Sources and Contexts book (p. 183) that "the statement of the final draft regarding justification… contained ambiguous language". So does "Banned Books" not defend against "ambiguous language" in the doctrine of Justification as Bente vigorously does?  I think not. So why the angst against Bente?  Could it be that "Banned Books" does not have a "strong bent" for Lutheranism, for Lutheran Confessionalism, for the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, (i.e. Christian doctrine) as Bente had? — Interestingly, in their survey of books on Lutheranism, these pastors did not mention Dr. Robert Kolb's (et al.) Fortress Press 2012 History and Theology of the Book of Concord as Dr. Scott Keith did (in Part 6). Surely that should be at the top of their list for books to replace Bente's "banned" book?

==>> Doesn't "Banned Books" really mean to Ban Bente (and Walther)?

      More will be brought out from their podcast in a later posts. One of these pastors had a surprising teaching on Justification that does not fit with other points they made.

[2023-08-10: Interestingly, on October 29, 2010, (Rev) Donovan Riley posted feedback on Paul T. McCain's blog stating that he would purchase a new printing of Bente's translation of the Triglotta. So while he warns against Bente's History, he was apparently not against buying, and giving away, Bente's Triglotta translation of the Book of Concord.]

M07: M.'s private letters; “objectivity” of modern history?; "Thinking Fellows" "biased" against Bente

      This continues from Part 6 (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.” — In this segment, Walther exposes the "astonishing" letters of Melanchthon, quite a contrast to those of Martin Luther during these times. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 329-331 [EN]:

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 7 of 28  - - - - - - -

That not too much is made of this depiction of Melanchthon is proven by many of his still existing private letters, both to certain persons among the Lutherans of whom he knew, or nevertheless believed that he did not need to get nervous in front of them, and to the south Germans and Swiss, to whom he thought he could open up his innermost being without any danger of betraying himself.  If one reads these letters, one must be astonished at how quite differently Melanchthon's position appears in them than in his public appearances and his intercourse with Luther. These letters are full of the bitterest reproaches against Luther, while in what the faithful Luther wrote, however, there is not a single line in which the same Melanchthon would have secretly belittled others in any way. [The Sad, Secret Life of Melanchthon] 

[Moritz] Meurer himself must admit the latter in his biography of Melanchthon (p. 82), even though, according to the now popular historical “impartiality” and “objectivity”, he blames both the “dear men of God” for the disproportion between Luther and Melanchthon quite equally. [Just like Prof. Mayes with Walther and Grabau, 2011!] As for Melanchthon's bitter attacks on Luther, he wrote, to only share a few things here, (LuW 330) when Luther had given a serious sermon against secret vows in 1544, including the following to his [Johann] Camerarius:

“On the day I arrived, our own” (he always means Luther by this) “preached a sermon here, in which he pestered the jurists not with the dignity of a Pericles, but with the frankness of a Cleon.” (Corp. Ref. V, 293) 

Otherwise, Melanchthon repeatedly calls Luther “our Pericles” in his letters to trusted friends, in order to mark Luther's allegedly stormy nature. (cf. pp. 292. 464. 495., where he calls Luther Xanthippides.) [John] Calvin also gives Luther this nickname (Epp. 13, 5), but whether he has borrowed it from Melanchthon or Melanchthon from Calvin is uncertain, the former being the most likely.  After Camerarius had replied to Melanchthon's letter, the latter wrote again: 

“That you think that these harsh sermons against the jurists cause me pain, you are not mistaken. What is this before the people? How untimely it is now! … Yes, they (!) [Walther’s “!” criticizes M. for excluding himself.] think that he has no cause for it and lets himself be ruled by paralysis, as he usually does against others.” (p. 310) 

By the way, this unjust rebuke was soon to cause Melanchthon great shame. Not long after that, Luther, among others, also released Melanchthon's son from a secret betrothal as an unjust one, the fulfillment of which would have been a misfortune for the family.  (See Luther's Letters, de Wette. V, 676 [StL 10, 1728 ff.]) 

Heinrich Bullinger
Reformed theologian

 Even to Bullinger of Zurich he [Melanchthon] wrote secretly already on March 25, 1544: 

“If harsher letters are written by some from these regions, we, the rest of us, want to cultivate the consensus and the friendly binding among us and not allow our churches to be torn apart even more.” (p. 342) 

But when he learned that Luther was going to let another serious letter go out against the Zwinglians, he wrote to the same Bullinger on August 30th: 

“Perhaps before this letter of mine reaches you, you will receive an extremely gruesome copy of Luther's in which he renews the dispute about the Holy Scriptures.  He has never treated this matter with greater impetuosity. I therefore no longer hope for the peace of the Church. Our enemies will be puffed up defending the idols of the monks, and our churches will be more torn asunder.” (p. 475) 

On the same occasion, he writes to Bucer on August 28th: 

“I have written to you through Milichius of our Pericles, who again began to thunder about the Holy Communion in the most violent way and wrote a horrible (atrocem) book, which has not yet been published, in which we, I and you, are being taken through the worst (sugillamur). (p. 474) 

In the same year he wrote to Veit Dietrich. 

“About the other question, how in the Lord's Supper are ten categories, I do not want you to say much; also I did not want to ask the teacher (τόν διδάσκαλον = Luther), because whoever asks him, he listens to him (LuW 331) with anger (ργίλω) and answers him indefinitely (ού σαφως).” (p. 728) 

After the publication of the “Brief Confession” he wrote to the Zwinglian-minded [Wolfgang] Musculus of Augsburg: 

“It is truly regrettable that the churches are invited in our time more, as the Homeric warriors say: ‘Let us now go to the meal, that we may reconcile the God of war’, than as Christ invites us, who wants the covenant of true and not disguised goodwill to be made in this rite. … I wish that the Swiss would not respond to Luther's latest book, nor wear fire to the fire.” (p. 525) 

- - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 8  - - - - - - - - - -

F. Bente also documents "Melanchthon's Private Views" in Chapter 200 of his history, just like Walther does. More from Melanchthon's letters and even the letters of John Calvin in the next Part 8. 

- - - - - - - -   The LC-MS Opposing Theologians, "Podcasters":   - - - - - - - - -

Drs. Scott Keith, Adam Francisco Rod Rosenbladt, host Caleb Keith

 

      Walther scoffs at “the now popular historical ‘impartiality’ and ‘objectivity’” of the German church historian Meurer of his time. This is matched in our times by Dr. Lowell Green, in his 1980 book, when he lowers the honor due to Martin Luther in order to raise the estimation of Philip Melanchthon. (More about this in a future blog.) — Today “The Thinking Fellows” podcasters are even more explicit in promoting this “popular” methodology against… what? Maybe imagination? They speak thus in their podcast of May 19, 2017 (using the first names they use among themselves):

• Scott (~06:08): If you look at, if you listen to one of the past episodes, I don't know when this is going to air, as opposed to the episode we did on Luther biographies. And, and Adam [Adam Francisco] pretty much took the first half and explained to us what makes a good history. His historical account, something. And one of the things that was brought up was, you know, do your best to put your biases on the shelf, or at the very least, acknowledge your biases. Um, the problem with Bente is he does neither with that. His bias towards Melanchthon is neither, put on the shelf, nor is it acknowledged.

“Bias”? Dear God! If Bente was not "biased" towards the Lutheran Confessions (i.e. he subscribed to them as accurately teaching what Scripture teaches), then he could hardly call himself a "confessional Lutheran"! Franz Pieper’s counsel on “Historical Theology” is the perfect response to this charge in his Christian Dogmatics I, p. 100:

“It is the function of historical theology not only to give a historically true picture of the events, but also to evaluate these established facts in the light of Scripture.  Historical theology is the divinely taught art of ascertaining from Scripture God's verdict on the historical events and conditions.  That is what makes church history a theological discipline.  When the church historian judges events according to his subjective view or any other extra-Biblical norm, church history is no longer a theological discipline.”  (my bolding)

Host Caleb Keith then adds youthful emphasis to the above charge

• Caleb (06:45): I remember reading Bente years ago, 15 years, more than 15 years ago, and then a couple years ago I was reading it again, and I remember texting Scott saying, what the <emphasis> heck is this? … And I don't remember what it was, but it was, he’s just this constant critique. And sometimes it's, it's total, um, what Paul Maier [Paul L. Maier, the “44” sympathizer] would call B.S. [Bull Sh__?] Before Scholarship <EMPHASIS> NONSENSE  about Melanchthon. … it's a confessional <emphasis> punch against this guy [Melanchthon] who's a, who's the, the boogieman if you will.

Caleb Keith offers no basis for his change from 15 years earlier where he apparently did not have the same judgment of Bente as he did in this podcast. Why? Dr. Scott Keith then offers this comment against Bente's history:

• Scott (07:20): Bente's work is largely based on a German work by, I think it's, I want, uh, somebody Kolde, [Kolde’s book] a, I forgot the first name, is K o l d e.

Dr. Keith is referring to Theodore Kolde of whom the 1927 Concordia Cyclopedia said was "one of the most noted historians of the Reformation period and defender of Luther against Catholic attacks." This is also a strange comment as even his mentor, Dr. Lowell Green, in his 1980 book, offers no critical remarks against Kolde’s scholarship, even praising Kolde’s edition of Corpus Reformatorium on p. 127 f.n.#6. Even more, Bente's history is hardly based on Kolde as Bente judiciously uses dozens of other sources, like a good historian would.  The "Thinking Fellows" can "think" all they want, but they cannot charge Bente with being un-Lutheran, anti-confessional, or teaching against the Holy Scriptures. More will be brought out from this podcast later. In the next Part 8 we hear from another podcast under the umbrella of Dr. Keith's organization. Refreshingly, we will also, later in Part 9, hear from a commanding testimony, from today's LC-MS, refuting the above charges against Bente's history.

      It may be noted that as Melanchthon interspersed Greek in his private letters to hide his most critical opinions, "The Thinking Fellows" and "Banned Books" podcasters put their most critical opinions against Bente in verbal podcasts, without transcripts, instead of in writings that search engines can discover and present as a truly public presentation.

Thank God for Bente's “bias”, his “partiality”

for the Lutheran Confessions 

and Holy Scripture!

[The full transcript of the podcast excerpt (~ 05:30 to 09:34), with my highlighting, notes and comments interspersed in red lettering, concerning Bente's history is available below in the "Read more" section:]