M17: L.'s mildness; Thinking Fellows vs McCain's confessionalism

       This continues from Part 16, or Excursus 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 Chancellor Brück's report to Elector John Frederick in 1537 on the explosive matter of Melanchthon's error on the teaching of the Lord's Supper. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 357-359 [EN]: 

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 17 of 28  - - - - - - -

“From this I understood that Philip had hidden the letter of his Electoral Grace to Dr. Jakob (Schenk) from him.  In addition, he also showed that he probably had all kinds of precautions, and could not know how Philip’s situation was in the Sacrament. For he did not call it anything else, would have considered it a bad ceremony, would not have seen him for a long time and would not have recommended the Holy Communion. He would also have brought arguments, after the time when he went to Cassel, from which he heard how he was almost of a Zwinglian opinion. But, as it was in his heart, he did not yet know.” 

(So even after Melanchthon had put forward his Zwinglian "arguments" and thereby betrayed himself, he must have quickly withdrawn from Luther). 

“But the secret letters and counsels, ‘that among the tyrants one may receive the sacrament in one form’, gave him strange (LuW 358) thoughts. But he [Luther] wanted to share his heart with Philip, and wanted very much that Philip, being a high man, would not want to distance himself from them and from the school, for he would do great work. But if he [Melanchthon] would insist on the opinion, as he notes from the letter of Dr. Jacob, the truth of God would have to come first. He wanted to pray for him. [Luther for Melanchton] For if for the sake of the tyrants’ prohibition [of both forms in Communion] and for the preservation of peace one form should be taken, one would have to obey their commandment, and for the same reason one would have to teach that works were for justification. *) 

—————— 

*) In doing so, Luther again aroused the suspicion, which he had already abandoned, that the expression used by Melanchthon, that good works are the causa sine qua non [a cause without which it is not] of justification, had its basis in syncretistic sympathies.

It would, he said, in short, no longer be weakness [i.e. but aposticizing]; and in addition he introduced many good things to me, to prevent me from writing too long about them. I [Brück] told him what His Electoral Grace of Philip’s considered opinion to be, and what I thought, as of His Electoral Grace I would have noted next to Lochau, that he pressed until he saw his time and comfort, and especially if he [John Frederick] would experience the Doctor's death. … Dr. Martin said that if he did so, he would become a miserable man and would have no peace for the sake of his conscience.” (Corp. Ref. III, 427. f.) 

At what time Brück's conversation with Luther, which the Elector expressly wanted to keep secret (p. 365), took place is not indicated in the relevant documents in the Weimar Archives. 

Under August 4, however, [Casper] Cruciger writes to Veit Dietrich, after he has thought of the Schenk affair with bitter words: 

“The Doctor (Luther) has written that he has heard that an extremely poisonous plague is arising in this school … and speaks of Erasmian mediators, with which he is no doubt aiming at me, above all at Philip.” (p. 397) 

Melanchthon himself, however, also writes to Dietrich under September 18 in regard to the same matter: 

“Now we are called to answer for ourselves, I and Jonas. For he (Schenk) had also asked Jonas for advice. But the former was more cautious, and gave no answer in the matter; but he will be called before the court; as I believe, so that the opportunity to drive me into a corner (me urgendi) may have a greater appearance. .. I will leave with the greatest equanimity when they will banish me (ϊξοστραχίσουσι). ... I hope that Luther with his authority will step into the middle.” (p. 410 f.) 

In this hope Melanchthon was not mistaken either. But why? He really had the awareness at the time that even though he could not appropriate, indeed, could not approve of Luther's polemical style, yet agreed with him in his teaching, he preferred only a milder τρόπος παιδείας. He therefore immediately made an excellent detailed confession concerning his doctrine of justification (LuW 359) (p. 430 ff.), to show that, as he himself writes in his October 13 letter, he has no intention whatsoever of becoming the author of a new sect or of fighting Luther behind his back. *) 

—————— 

*) See above, p. 328 [Part 6: “Today I have collected…”], the relevant passage from Melanchthon's letter to Dietrich.

- - - - - - - - -   Continued in Part 18  - - - - - - - - - -

How will Luther handle this situation? How will Melanchthon handle this matter? We have no better reporter than C. F. W. Walther to sort through all the writings and correspondence to glean everything that can be determined about whether Luther "carried" Melanchthon's errors or not. — In the next Part 18, Luther's response.

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

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

      We have previously reported on a portion of "The Thinking Fellows" podcast from the above members in Part 7.  Subsequent to that was a 55 second narrative that was particularly provocative—from 08:54 to 09:44.  To present it, I am placing it in juxtaposition with the opposing judgment of CPH Publisher Paul McCain on the same subject in his 2005 "Preface to the Reprinting" of Bente's history: 

Scott Keith, Adam Francisco, Rod Rosenbladt, Caleb Keith May 19, 2017 podcast		Paul McCain
on Bente's Historical Introductions.		on Bente's Historical Introductions.
CALEB or ADAM (08:54): From a historian's vantage point, um, Bente is a classic example of what we call confessional historiography. Right.		Bente's … unqualified acceptance of the Book of Concord as a true and unadulterated exposition of the Word of God makes his work extremely helpful for our day and age.
[Bente is] filtering history through the lens of a particular confession. [Is CALEB or ADAM really saying this?] Right. That's, I mean,		While more contemporary treatments of this same subject matter supply many helpful insights and perspectives, they do not surpass Bente’s passionate commitment to being and remaining truly Lutheran.
[GARBLED TALKING OVER EACH OTHER TO 09:09] CALEB? ROD? ADAM? (09:10): Right.
CALEB/ADAM (09:10): but, and, and really, Korey Maas wrote an article on the rise of modern historiography, and he pits it back not to the Renaissance historians, but to the, the confessional historians who had to get it right. Otherwise they'd be exposed as being fraudulent. Um, but Bente is not a good example of that. SCOTT? ROD?: Yeah. CALEB: Um, yeah. ROD?: <dismissive emphasis>  Enough!, [as if to dump Bente in the trash] Yeah.		In fact, modern treatments of the same subjects must be very carefully evaluated since they are produced in part by theologians who have intentionally surrendered key points of Lutheran doctrine for the sake of various ecumenical compromises. Intense commitment to the truth confessed in the Book of Concord reflects itself on each page of Bente’s work. He was not interested in creating a novel work to be admired and praised by academia or the guild of scholars.
SCOTT (09:34): That was good. <laugh> Glad you brought it up. Actually. I was gonna <laugh> hmmm-hmmm, hey hey [gonna what?]. Yeah. [drops the subject]		His concern was to provide a resource for those who bear the name Lutheran, and all who wish to understand why the Lutheran church treasures her precious ‘Concordia.’”

"The Thinking Fellows" contradict themselves in the above exchange by first criticizing Bente's history as “confessional historiography”, i.e. as "biased" history, then praising the early "confessional historians who had to get it right." Our "Fellows" want it both ways: first criticizing "biased" Confessionalism [ref. Part 7], then praising "Confessional historians"! They attempt to recover from this by adding that "Bente is not a good example of that", but the damage is done… for them!  They even draw on Dr. Korey Maas's writing which apparently praised "confessional historians".  Very good!  But isn't that praising "biased" history? What do you think, dear reader?

==> To: "The Thinking Fellows"

        From: BackToLuther

I guess I'm supposed to be sorry for subscribing to the Lutheran Confessions! I thought the Confessions would explain the historical truth behind the doctrinal conflicts, but evidently I need to keep an “open, unbiased mind”… according to you.  But I think I will return host Caleb Keith's charge against Bente (@ 07:11): "Nonsense!" 

"Enough!" of "The Thinking Fellows" podcast. Paul McCain's praise is the true judgment of Bente's history.

Excursus 3—Löscher: M.'s “all too political, philosophical mind”; Löscher vs. Rosenbladt

     This continues from Excursus 2 (or Part 16) (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.” — Following Leonhard Hutter of the 17th century, we now present perhaps the greatest defender of Lutheranism in the 18th century, Valentin Ernst Loescher.  Walther makes frequent use of Loescher in his essay on Luther and Melanchthon, and so a translation in 1998 of one of Loescher's most important books by Prof. emeritus (now Pastor) James L. Langebartels' would have won for Langebartels much praise from Walther. The book's title is The Complete Timotheus Verinus and is still offered by Northwestern Publishing House. In his "Foreword", Langebartels states: 

“Pietism made religious experience more important than Christian doctrine and stressed sanctification more than justification. Not enough attention, however, has been given to the Orthodox Lutheran response to Pietism. Historians have devoted much print to the leaders of Pietism like Philipp Jacob Spener (1635-1705) and August Hermann Francke (1663-1727), but few words have been written about their most capable opponent, Valentin Loescher. Valentin Ernst Loescher was the last great representative of Lutheran Orthodoxy in the 18th century.”

Although this book is not specifically about Luther and Melanchthon, yet Loescher references the seeds of error that crept into Lutheranism especially after Luther's death. The book was composed at two different times in two sections. The following are excerpts from the references to Melanchthon:

Valentin Loescher:

Part I (1718), p. 10

 “Things happened about the same in our grandfathers’ time [17th century] with the Crypto-Calvinists. The seed, which sprouted soon after Luther’s death, consisted of the excessive respect and love that just about everyone had for Melanchthon, of Melanchthon’s all too political and philosophical mind, and of his secret inclination toward the Swiss doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. The evil sprouted and grew: through the altering of the Augsburg Confession, and its acceptance in place of the unaltered version.”

Compare Loescher's judgment of Melanchthon to Dr. Rod Rosenbladt's comment in Part 5 that "[Melanchthon] made some bad moves under political pressure., <great emphasis> terrible pressure." The difference in judgment is that Dr. Rosenbladt uses this "political pressure" to justify Melanchthon's "bad moves", while Loescher assigns the blame for Crypto-Calvinism in part to these "bad moves". Rosenbladt has to face the fact that Prof. Bente is not the first to put the "black hat" on Melanchthon.

      In Loescher's Part II in 1721 (translated by R. Koester), he stated, p. 3:

“This is how it was during the unhappy time that Melanchthon, a man who had been held in such high honor, brought on our church after Luther’s death. No one was allowed to touch the evil of so-called Philippism; and so Calvinism and other evils daily gained ground until God came to our aid through the efforts of a few theologians who suffered much and who finally gave us the Formula of Concord.”

Loescher reveals the antidote to “Philippism” on p. 150:

“Sometimes it may happen that philosophical pragmatism plagues me—something about which Luther faithfully warned Melanchthon—and I want to be able to make everything good and right. When I battle with these thoughts, however, I must bring myself back to understand and believe that God’s Word alone and the judgment it forces me to make if I am to deal with the circumstances properly, must remain the tool to overcome all obstacles.”

Yes indeed, dear Loescher, you are to be revered in the Lutheran Church of all time because you brought yourself back to

“believe that God’s Word alone … must remain the tool to overcome all obstacles.”

I have to thank Dr. Rosenbladt and his "Thinking Fellows" associates for driving me deeper into orthodox Lutheran historians like… Valentin Loescher. (Next Part 17)

M16: M.: "necessary cause", “What bondage it was”; the many editions of Melanchthon's Loci

       This continues from Part 15 (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 now translates documents which provide solid evidence of what modern historians whitewash—Melanchthon's inclination towards certain un-Lutheran errors. But Walther balances this with Melanchthon's statement that avoids the pitfall of the words "for salvation".  All of this proves Walther's thesis that Luther would not "carry" Melanchthon's errors if he knew of them. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 356-357 [EN]: 

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 16 of 28  - - - - - - -

It is quite true that Melanchthon wrote to Veit Dietrich in 1538: 

“You have caused me greater distress by issuing a psalm, where you sprinkle something about the causa sine qua non [necessary cause or condition] and about the (as you speak) causa secunda [second cause]. What will our critics, or rather sycophants, say? — You have corrupted Luther's interpretation" (of the 51st Psalm) "in my favor. You will be accused of the crime of forgery. He himself, whether he may have said so (!) or may not have said so, will want to issue violent statements and to erase and destroy those designations of the causes. In that fact I look forward to a new tragedy. Nor is the matter explained in accordance with the theological artificial language (τεχνιχως) when you say: although the whole thing depends on mercy, the recognition of sin is the second (subordinate) cause of forgiveness.…  

It is a linguistic error which, although insignificant, will create new turmoil for us. What bondage it was (!) when you were here, you remember. And yet you shall know that it has now become much harder. And that is why I observed this Pythagorean silence for a while with certain intentions, so as not to give any opportunity for tumult.” (C. R. III, 593. f.) 

One can see from this that although Luther, as Melanchthon himself reports, had "exceedingly lovingly" talked about the matter with him, Melanchthon had no doubt noticed that Luther was very serious here, where the purity of the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae [article by which the church stands or falls] was concerned. **)

—————— 

**) Later, in 1555, Melanchthon wrote: “Although this proposition is to be held: Nova obedientia est necessaria, [A new obedience is necessary], we do not want to attach the words ‘ad salutem’ [for salvation] to it, because this appendix is interpreted on the meritum, and would obscure the doctrine of grace.” (C. R. VIII, 410) 

Incidentally, the ducal Saxon theologians [Johann] Wigand, [Timotheous] Kirchner and others in the Altenburg Colloquium rightly remarked to the electors, Paul Eber, Caspar Cruciger and others: “If, however, the same author subsequently secretly incorporated into his books those seeds of his old error, Luther, who was withdrawn from so much business and writing and buried in it, could not have been such a hundred-eyed Argus, as it were, that he saw and noticed all the editions, differences and changes of those books.” (Acta etc. f. 138) It is downright absurd to assume that Luther must have read through each of the many editions of Melanchthon's Loci and thus must have experienced it, as often as Melanchthon again made changes to them according to his habit. (LuW 357)

 

Another occasion when it became apparent that Luther was not inclined to carry [or put up with] false doctrine and to overlook it, even if it concerned his Melanchthon, who was so dear to him, was the following. The court preacher of Duke Heinrich's in Freiberg, Jakob Schenk [DE], asked in a letter addressed to Melanchthon and Jonas whether one could take Holy Communion under one form under tyrants. Melanchthon affirmed this in his reply and sought to justify his opinion. Schenk, who not only expected a quite different answer, but also seemed to have wanted it for the sake of certain causes, immediately sent Melanchthon's answer to the Elector as proof that Melanchthon's teaching could not be right. Now this matter alone would not have kindled a great fire. But at the same time, the Elector had heard several other rumors about Melanchthon's and Cruciger's position on Luther and his teachings, which worried him. 

As a result, the Elector commissioned his faithful chancellor Brück, in a letter dated May 5, 1537 (l. c. 365), to first consult with Luther on this matter. With astonishment, Brück learned that Luther was already prepared for such disclosures. Brück reports about his conversation with Luther to Elector Johann Friedrich, among other things, as follows: 

“Dr. Martin says and confesses that he would never have thought that Philip was still so stuck in his fantasies.”

(Melanchthon must therefore have tried to make Luther forget his suspicious utterances again and again through good explanations). 

- - - - - - - - -   Continued in Part 17  - - - - - - - - - -

Luther “thought that Philip was still so stuck in his fantasies.” Modern historians avoid the reports such as this in order to allow their own narratives of what they think the situation was between Melanchthon and Luther. — In the next Part 17…  

      But before that, we present "Excursus 3" on another orthodox Lutheran historian's judgment of the legacy of Melanchthon's errors.

"…they call Lutheran": not Kolb-Wengert, Tappert

 Today is the 92nd anniversary of the passing of Dr. Franz Pieper, June 3, 1931.  He was a Lutheran theologian, and so the following is in honor of him.

- - - - - - - - - 

      While reviewing Prof. Friedrich Bente's masterful Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, I came across a paragraph that ended with a quote from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession. On page 68 Bente says:

“True, even during the Reformation some Papists were incited to greater zeal in preaching and teaching. It was a reaction against the Reformation of Luther, who must be regarded as the indirect cause also of the formal improvement in the instruction of the young among the Romanists. To maintain their power, bishops and priests were compelled to resume and cultivate it. This revival, however, meant only an intensified instruction in the old work-righteousness, and therefore was the very opposite of the instruction which Luther desired and advocated. In the Apology, Melanchthon, after charging the Papists with totally neglecting the instruction of the young, continues: “A few among them now also begin to preach of good works. But of the knowledge of Christ, of faith, of the consolation of consciences they are unable to preach anything, moreover, this blessed doctrine, the precious holy Gospel, they call Lutheran.” (326, 44 [Ap 15 Of Human Traditions in the Church, § 42])

The last phrase, highlighted in green, struck me for it explicitly identifies who the Papists were calling "Lutheran": those promoting "the precious holy Gospel".  I decided to check this phrasing with the more modern translations of the Book of Concord by Theodore Tappert and Kolb/Wengert and found them empty of this important phrase highlighted in green above.

     The 1851 English Newmarket edition of the Henkel brothers included that last phrase, translating it as (Google Books):

“On the contrary, they call this blissful doctrine, this beloved holy Gospel, Lutheran doctrine.”

Here is what Bente's highlighted phrase above says in the original German text of the Apology 15, 42 (or 44):

“Etliche wenige unter ihnen heben nun auch an, von guten Werken zu predigen. Von der Erkenntnis Christi aber, vom Glauben, vom Trost der Gewissen können sie nichts predigen, sondern dieselbe selige Lehre, das liebe, heilige Evangelium, nennen sie Lutherisch.”

This is another example of what CPH Publisher Paul McCain charged, in 2006, against the modernist translations of the Lutheran Confessions: "numerous absurdities", distortions, mistranslations, "confusing", "misleading", etc.  So why did the LCMS teachers force the Tappert edition onto its pastoral students, and place an LC-MS imprimatur on the syncretistic Kolb/Wengert edition? — Much better to get the Triglotta, or McCain's Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions.

50 years ago, Prof. Klug sounded the alarm: “silence is not only questionable but culpable”

      A year ago the LC-MS celebrated what they called their 175th anniversary.  Of course, that only applies to the Old (German) Missouri Synod. —

      A little over 50 years ago, the faculty of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, published a pamphlet that caused one professor in the LC-MS, from Springfield, Illinois, to rise up and loudly warn against it. In June 1973, 50 years ago, in an obscure group of "Book Reviews", appeared an explosive 8-page book review of this St. Louis faculty pamphlet. It was published in the journal The Springfielder. In 2003, CTQ Editor Prof. David P. Scaer stated in his eulogy for the author of that "Book Review", Prof. Eugene E. A. Klug (CTQ 67:3/4, July/October 2003, p. 195): 

“Dr. Klug played a prominent part at the 1973 Denver [sic: New Orleans] Convention of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod in defining the synod's theology in the face of its new definition espoused by the faculty of Concordia Seminary, Saint Louis. Just before that convention, he provided an extensive critique of that faculty's theological position, Faithful to Our Calling, Faithful to our Lord in The Springfielder (37:1 [June 1973], p. 67-74.)”

One may read what Dr. Scaer is referring to in the 1973 New Orleans Convention Proceedings, p. 37, and pp. 133-139, and especially pp. 136-138. 

      Because Prof. Klug's "Book Review" is so pivotal in the history of the LC-MS (perhaps even more so than that of Pres. J. A. O. Preus) during that tumultuous time, I am publishing a polished OCR text version of it with added hyperlinks and highlighting.  But before that, I present a few choice quotes from the pen of Dr. Klug:

• …the vortex of the cauldron that caused synod's pot to boil over and was threatening now to blow things sky high.
• …the faculty had need to account for in a responsible way at this serious juncture in synod’s history, and that they have failed to do
• superficial and subtly inadequate theologizing
• Much of the old familiar language is still there, but with new, unfamiliar, and unwelcome theology.
• …then silence is not only questionable but culpable
• many pastors are willing to let the dust settle as it may, indifferent to what’s going on and how it will come out.
• throwing overboard the only principle which Lutheran theology has ever recognized as authoritative and final in establishing all articles of faith, the Scriptural Word of God
• “Is the faculty position different from what Missouri taught previously? Of course it is.”
• No call for a doxology “of praise and wonder” can hide the spirit of agnosticism which hides behind the veiled language
• The issue turns on this question, whether the Missouri Synod will remain what she was till now, a Confessional evangelical Lutheran church!

Below follows Dr. Klug's full essay:

A DOCX file of the above may be downloaded here.

One may read more of the history of what resulted from Dr. Klug's momentous essay here. — May  this 50th anniversary re-publication of the essay of the dear Prof. Eugene Klug be a guide for readers in judging their own teachers of theology today! Amen!