Berthold von Schenk – confusion, Part 10b (Justification & Scaer)

This continues from Part 10a (10 part series, Table of Contents on Part 1) presenting final quotes from the autobiography Lively Stones of Pastor Berthold von Schenk regarding the central doctrine of Christianity, or Justification.
We have reached bottom of the abyss of von Schenk's theology, one that calls into question the basic foundation of all Christianity.  What follows are my final comments on not only Berthold von Schenk, but also Prof. David P. Scaer who appears to be an admirer of him.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Berthold von Schenk speaks here of:

•  being "amused to tears" by Walther's doctrine of Justification.  
• "... a long time to define my attitude", 
• "spiritual measles" from old Missouri's doctrines

And then von Schenk "finally found peace theologically".  The "peace" that von Schenk found is the same "peace" the LC-MS offers to the world... a confused, mysterious, doubting "peace":

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

So many quotes of Luther, Walther, and Pieper come to mind that will bolster a true Lutheran against such broadside attacks on their faith by Pastor Berthold von Schenk of the new (English) LC-MS:

• Luther: 

• Damned is that love at the expense of doctrine.

• Walther: 

• Yes, there are not a few Lutherans who think that doctrine [of Justification] should be treated very lightly lest the hearers become too secure.

• Pieper: 

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

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

Prof. David P. Scaer

Now I come full circle to why I began this study of Berthold von Schenk – it was because of the recommendation of Prof. David P. Scaer of Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne (CTS-FW).  One of Prof. Scaer's adherents claimed to me the following of him:

Scaer is... a great teacher of Universal Justification who has preserved it and is restoring it to prominence in the daily lives of seminarians.

This is the same Scaer who said in his book review of Lively Stones this:

• This one is "a must" for Missourians... 
• In his lifetime von Schenk was not without his detractors, and Lively Stone has stirred up others, but few can match his record, from seminary days into his retirement, of turning around  impossible situations.
• He accomplished the impossible
• The editors guide the readers through von Schenk's teaching on the Lord's Supper, which may not be  as fully developed as most would  like.
• He did not get the support of  the district president because he favored communion every Sunday. (Imagine that!)
• Stories of  other ministers are waiting to be told. Until they are, this one holds first place. Readers will be informed, annoyed, and delighted. All this makes for a good read.

Could it be, Prof. David Scaer, that you need to "Go Back", go back to the Franz Pieper who you seem to extol in some of your articles... go back to where you learned the Lutheran Doctrine of Election of Grace, go back to Walther where it isn't a "law-gospel paradigm", but The Proper Distinction of Law and Gospel.  Go Back To Luther and then...

... and then, instead of calling Berthold von Schenk a "good read" who makes readers "delighted", you will rather say "read him and weep".

... and then it will begin to "resonate" that you are indeed what one of your adherents says of you:

...a great teacher of Universal Justification

-----------------------------
And so I end this series as I began it, where God demands that the glory be His alone, not ours:

Exodus 20:25 – And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.

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

This series has been almost too arduous for me and I've got to run away from the new (English) LC-MS for now.  I'm going to publish Pieper's installments of C.F.W. Walther as Theologian dealing with the doctrine of Justification – my Part 13 download on "General Justification", and Part 14 download on "Universal Justification".
- - - - - - - - - - - -
I may publish more of Berthold von Schenk (and Jaroslav Pelikan) when I read their published essays to the 1960 colloquy between "Evangelicals" and Roman Catholics before Vatican II.

Berthold von Schenk – confusion, Part 10a (Justification)

This continues from Part 9 (10 part series, Table of Contents on Part 1) presenting quotes from the autobiography Lively Stones of Pastor Berthold von Schenk.
We will now reach bottom of the abyss in this Part 10a – I will conclude this series with the portion of the book dealing the the Doctrine of Justification.  I first present the entire section where von Schenk dealt specifically with this doctrine, then I will extract portions for comments.

In this last part, I use the following notations:

• highlight the questionable portions in yellow, 
• the portions with some merit in green, 

------   Quotes from Lively Stones by Berthold von Schenk, comments by BackToLuther   ------

Page 93 – 94:
One must see beyond words, beyond material concepts.
We can also apply this principle to the central dogma of justifica­tion. There is also in our teaching the dangerous misunderstanding of the concept of justification by faith. The original meaning of the word "justification" was "condemnation." It is stated in ancient history that a certain judge justified 20,000 people-this meant that he had 20,000 people executed. This is really what happens when one accepts Christ -being baptized into Christ's life, suffering, and death. When I baptize a child, I condemn that child to die with Christ and also to rise with Christ. Justification means that when I accept Christ I am willing to live His life, die with Him, suffer with Him, and rise with Him-that is what repentance is. St. Paul said, "I die daily" (I Corinthians 15:31). Jesus said, "If you want to be my disciple, you must deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Me" (Matthew 16:24). That is justification. Of course, the merit is there before my baptism, before my surrender to Christ. This happened on Mt. Cal­vary and Easter morning. I appropriate this by faith. How wonder­fully Luther describes this in his "Introduction to St. Paul's Letter to the Romans," a description superior even to his commentary: "Es ist also der Glaube ein mächtig, kräftig Ding.  [So it is also that faith is a mighty, powerful thing.]  He does not ask what is to be done, but before the asking, the faithful have done it already.  Justification has developed into "cheap grace." When I was a youngster, we were given the notion that it is almost [?] sinful to do good works and feel good about it. A catechumen asked one of the fathers of the Missouri Synod if there was any doctrinal difference between the Lutherans of another synod and the Missouri Synod – he answered, "They believe in good works." This incomplete formula of justifica­tion has often amused me to tears. It took me a long time to define my attitude toward traditional Missourianism, or Waltherianism. After I had my "spiritual measles" and came to the realization of the signifi­cance of mysterion, I finally found peace theologically. At the same time, however, I came to realize why the Missouri theologians have so opposed liturgical theology. Many Missourians were quite angry with me when I tried to tell them that Missouri theology is most ratio­nalistic. I found their Lehrgerechtigkeit ("doctrine- righteousness") just as obnoxious as Werkgerechtigkeit ("works-righteousness"), perhaps more so. An observer who wrote a thesis on the Missouri Synod stated that Missouri stresses sola gratia ("grace alone") – I wish they were as concerned about pure love and had patience with those of us who have not had this kind of teaching.

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

Berthold von Schenk wrote a mouthful in this section of his book.  He spoke rather plainly of much confusion of Christianity.  Far beyond his criticism of "Missourianism" and "Waltherianism" is his confusion of the doctrine of Justification.  Here are some extracts:

1) Good works -- "almost sinful"

Page 94:  When I was a youngster, we were given the notion that it is almost sinful to do good works and feel good about it.

A recent correspondent told me that he likes to contemplate Luke 17:10 for his faith:

Luke 17:10 – So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

Now compare the above words of our Saviour to the words of Berthold von Schenk.  Jesus is saying that it is unprofitable for us to look at our works as meriting our salvation.  Who is right?  Von Schenk has twisted true teaching into a caricature.  I doubt the teachers of his youth were responsible for his confusion.

2) Justification = "willing to die with Him"

Page 94:  Justification means that when I accept Christ I am willing to live His life, die with Him, suffer with Him, and rise with Him-that is what repentance is.

I'm not a great theologian.  I'm just a simple Christian.  I believe any good faithful Lutheran theologian would be able to point out the fallacies in this statement.  But perhaps a good starting point for understanding is contained in the teaching concerning the lawyer in the story of the Good Samaritan.  Here is the verse (see my blog post here):

Luke 10:25 – But he, willing to justify himself,...

There is that word "justify".   He (a lawyer) wanted to justify himself before the Lord Jesus.  Von Schenk muddies the waters on what the meaning of "justify" or "justification" actually means.  Isn't the meaning of the word "justify" absolutely clear in the story of the Good Samaritan?  It appears von Schenk is confused on the basic doctrine of Christianity.

3) "Cheap grace"

Page 94:  Justification has developed into "cheap grace."

No, von Schenk, your caricature of "Justification" has horribly confused Law and Gospel.  Weren't you awake in class when the dear Prof. Franz Pieper hammered home to you continually the beautiful doctrines of sola gratia, gratia universalis, general justification, objective justification?  The Bible speaks of "grace", especially clearly in this passage:

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

The term "cheap grace" has also unfortunately been championed by another – Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

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

In Part 10b, I will review more of von Schenk, and return to the comments of Prof. David P. Scaer regarding him.

Berthold von Schenk – confusion, Part 9

This continues from Part 8 (10 part series, Table of Contents on Part 1) presenting quotes from the autobiography Lively Stones of Pastor Berthold von Schenk. In Part 9 of this series, I continue from page 141 onward.

In this series, I use the following notations:

• highlight the questionable portions in yellow, 
• the portions with some merit in green, 
• and my comments in red text

------   Quotes from Lively Stones by Berthold von Schenk, comments by BackToLuther   ------

Pg 141:  It has been taught that a person is unworthy if he does not believe that the bread is the true Body of Christ and the wine the true Blood. This is not what St. Paul said. Luther answered the question as to who is worthy at the celebration when he stated, "Those who have faith in these words, 'Given and shed for you for the remission of sins."'

Von Schenk quotes Luther against himself!... we are not supposed to believe Scripture when it says "This is My Body, This is My Blood"... what a travesty von Schenk makes of his "sacramental theology"!  Von Schenk's theology isn't truly sacramental, but sacrilegious.  How can a poor Christian believe "for the remission of sins" if he isn't supposed to believe the words "This is my Body", and "This is my Blood"?  It's OK with von Schenk to not believe Scripture just as long as congregations "celebrate" Holy Communion at every service!

Pg 142:  Is hell a reality or a myth to scare men to heaven?

There seems to be no hell for von Schenk.  I suppose this is to be expected from one who curses those who hold the Bible to be infallible.  Could von Schenk's error be his attempt to create his own gospel, instead of God's Gospel? I suppose I could call von Schenk heretical but he slips away posing this thought only as a question.

Luther did not improve on this [doctrine of transubstantiation] by his statement of the Real Presence as "in, with, and under."

Then why didn't von Schenk leave the Lutheran Church?

Pg 142:  How my appreciation of Christ, the Church, and the Bible has grown because I did as Jesus instructed, "Do this."

But Jesus said "It is finished".  I guess it wasn't finished for von Schenk because he 'did as Jesus instructed, "Do this"'.  Yup, von Schenk, you did a lot in this world... to confuse Christianity in your modern LC-MS.

Pg 143:

Appendix²⁵¹

Footnote 251 by editors Fry & Kurz:  Excerpts of the lecture presented by Berthold von Schenk at the Catholic-­Protestant Colloquy held at St. John's Abbey in Collegeville, Minnesota, December 1-3, 1960

 Factors That Unite Us: Protestant

There should be at least one cardinal point upon which agreement is readily apparent: the Reformation was unfortunate, unneces­sary, and had negative results for both sides.

This Colloquy was a prelude leading up to Vatican II.  Von Schenk was in good company with Jaroslav Pelikan. Thank you, von Schenk for providing your own condemnation which so clearly shows you (nor Pelikan) represented the true Lutheran Church – your "Reformation" was indeed "unfortunate, unnecessary, and had negative results for both sides".
-----------------------

But BackToLuther, you said before that there was something worse, a "rock bottom" point in our journey down the abyss of von Schenk's theology.  That is true, I skipped over pages 93 - 94 and saved the "lowest" for last.

Now go to Part 10, the conclusion of this series.

Berthold von Schenk – confusion, Part 8

This continues from Part 7 (10 part series, Table of Contents on Part 1) presenting quotes from the autobiography Lively Stones of Pastor Berthold von Schenk. In Part 8 of this series, I continue from page 124 onward.

In this series, I use the following notations:

• highlight the questionable portions in yellow, 
• the portions with some merit in green, 
• and my comments in red text

------   Quotes from Lively Stones by Berthold von Schenk, comments by BackToLuther   ------

Pg 124:  Am I really preaching the Gospel, challenging my people to full commit­ment to Jesus Christ?

But I thought the Gospel was that Jesus died for my sins, that none of my works or "commitment" was necessary for my salvation.

Pg 124:  I soon realized that our church was neither Christian nor Apostolic, and certainly not catholic.

Then why did you not leave the Missouri Synod since it "was not Christian"?  Weren't you a Christian, von Schenk?

Pg 124:  It was a thrill­ing ministry after I found out that my business was to promote Leiturgia, Missio, and Diakonia in the various rundown parishes I in­herited. I knew that I could not fail.

How could von Schenk "know" he could not fail?  Without the right doctrine of Justification, this "knowledge" is only a "power of positive thinking" as taught by his great preacher Norman Vincent Peale.  Is this maybe what President Matthew Harrison is promoting also with his "WMLT" slogan that seems to bypass the Doctrine of Justification?

Pg 125:  There were always a few members who re­signed because they just did not believe in sacramental worship. The pastors of neighboring churches, of course, welcomed these prodi­gals

These "prodigals" were like the seminary student who ran weeping away from Prof. Walther A. Maier Jr.

Pg 126:  Luther, of course, was not a liturgiologist, nor a sacramentalist. The most stupid thing which Luther let him­self in for was the Colloquy in Marburg with Ulrich Zwingli. How much time and thought has been wasted by insisting on absolute truth in dogmas! Luther fell into that trap in his contro­versy with Zwingli and split the Reformation. Zwingli had a much deeper understanding of the liturgy than we give him credit for, and his liturgy is far superior to that of Luther. The argument of dies bedeutet and dies ist ("this represents and this is") was sheer nonsense. In sci­entific language bedeutet and ist are the same thing. Luther was fight­ing windmills, and his position, "Ihr habt einem anderen Geist als wir,"  [You have a different spirit than us] was a tragic statement. 

Wow! What "sacramental theology!!! All Lutherans should set Luther aside and get the real story from the great "inspiration" of the new modern Gospel of Berthold von Schenk!!  Look and see, today's LC-MS, this is your favorite son!  Von Schenk is your great spiritual hero!!  Oh, but now one of your great theologians should do a "critical analysis" of him... because he is so great!  Not just anyone like Pastor Paul Robert Sauer. Yes, yes, it should be... Prof. David P. Scaer – Holder of the David P. Scaer Chair of Systematic and Biblical Theology, Chairman of Systematic Theology, Editor of Concordia Theological Quarterly!  After all, he is the one who gave the  article on Prof. Franz Pieper to the Reformed world in Handbook of Evangelical Theologians!

Pg 126 - 127:  Those familiar with John Calvin will also realize that he was a much more profound theologian than Luther. ²³⁰  Footnote 230 by editors Fry and Kurz:
For those puzzled or disturbed by these statements, clarification of von Schenk's thought is given in The Presence...

Why should we be "puzzled or disturbed" by these statements, editors Fry and Kurz?  Luther was not a liturgiologist, nor a sacramentalist, so why should we be disturbed?  No, no, I'm not disturbed – bring on your new renewals in liturgy and sacramental theology... I want more of von Schenk!  I can't get enough of him, and you say I might be "puzzled or disturbed"?  Von Schenk is speaking plainly here and you say I should be "puzzled or disturbed"?  Surely neither of you are "puzzled or disturbed".  Neither is Pastor Paul Robert Sauer.  Neither is Prof. David P. Scaer disturbed – von Schenk is a "good read" and Scaer gives us no warnings of his own (only a hint).  So why should I be "puzzled or disturbed"?

Pg 132:  The out­line of the liturgy shows how amazing and complete the ignorance of Walther and his "yes men" was.

Stupid Walther.

Pg 138: ...unfortunately Loehe's influence was diminished by Walther and Pieper's museum theology.

Not any more.  Prof. John T. Pless is making sure of this and applying Loehe's correctives to Walther's doctrine.

Pg 138: I pleaded with some faculty members in the late twenties to address liturgical theology, but they were either against liturgical renewal or considered it an adiaphoron.

We see how the old (German) Missouri Synod reacted in the true faith to von Schenk's dreams of converting adiaphoron (indifferent things, Mitteldinge) to Gospel.

Pg 138:  At Valparaiso, under the influence of O.P. Kretzmann, ... there is a liturgi­cal life. ... They conduct a solemn high Eucharist ev­ery Sunday morning in their magnificent chapel. ..., celebrating in that beautiful cathedral-like chapel seating some 3,000 students. The wonderful thing is to see that most of these students receive the Sacrament every Sunday.

Never mind that their Christian faith is being utterly confused by Valpo's (and the LC-MS) teaching... and in some cases lost.  But that does not matter to von Schenk.  There is no danger in the thought of ex opere operato – for von Schenk or Valparaiso.

Pg 139:  Of course I introduced the surplice, stole, and cassock (and later the traditional Eucharistic vestments), but this was because I did not like to celebrate the Eucharist in an academic gown! To my great regret, the traditional Eucharistic vestments are still quite common in use

Thanks for nothing, von Schenk, for neither your "surplice, stole, and cassock", or your "sacramental theology", a theology that played right along with my own sinful human nature as I fell from Christianity in my youth.

Pg 139:  The big problem, however, remains – the emphasis is still on liturgical haber­dashery. The Liturgical Movement, even at Valparaiso University is influenced by prettiness, along with liturgical romance and poetry.

Von Schenk dreams his theology is right because he says he is not like some of his followers ("friends") who take it too far ("liturgical haberdashery", "prettiness", "ecclesiastical dress-makers").  He thinks he is right because "the heart and soul of the movement is the desperate struggle to be the Church and to restore catholicity to our Lutheran Church." (see pg 53)  Rather his theology is largely false because it is confused from the beginning on the First Premise – the Doctrine of Justification.

Pg 141:  It has been taught that a person is unworthy if he does not believe that the bread is the true Body of Christ and the wine the true Blood. This is not what St. Paul said. Luther answered the question as to who is worthy at the celebration when he stated, "Those who have faith in these words, 'Given and shed for you for the remission of sins."'

Von Schenk quotes Luther against himself!... we are not supposed to believe Scripture when it says "This is My Body, This is My Blood"... what a travesty von Schenk makes of his "sacramental theology"!  Von Schenk's theology isn't truly sacramental, but sacrilegious.  How can a poor Christian believe "for the remission of sins" if he isn't supposed to believe the words "This is my Body", and "This is my Blood"?  It's OK with von Schenk to not believe Scripture just as long as congregations "celebrate" Holy Communion at every service!
-------------------
The next post is Part 9 in this series – (we will reach rock bottom in Part 10).

Berthold von Schenk – confusion, Part 7

This continues from Part 6 (10 part series, Table of Contents on Part 1) presenting quotes from the autobiography Lively Stones of Pastor Berthold von Schenk. In Part 7 of this series, I continue from page 102 onward.

In this series, I use the following notations:

• highlight the questionable portions in yellow, 
• the portions with some merit in green, 
• and my comments in red text

-------   Quotes from Lively Stones by Berthold von Schenk, comments by BackToLuther   -------

Pg 102:  I love the old bitch Missouri and owe her much. I don't think I would have gained the insights I did had I not experienced the rigid education I received in Missouri, my mother church

"Owe her much" – for what?  He says it was the "rigid education".  But could it be that he wanted to appear to the world to be religious since old Missouri appeared religious to the world?  Could it be he used the Missouri Synod label as a pretense?  ...  could it be that von Schenk represented not the old (German) Missouri Synod but today's new (English) LC-MS?

Pg 103:  I think Fuerbringer was a liberal.

Prof. Ludwig Fuerbringer succeeded Franz Pieper as Concordia Seminary president, during the time that a "living knowledge of the doctrine of Justification" was slipping away.

Pg 103:  Think of the current tragic situation in the Missouri Synod.  A new president [J.A.O. Preus] is elected, and all he could produce was a translation of Martin Chemnitz.  While Rome is burning, the president trans­lates Chemnitz- a museum theologian!

Von Schenk calls the "Second Martin" a "museum theologian".  Martin Chemnitz is one of the greatest Lutheran theologians behind Martin Luther.  But von Schenk's scathing remarks are to be expected as he also impunes Luther, Walther and Pieper, so Chemnitz is in good company!  I will worship in their "museum", the Lutheran Church!

Pg 104: I know his name [J.A.O. Preus] in the future will be uttered only in contempt.

Of course, because today's LC-MS is confused on the true teaching of Universal, Objective Justification!

Pg 104:  The best thing which has ever happened to the St. Louis seminary happened because of the attacks of [J.A.O.] Preus. The situation has changed and the seminary now has some outstanding liturgical scholars.

Thank you, von Schenk, for telling all the world that today's LC-MS has changed... changed away from the old pure teaching of Justification to all kinds peripheral issues – indifferent things (adiaphoron), such as "Liturgy Renewal".

Pg 105:  Doubts and heresies are not sinful -these are a part of development,

Stark, raving madness!  I almost choked as I read this.  Martin Luther fought the hardest against the monster of uncertainty!

Pg 107:  I was shocked at the theology which Walther gave us when he made the claim that the Missouri Synod, holding fast to the Word and the peculiar Waltherian definition of dogmas, was the true visible Church

Walther did not say the "Missouri Synod" was the true Church but rather the "Evangelical Lutheran Church" was the visible Churc. The Bible teaches the Church proper, or the invisible Church, is made up of all who believe that their sins are forgiven for the sake of the vicarious satisfaction worked by Christ... what Walther taught.  Read Walther's Church and Ministry.

Pg 107:  ... the signs and marks of a synod or con­gregation are the proclamation of the Gospel

What Gospel?  What is the Gospel, von Schenk?

Pg 108, footnote 178 by editors Fry & Kurz:  He was quite pointed in his rebuke of the Missouri Synod's position: "A group which insists on purity of doctrine, without an equal insistence on life and experi­ence, and establishes an isolationist policy, separating itself from others, finds its precursor in the school of the Pharisees at the time of Christ" (ThePresence, p. 157).

This is to be expected from the one who curses the doctrines surrounding the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture (see Pg 90).  Insanity!

Pg 109:  The American Committee was in touch with the Unitarian Church, which had been appointed by President Truman as the relief agency to work among Protestants in Germany.

The Unitarian "Church" is outside the pale of Christianity.  Yes, "Give 'em hell, Harry!" ... and the same for Pastor von Schenk?

Pg 117 - 118:  ...the question directed to me was: "What is the Church?". ...  Dr. Walther would have answered, "It is the Missouri Synod, because they preach and teach pure doctrine."

This is an outright falsehood!  Walther taught the Church was made up of all who believed the Gospel!

Pg 119:  I lectured at a number of Roman Catholic universities in the United States, but never at any Lutheran college or seminary  -that's what lies and gossip can do to a man!

Von Schenk would be practically mobbed by today's Lutheranism to speak to them!  And in fact the editors pointed out  in footnote 216 that von Schenk was forgetting that O.P.Kretzmann had him for 5 weeks at Valparaiso University.  Did von Schenk not think Valpo was Lutheran?... a slip of the tongue?

Pg 123:  To this day I love to preach revival ("Come to Jesus") sermons.  ...

Surely you don't mean "accept Jesus" or "choose Jesus" or "make a decision for Christ" as Armenianism (Methodism, etc.) means? ... since you call yourself a Lutheran, don't you mean to say to believe Him as as your Saviour from your sins?  Since you call yourself a Lutheran preacher, don't you preach that we are dead in our sins and therefore can't "come to Jesus" except by believing?

Pg 123:  Cheap grace cannot move the sinner who is seeking what he needs.

That's right... grace is free... didn't you know that von Schenk?  It's what Walther, Pieper, and Luther taught you in their "museum theology".  "Cheap grace" is also a term used by Bonhoeffer.

Pg 124:  ... the official worship of a congregation without the celebration of the Sacrament is likewise also a blasphemy.

I'm thankful that I attended many "blasphemous" worship services where Holy Communion was not celebrated.  Too bad it was so "blasphemous" to just hear the Word of Grace, the Word of the Gospel message. But surely von Schenk does not mean to teach the ex epere operato effectiveness of the sacrament, does he??  He must have overlooked warning against this deadly error...

Pg 124:   The Holy Spirit only functions through the means of grace.

Franz Pieper: "All praise of Christ, of grace, and of the means of grace, without the right doctrine of justification, is nothing."  Von Schenk's statement is true but his confusion on the Doctrine of Justification carried over to his confusion on the means of grace.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

More in the next Part 8.

Berthold von Schenk – confusion, Part 6

[2018-11-09: broken link on Matthias Loy updated]
This continues from Part 5 (10 part series, Table of Contents on Part 1) presenting quotes from the autobiography Lively Stones of Pastor Berthold von Schenk. In Part 6 of this series, I continue from page 92 onward.

In this series, I use the following notations:

• highlight the questionable portions in yellow, 
• the portions with some merit in green, 
• and my comments in red text

-------   Quotes from Lively Stones by Berthold von Schenk, comments by BackToLuther   -------

Pg 92:  The tragic split of the Ohio Synod and the Missouri Synod happened because of language.

False. It was because the Ohio Synod could not accept the Bible's doctrine of Election of Grace, that salvation was not based "in view of faith".  The editors Fry and Kurz follow the error of the Ohio Synod and yet C. George Fry is one of the authors in a CPH book edited by Robert Preus, Contemporary Look at the Formula of Concord – what a travesty.  The Ohio Synod later openly denied the Doctrine of Justification and called the old (German) Missouri Synod heretical.  Berthold von Schenk spoke like the Ohio Synod after it left the Synodical Conference.  And his follower, C. George Fry, continues to spread false theology and church history today, e.g. his article [in Ohio History Journal] on the Ohio Synod's Matthias Loy. [2018-11-09:Links broken to article but see Fry's article in 1974 Springfielder here.]

Pg 92:  How much time and thought has been wasted by insisting on absolute truth in dogmas! Luther fell into that trap in his controversy with Zwingli and split the Reformation. I am referring to the dispute over two words das ist ("this is") and das bedeutet ("this signifies"). Philo­sophically, the two expressions are the same.

Who are you going to believe?  Luther's Small Catechism or the great Berthold von Schenk?

Pg 93:  The creation of the world was spiri­tual, yet I would not deny one sentence of Genesis 1.... Literalistic interpretations finally rob us of the spiritual dimension. ...  We see the mysterion in creation ... This same principle of the natural and spiritual also applies to Bap­tism and the Lord's Supper. One must see beyond words,

"The creation of the world was spiritual" --  in other words, not physical or actual; yet he claims that he "would not deny one sentence of Genesis 1".  Von Schenk "speaks with forked tongue".  Von Schenk gropes in the dark when he "sees beyond words" ... sees beyond God's Word.

Pg 95-96:  The Missouri Synod was the last hope, but what a pity that Walther separated himself from Loehe, one of the few true lights in Lutheranism who believed with Gerhard that the church which is not catholic is not the Church.

Prof. John T. Pless of CTS-FW sounds a lot like von Schenk here – Loehe is a "corrective" to Walther's teaching.

Pg 96:  ... the church which is not catholic is not the Church

This statement is true –  the true church will be the church for all times.  But von Schenk misunderstands what "catholic" means – the church universal with historical continuity.  It is Martin Luther who restored it and linked today's church through all of history when he proclaimed the true Gospel again.  Von Schenk only clouds the meaning of "catholic" by basing it not on the true Gospel but in unionism – unity without agreement in doctrine.

Pg 96:  Walther made an audacious claim when he said, "Die Evangelische Lutherische Kirche (which accepted his twenty-five theses) [ist] die wahre sichtbare Kirche auf Erden." (The Evangelical Lutheran Church is the true visible Church on Earth).  At least the Bible does not make this claim.

Berthold von Schenk - the great friend of the Bible!

Pg 96:  Walther neglected the true marks of the Church and substituted creedalism, moralism, and ritualism. 

Rather he restored them by bringing again the true doctrine of Justification!

Pg 96:  The marks of the Church are: ... 3) the preaching of the Gospel that God was in Christ reconciling the world with Himself;

Who taught von Schenk this doctrine?  How is it that he can slip in the Gospel among all his false teachings?  DO NOT believe his statement here because he, the great Berthold von Schenk said it, but rather because God said it – 2 Cor. 5:19 —> To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Pg 96 - 97:  The church I knew as a child had done this very thing by making so-called "pure doctrine," or creedalism, a mark of the "true church." ¹⁶² The effort at purity of doctrine deteriorated into a Lehrgerechtigkeit far more serious than works-righteousness. For when one gets down to brass tacks, what right do we have to separate faith from works? The distinction between Law and Gospel is clear, but is purity of doctrine faith?¹⁶³

Do you believe 2+2=5?  No?  Why not? It's not true you say?  You're a "stuck-in-the-mud" Lutheran, a "creedalist" who is concerned only about "pure doctrine", "reine Lehre"!  We must not warn those who believe 2+2=5 but we must be concerned with "catholicity", "ecumenism", "unity in love"!

Footnote 163 by editors Fry and Kurz:  In a personal letter to the Concordia Historical Institute (December 16, 1972), von Schenk wrote in further clarification: "I am not opposed to efforts of purity of doctrine. The chief objective of Synod is to regain our catholicity.  This was Luther's objective.... This was my main objective in promoting the liturgical renewal."

"I am not opposed to efforts of purity of doctrine." – Why did von Schenk say this?  Was there still a spark of life from the old (German) Missouri Synod ("Mother Missouri") that would not completely go out?

Von Schenk makes "catholicity" = unionism. Then this is precisely where von Schenk and all modern theology totally misunderstands Luther... and Walther and Pieper.

Pg 97:  The condition qua non of purity in our peculiar theology is far more dangerous than anything in Masonry.

Masonry, or Freemasonry, is anti-Christian by teaching salvation by works.  But to Berthold von Schenk, this does not seem to matter...  pure doctrine is "more dangerous" than Masonry! This is utter confusion of Law and Gospel!

Pg 97 - 98:  Concerning moralism, no one can deny that the fathers of the Missouri Synod were strongly influenced by Pietism; Walther's booklet Tanz and Theater ("Dance and Theater") is an example....   I recall a fine young girl, full of life and vitality, a faithful church worker, Sunday school teacher, and so forth; she was always ready to serve and attended church services every Sunday, but she loved to dance. The pietistic Dr. Walther had forbidden dancing and theater, so the pastor, to be orthodox, had to do what this pope in sheep's clothing had commanded. This young lady came to register for the Holy Communion, and the pastor asked if she had given up dancing. With tears in her eyes she told him, "No, I have not." He then refused her permission to make her Communion the following Sunday.

It is to be expected that von Schenk, who is confused on the Doctrine of Justification, should call Walther "pietistic" and a "pope in sheep's clothing".

Pg 98 - 99:  Walther was as much an anti­-Holy Spirit as was the Council of Trent .... Waltherian theology took Synod out of history, as did the Council of Trent the Roman Church...  history is concerned not solely with the past but also with a vision of the future. The Council of Vatican II recognized this and at least tacitly confessed it.

Now we come to the "here and now" that President Matthew Harrison speaks of.  Vatican II was (and is) recognized by modern theology as having a "vision of the future".

Pg 102:  Missouri ... has something which to this day I can't define. ... it has little deity

What "deity" is von Schenk speaking of? Who is this "deity" that old Missouri taught from 2 Cor. 5:19: "that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them"? Haven't you read the Bible, von Schenk?
----------------------------------

Von Schenk's tirade is in full swing now, but we still aren't at the bottom of this canyon yet.  Next is Part 7.

Berthold von Schenk – confusion, Part 5

This continues from Part 4 (10 part series, Table of Contents on Part 1) presenting quotes from the autobiography Lively Stones of Pastor Berthold von Schenk. In Part 5 of this series, I continue from page 89 onward.

In this series, I use the following notations:

• highlight the questionable portions in yellow, 
• the portions with some merit in green, 
• and my comments in red text

-------   Quotes from Lively Stones by Berthold von Schenk, comments by BackToLuther   -------

 Pg 89:  I never doubted the dogma of the authority of Scripture, but

But what? ... see next entry.  Hmmm, are you telling the truth here Pastor von Schenk?

Pg 89:  ... but this dead concept and absolutism has no life or mystery in it. The Mis­souri Synod theology of inspiration has been tragic. To accept the St. Louis definition of the Bible robs me of the Bible, its mysticism, its possibilities, and great uses.

"dead concept", "absolutism", "tragic" theology of inspiration, St. Louis robbed von Schenk of the Bible, "mysticism"....  But von Schenk, your notion of a "dead concept" is the Christian's only source of assurance, his only hope in this life... and you call it "tragic"?  The sacraments which you supposedly champion lose all their comfort when you take away their basis from the divinely inspired Scriptures.

Pg 90:  I love Scripture, but...
I don't want to deny the infallibility of the Bible, although ...
Yet I will not argue about it or deal with them (dogmas on Scripture's infallibility) negatively.
I am not even interested in the ...  Biblical higher criticism

But what?  Although what?  Yet what?  What's the matter von Schenk... something bothering you as you "hate Bibliolatry and Biblicism", the "theology of inspiration"?  Could it be that you could not rid yourself completely of  all the pure teaching from Prof. Franz Pieper and other faithful St. Louis professors?

Pg 90:  "... I hate Bibliolatry and Biblicism. ...  I wince at the statement I was taught: "The Holy Spirit inspired the holy writers of the Bible what to write and how to write." All these articles or dogmas are more or less obnoxious to me. ... the very worthy work of Biblical higher criticism

How von Schenk spues out his hatred of "Biblicism" and prefers "mysticism".  Did he get a little red-faced as he wrote these words?  I am leaving out other quotes of von Schenk on this page and page 93 as I can hardly stand his tirades against God and His Word. 

Pg 90:  But I can't accept the traditional teaching of biblical inspiration which I learned as a child; I can't accept it because it does not satisfy me- it is not enough for me.

... just as Pastor Martin Noland isn't satisfied with the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

Pg 90:  I think the literalists have done even more harm to the Bible than the higher critics, but still, I curse both of their houses.

Berthold von Schenk here goes a step I wish he had not taken... cursing those who take the Bible literally, in the sense of divine inspiration.  He is "cursing" me... for the basis of my Christian faith.  So I suppose it is to be expected that Pastor Paul McCain tells me to "return to Christ", even though I believe the Bible when it says that God is reconciled to the whole world, that the whole world is justified in Christ even before faith.

Read these words and weep, you students of theology under Prof. David Scaer and others who commend Berthold von Schenk!  I have left out other quotes of von Schenk on this page as I can hardly stand his tirades.

Pg 91:  ... and yet I believe that "holy men" spoke by the inspiration of God.

I'm not sure I believe you, Pastor von Schenk, after what you just said on Page 90.

Pg 91:  Luther had a healthy view of the Bible. He believed in the Bible because he be­lieved in Jesus Christ; he did not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ be­cause he believed in the Bible.

Von Schenk attempts to destroy the only basis for a Christian's faith, the divinely inspired Scriptures... and in his madness, he tries to force Martin Luther into his mold!

Pg 91:  Mythos [myth]  is not always an expression of doubt; it can also be a way to faith. We need to rediscover the myth.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary offers several definitions of the word "myth".  But in popular usage, it is largely used in a perjorative sense –"an unfounded or false notion".   Think "mythbusters".  Do you believe "an unfounded or false notion"?  Or do you believe the truth?

2 Thessalonians 2:11 – And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

Pg 91 - 92:  There was a time when I was extremely troubled about Genesis 1; I just could not take the six day creation miracle. The more my orthodox professors insisted that I accept this myth the more opposed I became to the six twenty-four hour creation days. Today I consider Genesis 1 the greatest chapter ever writ­ten in all of literature. One does not handle what one thinks is a myth by a denial of truth.

More on von Schenk's "mythologizing" of the Bible.  He does exactly the same thing as Prof. James Barr, a scholar who also claimed to be a friend of the Bible by saying we should believe the Bible because it is "literal", not because it is true.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

We are descending now deeper into the abyss of von Schenk's theology.  But we are not at the bottom yet!  Remember, this is a highly regarded pastor in today's LC-MS.  The next post is Part 6.