Vom Schem Hamphoras – by Martin Luther (a translation, Part 2)

See Part 1 for an introduction and paragraph 1 of this introduction of Luther.  This Part 2 continues the translation into English from there.  Luther's translation of the Jewish blasphemous fable Toledot Yeshu (Wikipedia article here) is in paragraphs 3 to 17:

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

Vom Schem Hamphoras

by Martin Luther

(continued from Part 1 - Introduction)

     2. Because just as we need to teach and write of the devil, hell, death and sin, what they are and do, not that we wanted to make from the devil an angel, from hell a heaven, from death a life, from sin holiness, which is impossible; but the fact that we watch out for them: so I also write on the Jews.  Because a Jew or Jewish heart is so stone hard, hard as iron, devilish hard, it cannot be moved in any way.  If Moses and all the prophets came to do all the miracles in front of their eyes that they should leave their hardened mind, as Christ and the apostles before them did, it would be in vain.  If they were also punished so cruelly, that the streets ran full of blood, that one would expect to count their dead not by a hundred thousand, but by ten hundred thousand and, as has been done to Jerusalem under Vespasian and bitterly with Hadrian, still they must be right if they also after these 1500 years still another 1500 years should be in misery, yet God must still be a liar, and they are truthful.

     In summary, these are the children of the devil, damned to hell; however, if something human is in them, then to such may this writing come to benefit and good:  whoever will, may hope for the whole bunch; I have no hope, neither does the Scripture know of any.  We cannot yet convert the great majority of our Christians, so we must be content with the small handful; how much less is it possible to convert all these children of the devil! Therefore such is a delusion and is nothing that many think that all Jews will be converted at the end of the world coming from the 11th chapter of the Book of Romans for St. Paul means something entirely different.

From the eleventh chapter in the first part of the book of Porchetus,

translated into German by Dr. M. Luther [now English by BackToLuther]

     1. We want to see henceforth, how the Jews are always so hostile to the miracles of Christ, that they ascribe them to Beelzebub, the prince of devils.  Because he performed so many great and wonderful miracles, as no one else has ever done, as he himself says in John 15.  It is also never heard that anyone else in his name would have made the blind ​​see, the deaf hear, the lame walk, the dumb speak, as Isaiah prophesied in Isaiah 35:5-6: "God will come and save you. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.  Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing". [KJV version]

     2. In addition to these many miraculous signs he did many more besides: raising the dead, cleansing the lepers, and healed many others who were sick.  And that such signs, which were possible for no one but God, still have the malice of the Jews, who all the time circumvented them with evil perils.  The Jews surrounded these miracles with lies to blaspheme and dishonor them.  Now the Jews have forged a book against Christians where they write these lies: [below begins Luther's translation of Porchetus' Victoria which recounts the Jewish book]

     3. It happened at the time of Helena, the queen who ruled over the whole land of Israel, Jesus HaNozri [of Nazareth?] came to Jerusalem. He found in the temple of the Lord the stone that in previous times the ark of the LORD was set on; on this stone was written Schem Hamphoras; whoever learned and understood the letters of the same name, he could do what he wanted.
     4. But it worried our sages that if the children of Israel would learn such names, they would want to overturn the world by this power. So they made two dogs of brass, and put them on two pillars before the door of the sanctuary. Now if someone went in and would have learned the letters of the above name and went out, then the brazen dogs barked at him so dreadfully that he forgot in great terror the name and the letters that he had learned before.
     5. So Jesus of Nazareth came and went into the temple, and learned the letters, and wrote them on a parchment. Then he tore the flesh on his leg and laid the slips of paper into it. And because he mentioned the names, nothing harmed him, and the skin united as it was just before; when he went now from the temple, the brass dogs barked at him so that he immediately forgot the name; however when he came home, he tore open the leg with a knife and took out the slips of paper on which the letters stood of Schem Hamphoras, and learned them again.
     6. Then he gathered 310 youths to himself from Israel and said unto them, Behold, the sages say, I was a bastard, so that they would rule over Israel, but you know that all the prophets prophesied of the Messiah, and it is he that I am, this is true. And Isaiah prophesied on me, "Behold, the alma [virgin] shall conceive and give birth to a son, and called his name Emmanuel" (Isaiah 7:14). So also my grandfather, David prophesied of me and said: "The Lord said to me: Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee" (Ps 2:7). So I was born of my mother without any of help from a man, but the power of God. That's why not I, but they themselves are children of whoredoms, as Hosea says, "I will not have mercy upon her children, because they are the children of whoredoms" (Hosea 2.4).

..... (to be continued in Part 3)

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

     There is a glaring error in the translation of the Jewish Dr. Gerhard Falk in paragraph 2 of the introduction above (there are many typo errors also).  It is this, that Luther said it was Scripture, the Bible, which does not know of any hope for the Jews as a whole, whereas Dr. Falk translated  "any writing".  It wasn't just "any writing" but the Holy Scripture itself that does not know of any general conversion of the Jews.
     It is readily apparent of the silliness of the Jewish fable (starting at paragraph 3 above) concocted against the Christ by the Jews.  This fable has a name – it is called the Toledot Yeshu, although Dr. Falk makes no attempt to identify it, even though he is quick to offer other historical footnotes on other points in Luther's essay.  Why is this?  Could it be that he suspects it might cause a softening in the sympathy many Christians have for the Jewish religion?  The balance of Luther's translation of this fable is contained in my next Part 3.

Vom Schem Hamphoras – by Martin Luther (a translation, Part 1)

[2024-08-30: added note below about 1851 Walther sermon mentioning "Shem Hamphoras"; 2018-04-25: see added note below in red; 2017-06-25: see this later blog post for downloadable PDF of this entire translation.]
     I have previously blogged about this writing of Luther against the Jews – Vom Schem Hamphoras – here.  Dr. Gerhard Falk, a Jew, boasted that his published English translation was the only one available since Concordia Publishing House had not included it in their Luther's Works series.  I also mentioned in another post that I may translate this work because of its spiritual importance.
     I see in the CPH Prospectus for the "New Series"  of Luther's Works (page 21, item 6.28) that they plan only to translate the second part of Luther's "little book".  Why?  Because the first part is Luther's writing directly against the Jews while the second part is about the lineage or genealogy of Christ.  CPH does not want to appear to be an "anti-Semite" ... like ... you know who.  But why would CPH translate even the second part of Vom Schem Hamphoras since Dr. Gerhard Falk has already translated and published it in his book 20 years ago? (Wikipedia article here).  Hmmm... it appears the Jewish Dr. Falk has trumped you CPH.  Not only that, he danced on the LC-MS proclamation condemning Luther.  How the Jews love you, LC-MS!  In the same year 1983 you both upheld the Doctrine of Objective Justification (CTCR page, PDF here) and condemned Luther... which is it?  Ah, but how the Christian faith languishes...  a faith that is supposed to believe the words of Jesus:

I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.  – John 14:6

     A quick search of the Internet shows Falk's book is out of print and so one can only obtain an English translation of this work of Luther either by buying a $400 used copy of this book on Amazon or by going to the nearest library that has a copy.
     However, this series of blog posts is dedicated to:

• spite the devil,
• build Christian faith, 
• honor those Christian writers before Luther who also warned against the Jews, 
• honor the old (German) Missouri Synod that held up Luther as the only Reformer of the church, 
• show that today's LC-MS is not the old Missouri Synod because they avoid him, and
• honor the wonderful comment received on my original posting on Vom Schem Hamphoras

     I plan to publish my own English translation of this great work of Luther in this series of posts so that the whole world can freely have it and Christians don't have to be exposed to the attacks of the Jewish Dr. Gerhard Falk.  I may even insert comments along the way and show Dr. Falk that his Jewish comments always missed the mark in spiritual matters.
     Just like the future CPH version, I will use the St. Louis Edition, volume 20, columns 2028 - 2109.  I am furnishing a link here for the reader to download a scanned copy (5+ MB PDF) of the original German publication so that they may follow along by my references to the column and paragraph numbers.  Each paragraph was numbered in the original German: the first section Vom Schem Hamphoras is paragraphs 1 – 82, the Lineage of Christ is paragraphs 83 – 192.  I will follow the original paragraph numbering.  And I plan also to follow at least some of the footnotes in the original where they are spiritually important.  To help distinguish Luther's text from all other notes, I will use a dark blue font. Because of the length of this "little book" by Luther, it will necessarily take some time and I will tie the posts together with a sequencing of "Parts"... this is Part 1.
     A complete download is available here - updated 8/1/2012.
     Luther always sympathized with the poor Jewish people, not the Jewish "religion" and its teachings.  In paragraph # 60 (in Part 7), Luther said this:

So mocks the evil spirit of his unfortunate captive Jews...

Franz Pieper spoke like Luther when he said of the Jews:

Poor people!  But none of us has cause to rise above the Jews striving for earthly things.  If God's grace would not have mercy on us, we would also act according to our own ways.

Lord, have mercy on us.  

May this translation be to the glory of God the Father and His only Son Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the whole lost world!  Amen!

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

Dr. Martin Luther's Writing of Vom Schem Hamphoras 

and the Lineage of Christ, Matthew 1.*

[D. Martin Luthers Schrift vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi, Matth. 1.]

March, 1543.

(Original German text taken from the St. Louis Edition, volume 20, columns 2028 - 2109 (Google); HathiTrust copy here; My Dropbox copy here.)

Translated by BackToLuther using Google Translate, Microsoft Translator, and PROMT (Russian) Translator. 

    1. The next book I promised, I wanted to expose how the frantic, miserable Jews lie and blaspheme with their Schem Hamphoras, as Porchetus writes in his book called Victoria. This I have done herewith to honor our faith, and opposed the devilish lies of the Jews, that also they who want to become like Jews may see what they must believe and hold for beautiful articles with the damned Jews. Because, as I related in that book, my opinion is not to write against the Jews as I was hoping to convert them. And I have in that book mentioned I did not want to call it "Against The Jews" but rather "On The Jews and Their Lies", so that we Germans know historically what a Jew is and to warn our Christians about them, as of the devil himself, and to strengthen and honor our faith; not to convert the Jews who are as possible to convert as the devil.

     *) This document was published some time in March 1543 (on March 7 Luther wrote to Justus Jonas that he had done it) with George Rau (Rhaw) of Wittenberg and was printed again in the same year. Then in 1544 with Nickel Schirlentz of Wittenberg.  It  can be found in these collections: in Wittenberg (1556), Volume V, pp. 509b, in Jena (1562), Vol, VIII, pp. 108b, in Altenburg, Volume VIII, page 277, in the Leipzig , Volume XXI, page 614 and in Erlanger, Volume 32, page 275. Moreover, it is still printed in Georgii Nigrini "Jewish Enemy", Frankfurt am Main, 1605. The Erlanger is the text after the last original edition of Nickel Schirlentz. We share with him afterwards, under comparison of Wittenberg and Jena editions. 

..... (to be continued in Part 2)

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

I will provide this translation in 2 stages, dividing it into Luther's 2 major sections.  

Table of Contents – First Section, concluded in Part 8:

• Introduction – Paragraphs 1 & 2 (Parts 1 & 2) - sequel to On The Jews and Their Lies

     Body Text

• Paragraphs 1 - 2: Introduction to Jewish fable published by Porchetus (Part 2)
• Paragraphs 3 - 17: The Jewish fable “Schem Hamphoras” – Luther’s translation (Pts 2, 3)
• Paragraphs 18 - 20: Luther first remarks of contempt on this fable (Pt 4)
• Paragraphs 21 - 26: Luther’s first pass recounting the individual points made in fable (Pt 4)
• Paragraphs 27 - 29: Luther’s second remarks of contempt (Pt 4)
• Paragraph 28 : Luther’s second pass on fable’s points (Pt 4)
• Paragraph 29: Luther’s third remarks of contempt  (Pt 4)
• Paragraph 30  : Did Luther make his judgment of Jews too coarse and inedible? (Pt 5)
• Paragraphs 31 - 33: Three mockeries – of God, of us Christians, of Jews, and...  (Pt 5)
• Paragraphs 34 - 36: “... vain, dead, worthless letters” of Schem Hamphoras (Pt 5)
• Paragraphs 37 - 39:  Luther’s answer to:  Christians do the same thing – in the Sacraments (Pt 5)
• Paragraphs 40 - 41: The Pope’s jugglery, enchantments (Pt 5)
• Paragraphs 42 - 54: Explanation of the words “Schem Hamphoras” (Pt 6)
• Paragraphs 55 - 58: Luther’s rhetorical questions showing fable’s illogical nature (Pts 6, 7)
• Paragraph 59: The sow’s behind, the Rabbi, and the Talmud (Pt 7)
• Paragraphs 60 - 69: Scham HaPeres - devil’s version of Schem Hamphoras  (Pt 7)
• Paragraph 70: Luther’s prayer to God  (Pt 7)
• Paragraphs 71 - 73: The abyss of hell; concluding remarks on “Schem Hamphoras” fable  (Pt 7)
• Paragraph 74: Luther’s addresses the Jewish Tetragrammaton and the names of God  (Pt 8)
• Paragraphs 75 - 81: Luther refutes Jewish Tetragrammaton; names of God, esp. Jehovah  (Pt 8)
• Paragraph 82: Luther’s summary – Jews do not have the Word of God (Pt 8)

The next post presents Part 2, which concludes the general introduction, and paragraphs 1 - 6.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
[2017-12-06: see later post on Franz Pieper's recommended portion on the name 'Jehovah'; and this post offers a downloadable PDF version.]
2018-04-25: Ewald Plass, in his 1959 book What Luther Says p. 687 #2131, translated a portion of paragraph 2 of the introduction. He added the following comment in a footnote: 

3 The words are in Luther’s writing on the Shem Hamphoras and the genealogy of Christ as recorded in Matthew 1. As to the Shem Hamphoras, the Jews contended that Jesus had performed miracles by sorcery, by pronouncing the unspeakably sacrosanct name of Jehovah.— In the same year appeared the Reformer’s second major writing against the Jews and their lies about Christ and His religion. It is incisive, vehement, and, in part, extremely bitter. Obviously, Luther was deeply moved. To ascribe his vitriolic outbursts merely to the irritability of advancing age is an oversimplification. The Reformer had at first hoped that an honest presentation of the pure Gospel to the Jews would win them in great numbers. But he was increasingly disillusioned. The Jews so hardened themselves that he calls them stock-stein-eisen-teufel-hart in the opening remarks of the publication that contains our selection.

2024-08-30:  C. F. W. Walther references the Jewish "Shem Hamphoras" in an 1851 sermon printed in Der Lutheraner, vol. 7, p. 148 footnote. See this blog post.

For the Brazil church... from old Missouri

      Recently I had correspondence with a man from Brazil.  After assisting him on a question of theology with help from Pieper's writings, I promised that I would publish some history of his country's church from the writings of the old (German) Missouri Synod.  The last report by Franz Pieper in the pages of Lehre und Wehre of the sister synod in Brazil was this short article, volume 75 (1929), pgs 350-351:

In the "Kirchenblatt" of our Brazilian District from September 1 we find this report: "We have in our Brazilian District blessed Christians who have not found they become poorer by giving."  In the same paper we find the following rich content of a Thanksgiving sermon on 1 Thess. 5:18: "It was addressed to the congregations the admonition: 'Be thankful in all things!' This was first shown, for which we Christians are at our Thanksgiving to thank God, that even for the many afflictions that the dear God has let come in the course of the year over people, plantings, and livestock, which will also work together for good of us Christians; so then for all earthly blessings that God has brought us, but especially also for the spiritual blessings that Christ has acquired for us and has been continually told us by word and sacrament.  Secondly it was shown, as we Christians want to express our thanks to God, namely, by sincere prayers of thanksgiving, praise, and songs of thanksgiving and sacrifice of the hands, we the best of the poor and of the Kingdom of God, also especially are to present to God for the supply of poor students. Such thanks well pleases God.  Temporal and eternal blessings will follow in such thanks to God."

In an earlier issue of the same year (vol. 75, pgs 154-155) was a report on the 25th anniversary of the seminary in Brazil:

Over the twenty-fifth anniversary of our seminary at Porto Alegre, Brazil, we see in the "Kirchenblatt for South America" the following messages: Pastor Heine gave an address on the basis of 1 Sam. 7:12: "He explained that the bygone year was a milestone in the history of the seminary, since the seminary could look back on a twenty-fifth anniversary.  Like Samuel, had after the children of Israel defeated its enemies, a stone placed on the monument, calling it Ebenezer, saying, 'Thus far has the Lord helped us', so must we in the twenty-fifth anniversary of our seminary speak: 'Hitherto has the Lord helped us'. It is a magnificent work, allowed to work at what we do. The Word of God that is taught and learned in the seminary, and that pure and clear, is the heavenly wisdom which alone can save people. Before the people of the world we are backward.  Also our faithful adherence to all the teachings of the infallible Word of God is viewed as backward by false believing church communities, which is no longer maintained before 'advanced' science, but we well want to consider what Christ says in John 8:31-32. 'So ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples and you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.'  Finally, the students were invited to the diligent study of Holy Scriptures to strengthen their faith, to comfort and prepare for their glorious office. They were also warned to prove to be always in their lifestyle as a student of Scripture. Professor Schelp then read the so-called moral censorship, that is the evidence of conduct, diligence, attention and order. At the end the students were handed diplomas. Two could not be moved to the next class, and some only conditionally. These must in fact complete some subjects during the holidays and before the new academic year which, God willing, will begin on March 6, there is only a test. Six students were on (page 155) consummate study, and after they had also served one year each as vicars in the ministry, given as a candidate of theology on the next day their diplomas. Similarly, three students completed their studies as future teachers, but only obtained their diplomas after a vicar year of service. From our seminary 42 pastors and 8 teachers have emerged. God bestow them as a blessing for many and admit that our Seminario Concordia also be a nursery of his church henceforth and remain for the spread of the Lutheran Zion in South America!"    F.P.

Franz Pieper reported on events from around the world and always rejoiced over true Christian preaching and testimony.  And that included Brazil.

=============== Test documents below ==============

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

Justification – Darby Situation (Part 9b – Marquart essay)

     In the last post Part 9a, I prefaced my review of Marquart and his essay of response to "The Larry Darby Situation".  (See Part 1 for Table of Contents)  Now I will (finally) address it.
     Rather than review the entire essay, I will "cut to the quick" and go to his concluding section.  Here is the final section of Marquart's essay presenting his findings and recommendation.  I am reproducing it exactly as it was printed in Christian News with the original italicized words that McCain's post does not have. The yellow highlighting is mine:

6. Conclusion     If it is granted, on the one hand, that “No orthodox Lutheran disputes the fact that Christ’s vicarious satisfaction reconciled God toward all men, since that is the clear language of Scripture itself,” that “the forgiveness of sins is ‘universal,’ as long as that is understood to mean only that Christ’s vicarious satisfaction procured this forgiveness for all mankind” (HD, pp. 123, 234), and that objective justification may rightly be understood as the assertion of grace alone against Rome, of universal grace against Geneva, and of the means of grace against both (p. 39); and if, on the other hand, it is granted that the “Kokomo” version of objective justification is an aberration, and that the proper distinction of Law and Gospel requires the teaching both of the wrath of God and of the pivotal, indispensable role of the means of grace, then a great deal of common ground exists for pursuing a genuine meeting of the minds.

The reader will note the 2 uses of the word "if" in this concluding section.  It is one of the key words and it denotes a condition – if a condition is met then a conclusion is made.  So what are these conditions named by Marquart?

1. If ... (Christ's vicarious satisfaction) reconciled God toward all men [-->> why italicize this word toward... as opposed to what?? There is a condition here...]
2. If... as long as Christ's vicarious satisfaction only procured this forgiveness for all mankind  [-->> again, why the words "only procured"... as opposed to what?? Another condition lurking here...]
3. If... the proper distinction of Law and Gospel requires teaching both the wrath of God and the pivotal, indispensable role of the means of grace  [-->> Certainly the role of the means of grace is very important, but as Pieper pointed out in his essay on Walther's doctrine of Justification (see Part 13 of this list):

All praise of Christ, of grace, and of the means of grace, without the right doctrine of justification, is nothing.  

The second part of Marquart's "if - then" condition is stated thus:

Then... a great deal of common ground exists for pursuing a genuine meeting of the minds.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Now let us be clear about one thing before I go any further:

The only condition on the Gospel (Universal, Objective Justification) is that it is unconditional!

If anyone begins to setup conditions on the Gospel message, to "guard" the Gospel message, such as

• trying to say there was no change in God's heart with Christ's vicarious atonement, or  
• trying to avoid something called "universalism", or 
• trying to say faith is a necessary condition for forgiveness of sins, or 
• trying to avoid "misunderstandings", or 
• for "scholarly" reasons, 
• etc., etc.,  

then run!... run!.. run for your spiritual life!  Don't believe it, just cling to God's Word that says:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

And so the apostle Paul jars us when he said:

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Larry Darby was teaching another gospel under the guise of "Lutheran orthodoxy", "Lutheran confessionalism".
And now let me quote the full text of Franz Pieper (Christian Dogmatics, II, pg 346) that Marquart (and others) dispute but which teaches God's Word to man:

2 Cor. 5:19 furnishes additional proof that by the objective reconciliation which Christ has effected a change of heart took place, not in men, but in God. 

It is precisely this point where Marquart is wrong...  and God is right...  Pieper is right... and the old (German) Missouri Synod is right.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Marquart finishes his essay with these words:

     In these interests I have attempted, to the best of my ability, to sort out the issues without rancour.  It is difficult for us humans to put aside pain and bitterness, but the Lord never ceases to invite us to this grace of “following in His steps” (I Pet. 2:21). May He bless all who love His saving truth, with mutual forbearance, humility, and charity.  That is my earnest plea and prayer. “Behold how good and pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity” (Ps. 133)!

Herman Otten calls Marquart a "peacemaker".  Paul T. McCain calls on this essay as "an excellent response" in "refuting errors regarding objective justification".   Unfortunately, this essay only continued the "muddy waters" that surround the LC-MS ever since the death of Franz Pieper.  I recall the stunning words of the prophet Jeremiah about those who would proclaim peace when the message became muddy:

Jeremiah 6:14 – They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.

Now someone will come to me and say "But Marquart taught Objective Justification several times in this essay."  I cannot deny this.  The forcefulness of Pieper and Walther comes through at times.  One of the greatest testimonies I have read of Professor Marquart is from Pastor David Petersen of Redeemer Lutheran Church of Fort Wayne on his blog (here) where he recounts the following story of the Professor:

My fourth year at seminary, as part of the infamous Q party festivities, we wrote scathing, mocking lyrics to the most popular hymns of Evangelical America (Just as I am, What a Friend We have in Jesus, etc.) and sang them in the midst of much beer. Marquart stood outside and afterwards I asked him what was wrong. He said: "Those hymns may be weak, but they are loved by the pious people of God. Our job is to lead them to something better, not to belittle them for ignorance."
That little lesson completely changed my attitude toward the laity and the process of catechesis. I haven't always lived up to it, and I am ashamed I didn't learn it until days before graduation, but I am deeply thankful for it. Thanks, Kurt. God bless you and yours.

But unfortunately Marquart was willing to allow a mixed message... a mixed message that at least begins to break the "chain of salvation" that Pieper spoke about in his essay "The Open Heaven" (here).   Dear God!  your chain of salvation is strong!... there are no weak links!  Thou hast said so in Thy Word that cannot be broken (John 10:35)!  Amen!

Justification – Darby Situation (Part 9a – Marquart)

In my previous Parts 8a and 8b, I presented correspondence from 1997/1998 with Steve Stranghoener, a defender of Objective Justification, and a layman in an LC-MS congregation.  (See Part 1 for Table of Contents)  Now I will go back to what started this series in Part 1 -- Paul McCain's re-publishing of Prof. Kurt Marquart's essay of response for "The Larry Darby Situation".  Again, McCain is offering this as the answer for his LC-MS regarding those Lutherans who are confused on the doctrine of Objective Justification.
Now the reader may notice that in 1997 (in Part 6a) I counted Prof. Marquart as one of those in our times who defends Objective Justification.  Although he has passed away since that time, he is still highly regarded by some who would call themselves "confessional" and "conservative".  I would also say that Steve Stranghoener also looked forward to this essay to bolster him and his pastor (Pastor William Bischoff) in their defense of this doctrine.  I believe Pastor Bischoff may have been a pastor in the LCR at one time but went back to the LC-MS.  So many eyes were turned to Prof. Marquart as he now presented his response for Pastor Bischoff to address "The Larry Darby Situation".

I must say I was a bit skeptical of Marquart... for 3 reasons:

1. He had incorrectly identified the author of the founding essay of the Synodical Conference in 1872 – a beautiful essay on the doctrine of Justification – it was actually C.F.W. Walther.  See my letter to him regarding this important point of Church History.  It  is especially surprising that he made this error since he reveals in this essay that he had "twenty years of teaching dogmatics from Pieper’s volumes".  I was glad to hear he had use Pieper's volumes of Christian Dogmatics, but did he really follow Pieper's teaching?
2. His disparaging remarks against Franz Pieper and against old Missouri's "impossible rigidities" and "short-sighted legalism" in his book Anatomy of an Explosion: A Theological Analysis of the Missouri Synod Conflict and elsewhere – a throwback to the charges by Theodore Graebner.
3. His defense of Herman Sasse in the face of Sasse's errors on the doctrine of Scripture itself.
4. His attempt to minimize the error of fellow faculty member Walter A. Maier Jr. on the doctrine of Objective Justification.  This was done during the height of that controversy

I had conversations with other conservative pastors in the 1990s who were outside the LC-MS and who had some positive things to say about Marquart.  One could not dismiss everything he wrote.  It would seem that in the person of Kurt Marquart was a teacher in the church, like Robert Preus, whom many "conservative", "confessional" Lutherans could go to for true Christian teaching... except perhaps some of those who left the LC-MS.

And so what was Marquart's response to "The Larry Darby Situation"?  What is "Marquart's Legacy"?  Marquart's response was largely publicized by its printing in the February 9, 1998 issue of the newspaper Christian News (copy of article here).  I don't know where else it was published except by those who called him "mentor" such as David Jay Webber, and now Paul T. McCain.

Marquart's essay is quite long to be published in one posting, which makes it difficult to navigate.  Even the first comment on McCain's post noticed the lengthiness.  Another point to be made is that it would have been helpful to hyperlink the footnotes so one could easily jump back and forth from the text reference to each footnote.  I'm sure Pastor McCain is quite capable of doing this.  But I would complement him for the hyperlinks to Bible verse references.  Lastly, McCain has omitted italicized terms which emphasize certain words, an important feature of the original publishing.  McCain should use my copy of the CN article here if he wants to correct his blogpost.

OK, when am I, BackToLuther, going to finally get down to commenting on Marquart's essay?  I've been procrastinating long enough.  Indeed, I have been procrastinating... I've been "sweeping the floor 10 times" –  as one woodworker put it who was about to tackle a most unpleasant task in woodworking. (I am a woodworker.)  Perhaps Paul T. McCain and Herman Otten think they have me trapped, thinking that Marquart's essay will put the whole matter to rest...

...but they would be wrong.  See my next post Part 9b.

Justification – Darby Situation (Part 8b – Stranghoener)

This continues from the last post Part 8a which published Mr. Stranghoener's final (?) letter to the editor Herman Otten of Christian News newspaper.  (See Part 1 for Table of Contents)  As stated previously, Mr. Stranghoener's letter beautifully explained and defended the Doctrine of Universal, Objective Justification.  Since there are so few people in the world today who actually proclaim and defend this doctrine (the Gospel), I had to write to him:

1/20/1998
Steven Stranghoener
XXXX Xxxxxx Xxxx Xx
Xxxxxx Xxxx, MO XXXXX
Mr. Stranghoener:
...      I have often thought to find your letter to Herman Otten of last fall in CN and write you.  ...  now I must send you a letter after seeing your letter to Herman Otten in CN 1/12/98.
Larry Darby mentioned in his book of a man who wrote to him that said he was wrong.  Rolf Preus wrote a letter to Herman Otten last year mentioning a man who commented that he had the doctrine right but that his fellowship practice was in question.  And now Dr. Drickamer mentions a man who takes him to task on his article (CN 1/5/98, pg 8) about Darby’s book and the use of certain terms in theological discussion.  I am that man.
     Why have you not perhaps heard of me before?  Because it is to this generation’s great shame that it is not a seminary professor or high church official or a pastor who would stand on the doctrine of Universal Justification and refute all who would cause doubt on it.  It should be the whole body of teachers and leaders in the LC-MS who would rise up with one voice and say: Universal Justification is the heart of Christianity!  Why must it be barely one man who would strongly defend Universal Justification?!  Surely, these are the last days.  (Perhaps you are one of the 7000 -
     You may be surprised now at my response to you.  Your position on this doctrine puts you in the dangerous spot, for you are in fellowship with today’s LC-MS!  And today’s LC-MS only leaves doubt on this doctrine.  And yet, I must confess, your letters of wonderful Christian judgment against Darby, Jackson, and Otten left my heart leaping!
 I think you already know what I am about to tell you, notwithstanding the defense by Dr. Manteufel’s article.
     After Luther burnt the papal bull on December 10, 1520, the Wittenberg University students carried on the rest of the day with stunts to make fun of Rome.  However, Luther was not amused the next morning.  Rather than chastise them for the stunts, he spoke most earnestly of the gravity of the situation.  I will quote Dau’s record of one of Luther’s students of his morning address to the students (Great Renunciation, CPH 1920, pages 295-297):

The burning of the decretals he declared mere child’s play.  No doubt, much that was puerile had been injected into the serious affair of yesterday… Far more necessary than the destruction of printed papal deliverances, he held, was the destruction of the Papal See with all its teachings and abominations.  Freighting every word with a profound conviction, he said to the students: If you do not with all your heart resist the blasphemous rule of the Pope, you cannot be saved.  For the kingdom of the Pope is so utterliy contrary to the kingdom of Christ and to the Christian life that it would be better and safer to live in a desert where you never meet a human being than to dwell in the kingdom of Antichrist. …
Luther sees a fearful danger looming large before all Christians; if they are not exceedingly careful, it will cost them their souls.  That danger is: denying Christ, of which all become guilty who side with the papists.  Whoever submits to their religion and idolatrous worship as practised in the papal church of the day, and is too much of a coward to contradict their virulent errors, must perish forever in the life to come.  But if he does raise his voice against them, he must surely expect to be in peril of his life.  Nevertheless, Luther exclaims:

“I shall rather spend my life in this world in constant danger than load my conscience with guilt by keeping silent; for I would have to render God an account of my silence.  …for it is time we take our reformation seriously.”

…all had felt as if their father had opened his very heart to them.  The chronicler regrets that he is such a clumsy reporter, and lacks the eloquence properly to relate the impressive scene.  But he has made up for any real or imaginary defect by the fervent personal testimony which he appends to his account:

“Not one of us, he says, unless he is more irrational than a stick (as all papists are), doubts that what he said is unalloyed truth.  Moreover, to all simple believers… it is quite plain that Dr. Luther is an angel of the living God, who is to feed the erring sheep with the Word of Truth …”

Today’s LC-MS has in large part returned to Rome. The doubt they allow on this doctrine shows their return to Rome to a large degree.  Dr. Manteufel’s article was surprising to me.  Rolf Preus’ letters of last year to CN (against Darby and Jackson) were a surprise. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who would defend the central article of the Christian faith.  Although Drickamer defends this doctrine, his defense is not the kind I can depend on.  I would much rather depend on your Christian judgment as expressed in your letter to Otten last fall and this January. I see that same judgment in your assessment of your LC-MS district leaders.
    You must understand that the LC-MS long, long ago cast doubt on this doctrine.  How so?  With the 1938 St Louis resolutions and Theodore Graebner’s remarks in the article “Lutheran Union” in the American Lutheran of December 1939, volume 22, page 3796-3797:

“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.”

What does this statement show? It shows that Theodore Graebner did not understand the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification!  It shows that he was beginning all out war on it! The Iowa and Ohio Synods fought against it!   It was C.F.W. Walther, Georg Stöckhardt, F. Bente and Franz Pieper who taught and preached the true peace that passes all understanding – Universal Justification! This was the heart of all of Walther’s teaching! Theodore Graebner, with this comment, sets himself up against the true teaching.  The history of the Missouri Synod (renamed to Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod at Graebner’s wish) is summed up in this one doctrine.  In fact, it is the historical story of the 20th Century.  It was Franz Pieper, the 20th Century Luther, who carried the Missouri Synod until the day he died.  It was the Missouri Synod that fell after his death when they could not consistently defend this doctrine.
     If your path is to continue to testify for the truth, I will send you my work.  I have many megabytes of the original German and machine translations in English of most of Pieper’s convention essays and many other untranslated works.  Also, many of Walther’s unpublished essays have been input into computer files. (Also Bente, R. Pieper and Stöckhardt).   Although there is not much in these that goes farther than what has already been translated and published, yet they are a testimony of how thoroughly Christian was their teaching.  And, yes, the doctrine of Universal Justification is strongly taught and defended.  Also, Mr. Darby had many peers in the professors who attacked Walther and Pieper and their teaching, directly and indirectly.
     My response to Dr. Manteufel will be much more harsh than this one to you.  For his responsibility as a teacher/professor is much greater than yours.   Why should I do this to him after his thorough defense of this doctrine?  Because he remains in today’s LC-MS!
     I could write much more, but I must leave off here.  I beg you to read everything you can from Walther, Pieper, Stöckhardt, and Bente. Not only will your faith be continually strenghthened, you will get true church history.
[Signed] Xxx Xxx [BackToLuther]
Indiana
“Franz Pieper – 20th Century Luther”

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
     Mr. Stranghoener responded to this letter of mine and gave some history of his congregation and their struggle with the administrators of the LC-MS over this and other doctrines.  They elected to "stay and fight the system from within".  A most saddening point Stranghoener made to me privately at that time was this:

And yes, we've brought this matter to President Barry's attention but he has elected to stay above the fray and leave us to his wolves. 

Dear God!  How you have given the LC-MS great opportunities to be gathered to Thee, but they would not.  Although President Alvin Barry was a "conservative" leader in today's LC-MS, who published a national news release to the world against The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, yet he would not jump into this perfect opportunity to say Yes! to the true teaching of the Gospel – Universal, Objective Justification.  So with great sadness I must say the LC-MS is still the same as in 1938 when they did not discipline Professor Theodore Graebner over this doctrine.
     Current internet research on Mr. Stranghoener seems a bit odd compared to his letter to CN in Part 8a... he has taken to authoring fictional murder mystery books.  He claims to still be a Christian.  I hope so and I hope he is still clinging to the doctrine of Universal, Objective Justification because all true Christians believe this – it's what the Bible teaches.
     My next post Part 9 will now come full circle, to the essay by Professor Kurt Marquart that Paul T. McCain published on his cyberbrethren blog of May 24, 2012.

Justification – Darby Situation (Part 8a – Stranghoener)

This continues a series of correspondences I made in 1997 and 1998 with various parties involved in the "Larry Darby Situation".  In the last post Part 7b, I finished my correspondences with Dr. John Drickamer, a respected writer in the LC-MS.  (See Part 1 for Table of Contents)
Now I turned my attention to one other writer to Christian News who defended the doctrine of Objective Justification, Steve Stranghoener.  Mr. Stranghoener was not a pastor or church official, but a layman like Larry Darby.  His writings reveal the great divisions going on in his congregation. His writings were published as letters to the the editor, Herman Otten, of the newspaper Christian News.

The last letter that I saw published in CN from Stranghoener was the following:

THE CHRISTIAN NEWS
October 13, 1997 Page 21

Beware Larry Darby's Heresy

Dear Rev. Otten:
     I hope you will print this letter in spite of my call for a general boycott against Christian News. As you know, I canceled my subscription to Christian News many months ago in protest to your refusal to cease printing the works of Greg Jackson. I am opposed to Jackson or anyone else who supports Darby in promoting his heretical view of justification. I know that as a journalist you have an obligation to present both sides of the story but I still maintain that you have a higher calling that should prevent you from providing a forum for Larry Darby or his followers to espouse his damning heresy and put the precious souls of your readers in jeopardy
     It seems that in spite of my boycott someone is always putting some article from Christian News under my nose. That was the case recently when a fellow member of Trinity, Bridgeton, gave me a copy of the last issue of Christian News wherein you printed a letter from Larry Darby attacking Trinity and our Pastor Emeritus, William Bischoff. In reply, I will not enter into a discourse with a heretic. However, I do want to set the record straight for your readers.
     Larry Darby's letter is full of lies and half-truths. But his personal vendetta against Pastor Bischoff and the faithful members of Trinity, Bridgeton, is unimportent. The salient point of any discussion of Darby is his heretical attack on the central doctrine of the Christian faith. To get at the essence of Darby, you have to break through the twisted, tangled maze of gobbledygook he has constructed ...  the sophistry be employs in mixing truth and error, good and evil ... liberties he takes in misquoting and taking out of context the writings of our church fathers ... and most importantly, his private interpretetion of Scripture. While brilliantly clever and cunning in his own evil way, Darby at heart is a simpleton. Plain and simple ... he's working for Satan to rob precious souls of their salvation by denying the all-availing sacrifice of our Lord and Savior, Christ Jesus. He wants to replace it with good ol' works righteousness, where one's faith becomes a work of justification needed to supplement Christ's work of atonement. How do I know this to be true? Well, I'm one of the folks who has spent more than 2 years in listening to Darby's rantings, reading his maniacal diatribes, admonishing him and witnessing his stiff-necked rebellion and tireless efforts to attack the truth of God's Word. All you have to do to verify what I'm saying is to read Darby s 260+ page book on justification. However, I do not recommend that to anyone any more than I would recommend drinking arsenic to prove it can be fatal to your health.
     Here is what your readers need to know about the Scriptural teaching on universal/objective justification as held to by Trinity Bridgeton, and the LCMS (ref., 1983 CTCR Theses On Justification) (CTCR page, PDF here). When Christ Jesus suffered and died on the cross and said 'it is finished,' he atoned for the sins of all the world .. . that's all people for all time. The sins of every human being ... not just foreseen believers ... were "nailed" to that cross with Jesus. He suffered the eternal torements of the damned for all ... even those whose souls were already suffering in hell because of their refusal to believe in the promise of the coming Messiah ... (and no, we do not teach that these souls were sprung from hell at Christ's resurrection as Darby would indicate when he tries to mistakenly make this an either/or situation). He was/is the perfect Lamb of God ...  His work of redemption had/has true merit... He was/is truly righteous so that we could be declared righteous through His vicarious atonement. When Christ made this sacrifice for us, all mankind was justified and covered by the blood of Jesus. When Christ Jesus was resurrected from the grave, this demonstrated that God accepted this ransom payment in full ... God reconciled the world unto Himself through Christ Jesus... His wrath was appeased.
     Darby tries to get people off the track by saying that we're teaching universalism (i.e., that all people are saved). That's not true. We believe what Scripture teaches ... that those who do not believe, those who reject this free gift are damned (Mark 16:16). But that does not change the fact that God would have all men to be saved ... that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that whosoever believeth shall not perish but have everlasting life. This is a great mystery that we can't humanly comprehend (Deuteronomy 29:29) but that doesn't give Darby or anyone else the right to contradict what Scripture clearly teaches. Theologians use the terms objective and subjective justification to help us understand this truth. Darby likes to point out that these terms do not appear in Scripture. But that's more of his game playing ... "Trinity" doesn't appear in Scripture either but that doesn't stop us from using it to describe the one, true God in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Darby also rants on about universal/objective justification being a "modern" teaching of the LCMS which has crept in to replace the true "original" teaching This is just more 'baloney' designed to get you off track. While his followers are "chasing their tails" in trying to figure out what Darby means by the "modern" vs. "original" teaching, they overlook the teaching that never changes ... the truth of Scripture. All of Scripture supports the central doctrine of the Christian faith ... that we're saved by grace through faith alone in Jesus.
     Darby tries to make this whole thing seem so complicated. . .  he wants his followers to have to depend on him for the "truth."  Actually, it's quite simple to grasp what Scripture says. Think of it in terms of nourishing your body. The fork in your hand is what allows you to eat food. But the fork does not provide nourishment to your body ... the food is the nourishment and the fork is just the means.  Likewise, faith is the means by which you are saved but it does not save you, make you righteous or justify you. Your righteousness is outside you in the person of Jesus Christ and it's His work of redemption that saves you. Yes, you must believe to be saved but even that belief, that faith is a gift of God (Ephesians 2:8-9).
     If you want the truth, tune out the heretic, Darby, and get into the Word (John 8:31-32). Here are some passages to start with ... Romans 5:10, 12-21; 2 Corinthians 5:14-19; Romans 4:25; Acts 13:38-39; Colossians 2:14 and John 1:29. Also, get into your Catechism if you want some sound commentary ... turn to Koehler's annotated version and begin reading on page 208.
     Don't let anyone rob you of the blessed assurance of justification, forgiveness, faith, salvation and eternal life in heaven. Your salvation does not depend on your ability to live up to some man-made standard of faith. Your salvation rests on the solid rock of Christ's merit and work of redemption and your faith, which is a gift of God, will be sustained and strengthened through Gods Word and His sacraments connected to that Word.
Praise and thanks be to our God and Savior for His amazing love and grace.
Steve Stranghoener
Chairman of the Board of Elders,
Trinity, Bridgeton, MO

Wow! ... what a beautiful letter this was defending the central doctrine of all Christianity – the doctrine of Universal, Objective Justification, or the Gospel.  How much Mr. Stranghoener had to battle against Mr. Darby and his followers who constantly attacked this doctrine with all the powers of human reason!  How hard he had to battle against charges of Universalism, which is perhaps Herman Otten's greatest error today since he confuses Universal Justification with Universalism and so never preaches the pure Gospel. But Stranghoener hung on to just the bare words of Scripture and all of Christianity is in the balance!  This is no small battle and he used the same defense as our Savior against the devil when He was tempted by him.  Christ used the bare words of Scripture:

Matthew 4:10 ... Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written...

I could not contain myself... I had to write to Mr. Stranghoener to encourage him in this battle, but also to give him a warning.  See Part 8b.

Justification – Darby Situation (Part 7b – Drickamer)

In the previous Part7a, I gave the contents of my first letter to Dr. John M. Drickamer, a warning against slipping on the doctrine of Objective Justification.  (See Part 1 for Table of Contents)  My second (and last) letter to him was in response to his followup article (published in Christian News of January 5, 1998) responding to my personal letter to him.  The gist of his article was a loud protest against my warning and that I should not create a strife over words.  This will become clear in my letter:

1/8/98
Dr. John M. Drickamer
XXX Xxxxxxxx Xx
LAKEVIEW  OR  XXXXX
Dr. Drickhamer:
Wonderful words to read:
“The Second Article of the Apostles’ Creed and the Third Article of The Augsburg Confession are not in doubt.”
“Biblical doctrine is simply too clear!”
“But the main point is the meaning, not the vocables.”
Indeed, Dr. Drickhamer, the main point is the meaning.  And I did not hear in your article (CN 1/5/1998) that you misunderstood my meaning on this doctrine.  “Doctrine is heaven, life is earth.” – Martin Luther.
I must cling to this doctrine for my spiritual life, because it is heaven itself.  My prayer is that the Lord Jesus would grant His grace to me as to Thomas Cranmer who put his right hand in the flames before he burned, condemning it as the hand that wrote the damnable 7 recantations.  For I have denied my Lord more than this - thousands upon thousands of times.
Unfortunately, there was a  point that you did not respond to in your article.  Fellowship.  Could this be the source of your struggle with practical issues?  It must be so.  I will leave you with a quote of Luther on Erasmus from the book “A Life of Luther” by Oskar Thulin, Fortress Press,  page 50:

“It is true that he uses refined words, like ‘the dear, holy Christ,’ ‘the saving Word’, ‘the holy sacraments’, but in reality he considers them to be very cold matters.
… Carefully and intentionally he says everything in a tone of doubt; his words are ambiguous and he can interpret them as is expedient to him.
… Erasmus of Rotterdam looks upon the Christian religion and doctrine as if they were a comedy or a tragedy, in which all the events described therein never actually happened or really took place, but were fabricated with the sole purpose of instructing the people in a good external conduct and life and preparing them for worthy obedience and discipline.” (WA,TR 2, 2420; TR 1, 699, 797; TR 2, 2170)

Why have I brought in this quote?  Substitute for the name “Erasmus of Rotterdam” the name “today’s LC-MS” and you have my word for the LC-MS, the fellowship you are in.
May the Lord Jesus grant you His grace.
[Signed] Xxx Xxx [BackToLuther]
Indiana
PS: Since you saw fit to only respond to me in the publication of Herman Otten, I will no longer respond to you by personal letters.

I continued to follow articles written by Drickamer in Christian News and found the May 25, 1998 article on church fellowship to quite beautiful (see copy here). When I learned of Dr. Drickamer's death in 1999, I was greatly saddened, and yet felt certain that he clinged to His Saviour, that he stuck to his teaching that defended Objective Justification – the Gospel, that he had not forgotten what Walther taught him so well.

I have already published my letters to 2 professors in the LC-MS here and here that related to this situation.  These professors stated they believed Objective Justification, but I had to warn them about the fellowship they were in.  But now I turned my attention to another defender of UOJ, a member of Larry Darby's LC-MS congregation, Trinity Lutheran Church of Bridgeton, Missouri. In Part 8 I will review that correspondence.

Justification – Darby Situation (Part 7a – Drickamer)

[2019-03-10: updated broken link to Drickamer's CN article]
In the previous Parts 6a and 6b, I published my correspondence with Pastor Rolf Preus in 1997.  (See Part 1 for Table of Contents)  In these next Parts 7a and 7b, I am posting my letters of that time sent to Dr. John Drickamer, another contributor to the Herman Otten's Christian News newspaper who defended the doctrine of Objective Justification.  Dr. Drickamer met an early death about a year or so after my letters to him and I recall thanking God that I had sent these letters to him as I believe they brought him back to a firm faith even if he did not respond directly to me.
Drickamer is noted for the following:

1. published his translation (and abridgment) of Walther's Pastorale, entitled Pastoral Theology. 
2. contributed an essay to the book C.F.W. Walther, The American Luther.  
3. edited the 4th edition of The Holy Bible - An American Translation (or AAT Bible)

I said that he "defended the doctrine of Objective Justification" but I had some difficulties with his review of Darby's book published in Christian News entitled A Strife About Words – Or Not? And so I decided to write a letter to him:

11/27/97
Dr. John M. Drickhamer
XXX Xxxxxxxx Xx
LAKEVIEW  OR  XXXXX
Dr. Drickhamer:
I just read your article “A Strife About Words – Or Not?” in Christian News, November 24, 1997.
Your review of Larry Darby’s book was different than my response to him.  I have told no one else what that response was except my 2 sons: “Go to hell, Larry Darby”.  You may think that response was too harsh.  I often questioned myself that it was too harsh.  But at the times that I thought I might have to withdraw that sentence, I remembered and found things like:
-> Jesus words to the scribes and Pharisees: “Woe unto you!”
-> Luther to Zwingli: Your's is a different spirit than ours.
-> Pieper on Walther: “This justification pertains to all individuals, or to the whole world. ‘If the question is raised whether or not it is right to say that the whole world has been absolved but not all individual persons, we must reply: Through Christ, God has reconciled with all men and with every individual person.’  (SCR, p. 32)  This doctrine of the general justification of all men before they believe is not a theological construction but a Biblical doctrine.” (CTM, Dec 1955)
You remain with those who at the very least allow doubt on the doctrine (not just the term) of objective/universal justification.
Dr. John Drickhamer- a name I remember very well!  It was your writings in CN that strengthened my weak faith some years ago.  For you spoke of a Gospel to believe in because it was true.  The title of one of your books was “It Is Finished”.  How my faith was kindled and strengthened!  I purchased all of your books.  I even gave one of your books to a prisoner I was visiting to give the Christian message.  But now I see that you received this from one who taught it more clearly than you – Dr. Franz Pieper.  Of all the writers in the world today, I remembered you as one of the few that recommended his Christian Dogmatics.  Strangely, I find few references to this work in recent writings from you.
Larry Darby’s book was a blessing to me as Erasmus (or should I say John Eck) was to Luther.  I knew what God said was true.  But Larry Darby (a man whom I respected highly because of his writings in CN on the issue of women’s ordination) was now directly attacking that trust in God.  I desperately corresponded with Mr. Darby pointing out that he was directly wrong, so much so that the exact opposite was true.  He only defended more strongly his error and that I was in error.
Walther and Pieper were so forceful in teaching this doctrine that it is with amazement that it can even be questioned!  In fact, I would no longer call Walther “Mr. Law and Gospel”.  I would call him “Mr. Universal Justification”!  You might think that is going too far.  He wouldn’t.   He taught the Law and Gospel properly distinguished because he taught Allgemeine Rechtfertigung!  This is clearly brought out in his lectures on Law and Gospel.
I have been spending a large amount of time studying what old Missouri actually taught.  It has been a divine time and a sad time.  Divine in that my faith was strengthened enormously with the writing of Walther, F. Pieper, Reinhold Pieper, Stöckhardt, F. Bente, C.M. Gullerud, S.C. Ylvisaker, J. Buenger, George Schweichert, Theodore Dierks, Wallace McLaughlin, and Siegbert Becker.  Sad in finding the doubts creep in by Theodore Gräbner, J.W. Behnken, Wm Arndt, Theodore Nickel, Walter A. Maier Jr., Wm. Oesch, Paul Burgdorf, Robert Preus, and Herman Otten.  How could I compile such a list?  The Lord says (speaking by the Apostle John in 2 John 1: 10) "If there come any unto you, and BRING NOT THIS DOCTRINE, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:"   It is only the Lord himself that can give any guidance, and only by His Word.  The sad names are ones that did not bring this doctrine.
You may think of me as tending towards “Universalism”.  That does not matter to me.  That is the same charge as that of false teachers (cf. Walther – Convention Essays, CPH, 1981, pg. 106).  For it is on God’s Word that I stand: John 3:16, 2 Cor 5: 18-19.  You are slipping on human reason.  How so?  With the sentence: “I myself prefer ‘objective reconciliation’ if we use ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ at all.”  How could this be a problem for me?  Because it tells me that you (Dr. John Drickhamer) would question me for strongly defending the term “Objective Justification”, just like Dr. Gregory Jackson does in his recent writings.  Now Larry Darby can point to Jackson and Drickhamer as partly justifying his unbelief with your disparagement of “Objective Justification”.  Both you and Jackson may protest this as too harsh.  May it be so! (too harsh)
But you remain in a synod (as far as I know) that allows doubt on this doctrine.  How so?  I will allow Theodore Gräbner to spell it out from his article “Lutheran Union” in the American Lutheran of December 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.”

I suspect you know something about the history of the Ohio and Iowa Synods regarding Objective/Universal Justification.  If you do not, they came to deny it by conditioning it on “faith”.  You are in the synod that came to agree with Ohio and Iowa (as shown by 1938 St. Louis resolutions and Gräbner’s quote), and has largely remained in agreement.  Oh, but you might say the LC-MS changed in the early 1970s with the shake-up.  I must grant honorable mention to Dr. J.A.O. Preus, President of the LC-MS.  Imagine my faith when I read his open letter to his brother, Dr. Robert Preus [see documentation here and here] when he questioned him on the teaching of Dr. Walter A. Maier, Jr. on this doctrine. No man has done more for defending Objective Justification in the latter half of the 20th Century in the LC-MS than Dr. J.A.O. Preus with this letter.  But I read some of the writings of Dr. Robert Preus, and find along with his “defense” also some confusion.  He lists Dr. Arndt’s article in CTM, 1943 pp 787-791 defending the ALC’s “God Purposes To Justify Those That Have Come to Faith”.  How Theodore Gräbner cherished this article!  It was Gräbner’s pride and joy for it defended his confusion on this doctrine.
Now I will give you some advice.  Read Dr. Franz Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics again.  Forgive my forwardness in suggesting this to so learned a man.  And I am not saying “learned” in a sneering sense.  But you must understand that there is no text that will spell out more clearly Christian doctrine than this text. Your suggestion to Darby to read a non-Lutheran was rather surprising to me for one who has referred people to F. Pieper in the past.  You wrote an article for a book entitled: “C.F.W. Walther – The American Luther” – a worthy title!  Now I will tell you something.  Franz Pieper – “The Twentieth Century Luther!”
Now I will tell you about the danger you are in.  It is the same as I wrote Rolf Preus:

(excerpt of letter to Rolf Preus contained in Part 6b of this series) 

I cannot be as kind to you as I was to Rolf Preus, for I fear there is in you a true slipping on this doctrine, and this doctrine is the heart of Christianity.  You are in worse danger!  And your “slipping” is doubly dangerous for those who would look to you for truth.  I had hoped that I could add John Drickhamer to my list of those who truly defended this doctrine when I first saw your recent CN article before reading it.  Unfortunately! I am farther now than ever from adding it. Darby has gotten you to agree to “oppose any distortion of any Biblical doctrine” with him.  Melancthon got Eck to agree to Justification by Faith also! The effect of your fellowship in today’s LC-MS is evident in the change of your writings from your beginning.
[Signed] Xxx Xxx [BackToLuther]
Indiana
Jeremiah 5:2, 6:14

Although Dr. Drickamer did not respond to me directly, he did respond in the pages of Christian News.  My next post Part 7b is my letter to him after he publicly responded to the above personal letter to him.