What today's Church lacks (Pieper's Dogmatik)

      Continuing my project of presenting the full text of Franz Pieper's original Christliche Dogmatik.... (Vol. 1a fully proofed, proofing Vol 1b...)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      From page 410 of Volume 1 (or page 340 of English edition), my translation; underlining in original German text:

Even if we did not have all the newer text-critical work, but rather had to rely on the textus receptus, on which both Luther's translation of the Bible as well as the English Authorized Version [KJV] are substantially based, so the Christian Church of our time would not yet be poorer in its knowledge of divine truth. The Church of our time lacks not a fixed biblical text, but rather lacks faith in the text sufficiently fixed.

         – President Franz Pieper, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
If anyone is reading any other theological work produced in the last 85 years since Pieper's death in 1931, that theological work is not as good (or is detrimental) for producing and sustaining the Christian faith (i.e. the true faith founded on the prophets and apostles) as ... Franz Pieper's Christliche Dogmatik (or Christian Dogmatics).

The Roman Church ≠ the Bible Church (Part 2: Cardinal Gibbons speaks today)

      Continuing from Part 1 where Franz Pieper identified the Lutheran Church as the Church of the Bible, now he presents the plain writing of "our American representative of Rome" to identify the opposite Church.  James Cardinal Gibbons had authored the book Faith of our Fathers in 1876 and  Pieper quotes Gibbons from an 1894 edition beginning with a preface (see corresponding 1905 edition Google Books):

But without reserve our American representative of Rome, Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore, represents Rome's fundamental tenet concerning the obscurity of the Scriptures: "The Scriptures are not of themselves clear and intelligible even in matters of the highest importance."

James Cardinal Gibbons

But I want to do Pieper one better.  I want to reprint Cardinal Gibbons' entire paragraph – in all its Romanist glory!:

We must, therefore, conclude that the Scriptures alone cannot be a sufficient guide and rule of faith because they cannot, at any time, be within the reach of every inquirer; because they are not of themselves clear and intelligible even in matters of the highest importance, and because they do not contain all the truths necessary for salvation.  – James Cardinal Gibbons - Archbishop of Baltimore

Now someone might claim that Cardinal Gibbons' statement may not apply for today since it was originally published in 1876 and is therefore "long gone".  Then I would have to reply with the question: Why has Cardinal Gibbons' book been republished in America and elsewhere almost continuously from 1876 to 2015... why are there 25 pages of editions in WorldCat if Gibbons' book does not represent official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church?  And why were there 4 pages of editions in the year 1917?... the 400th Anniversary of the Reformation?  Do you suppose there will be another official edition in the year 2017?

What?  Did somebody say this teaching of Gibbons is the same as that of a highly respected professor at Concordia Theological Seminary-Fort Wayne?  If so... Fort Wayne, meet your American forerunner in the Roman church... who was not Richard John Neuhaus.  (Just sayin')

Sola Scriptura! Scripture alone!

The Lutheran Church = the Bible Church (Dogmatik), Part 1 of 2

      Continuing my project of presenting the full text of Franz Pieper's original Christliche Dogmatik.... (Vol. 1a fully proofed, proofing Vol 1b...)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      One of the more striking aspects of the old (German) Missouri Synod was its tenacious attitude toward the words of Holy Scripture.  In the German edition of Volume 1 (pages 390-391; English ed. page 323), Pieper summarizes the lofty position of the Lutheran Church, besides that of its pure Doctrine of Justification:

The following is my translation from German edition. Underlining in original German. All highlighting is mine:

It is characteristic of the Lutheran Church that it is not based on an exegesis, not even on the exegesis of Luther, but its teaching is based on the words of Scripture itself, while Papists and Reformed, in all the teachings in which they differ from the Lutheran Church, evidently do not stand on the Scripture itself, but on an "exegesis" of the Pope, Zwingli, Calvin, etc. – President Franz Pieper

This statement by Pieper reminded me of a pastor in Walther's day who made the following striking statement as reported by Franz Pieper (see here):

Pastor Hochstetter, who took part in the colloquy arranged with the Iowa Synod in 1867 at Milwaukee, writes: “It was then first really clear to me (Pastor Hochstetter had recently come from the Buffalo Synod to the Missouri Synod) “that the strength of the Missourian teachers lay not so much in their dependence upon the Symbols, as rather in their reverence for God’s Word!  Isaiah 66:2.  There the maxim was: ‘Everything is Church doctrine which is Bible doctrine, whether it is contained and established in the Symbols or not, if only it is in Holy Scripture’.”  (Geschichte der Missouri-Synode, page 288. [in Google Books!])

Hochstetter even went one step further, naming the "Symbols" or the Lutheran Confessions as below the Scriptures as the source of the teachings of the Lutheran Church.  —  Would to God today's LC-MS lived up to its "conservative" reputation that is largely based on the old (German) Missouri Synod, not on what is taught by its teachers today.

Now for the ultimate contrast to the above teaching, see Part 2...

Bible– Obscure Book? For who? (see Dogmatik)

      Continuing my project of presenting the full text of Franz Pieper's original Christliche Dogmatik.... (Vol. 1a fully proofed, proofing Vol 1b...)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      Pieper's whole heading of Properties of Holy Scripture in Volume 1 is breathtaking for a Christian.  He addresses the subjects of Authority, Efficacy, Sufficiency, and Perspicuity.  While proofing the sub-section of Perspicuity (or clarity), I was struck by Pieper's identification of those who find the Scriptures dark or obscure.  This is on pages 388-389 of the German edition, pages 321-322 in English edition.
      Pieper lists 3 reasons why the Scriptures are obscure for some.  The first has to do with not knowing the language of Scripture and not studying it adequately to understand how it speaks.  I will leave the reader to study this first reason.  But I want to present the other 2 reasons on this blog post – why the Word remains hidden to some.

The following is my translation from German edition. Underlining in original German. All highlighting is mine:

2. The Scripture itself explicitly says that its Word remains hidden to those who hold a hostile heart against God’s Word, that is, those who do not learn from Scripture, but rather teach the Scriptures to their people from their own thoughts and want to align them so.  This is the reason for the darkness of the divine Word stated in Matt. 11:25:"Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and hast revealed them unto babes."  Likewise, 2 Cor. 4:3: "But if our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."  God has given us people His Word in order thereby to take away our own perverted thoughts of God and divine matters.  Now if we do not want our own thoughts to be taken away, but hang on to them, oppose God's thoughts, and so judge God in His Word, so shall the judgment come upon us so often mentioned in Scripture that God's Word appears dark and troublesome to us.  (Is. 6:9-10; Acts 28:25-27; Rom. 9:31-33; 10:21; 11:7-10; Matt. 13:13-15 ff.)

3. The written words also remain dark to those who are so occupied by prejudices against certain Scripture doctrines that they no longer even outwardly pay attention to the relevant words in question.  So many Reformed remain hidden from Christ’s words of Holy Communion by a false interpretation heard from their youth. When these words of Christ: "This is my body" are heard or read, so they immediately insert into their thoughts: "This signifies My body" or, "This is a sign of My body."  They gloss over the words of Scripture with a human interpretation.  The same can be said of the later Lutheran teachers who teach an election to salvation ex praevisione fidei finalis [Ed.- in view of final faith or intuitu fidei], although the Scriptures in the passages that deal with the state of faith of Christians here in time represent the Christian’s faith as a consequence and effect of their eternal election, as also the theologians of the 16th century and the Formula of Concord teach.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
So what might be an endeavor for a theologian who finds the Scriptures obscure or dark?  One might attempt to call the Holy Scriptures "plastic"...

A test for unbelief... for today's LC-MS: Michaelis and Noland, Testimony of the Holy Spirit

      Continuing my project of presenting the full text of Franz Pieper's original Christliche Dogmatik.... (Vol. 1a fully proofed, proofing Vol 1b...)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Johann David Michaelis

      While proofing Vol. 1b, page 378 (English ed. pg 313), I ran across Pieper's discussion of a rather famous German Lutheran theologian from the 1700s (18th century).  His name was Johann David Michaelis (1717-1791).  He was a Hebrew language scholar of highest distinction gaining "nearly a worldwide reputation in theological circles".  He was also noted for having a confession that 

"...he had never felt a witness of the Holy Spirit of the divinity of Scripture in his whole life..."

What struck me when reading of this "famous and eloquent German biblical scholar" was his similarity to the well-known Pastor Martin Noland of the LC-MS.  Pastor Noland essentially professed the same confession when he said:

"Francis Pieper answered the rationalist problem of certainty by appeal­ing to the doctrine of the testimonium Spiritus Sancti and by asserting that "theology is the perfect science, the only reliable science on earth."  Frankly, these answers of Pieper did not solve the problems posed by rationalism." [bolding mine]

But let us go on to the "answers of Pieper" regarding Michaelis.  He said

"But that he [Michaelis] did not have and could not have the testimony of the Holy Spirit later in his life is explained by the fact that he denied the Scripture doctrine of Christ's satisfactio vicaria, and founded the divine forgiveness of sins on the moral improvement of man. The Holy Spirit is not confirmed by a pagan works doctrine but is testified externally in Scripture and inwardly in the heart by the action of faith in the Scripture that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures." [ref. 1 Cor. 15:3]

So Pieper judges Michaelis because he not only denied a witness of the Holy Spirit, but also explains this blindness by its root cause – he denied the Scripture doctrine of Christ's vicarious satisfaction, and replaced it with a "moral improvement of man".   That is the HEART of UNBELIEF.  That explains his denial of the divinity of Scripture.  Deny Scripture and you DENY CHRISTIANITY.  Michaelis could not believe the divinity of Scripture because he did not believe his sins were already paid for.

This leaves us with the statements of Pastor Martin Noland, for if he really believes there must be a rational explanation for God as Michaelis did (and many others today!), then one is left with the very unpleasant question of whether he actually believes the Gospel of Christ's vicarious satisfaction for his sins.  One must hope that Pastor Noland is quite inconsistent in his beliefs, or that his teachings exhibit what old Missouri called a "happy inconsistency".

But you and I, dear reader, are not allowed by God to equivocate and demand rationalistic answers as Pastor Martin Noland does and those that question our Bible in today's LC-MS... God says we are to take Him AT HIS WORD AND BELIEVE IT:

Gal. 2:16 – Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

New Luther book: Indulgences, 95 Theses (MacKenzie's folly, Frederick's strength); Brand Luther

Brand Luther
by Andrew Pettegree

      Following a previously released new book on Luther, now comes another one, this time by a Scottish scholastic (St. Andrews University) with his report on a life of Luther, Brand Luther by Andrew Pettegree.   I approach these new books with apprehension assuming each will be another flawed attempt to present the Reformer to today's modern world.  Although I was somewhat pleasantly surprised with the last book, this one follows the mold set by the editors and most of the translators of the American Edition of Luther's Works, and virtually all other modern writers, "Lutheran" or otherwise.  (Pettegree appears not to be a Lutheran.)

      How does it disappoint?  First of all, the title itself makes one wonder that Pettegree should have serialized this book in the Wall Street Journal as it labels Luther's "success" more due to his business talent or luck than anything related to spiritual matters.

      And although Pettegree seemingly would find fault with Indulgences by the Roman Catholic Church, yet he exposes his blindness on page 57:

"… no doubt that whole process [of Indulgences] had … been monetized.  This was not all bad.  The proceeds from indulgences enabled many churches to embark on rebuilding programs that would otherwise have been beyond them.  The precious certificates brought comfort to many sincere Christians anxious for the fate of their own souls and those of their departed relatives. Among the greatest beneficiaries were those who supported this great industry ..."

I could hardly believe what I was reading, for Pettegree justifies the use of Indulgences!... as long as they "enable churches to embark on rebuilding programs and [bring] comfort to many sincere Christians anxious for the fate of their own souls".  The "willful heedlessness" of Luther hurt all those church rebuilding programs, hurt all those sincere Christians by exposing the lie behind these "precious certificates".  In any way that Pettegree attempts to present himself as any kind of "church historian" or an authority on the spiritual nature of the Reformation, this portion nullifies him... but maybe not in business matters.  Indeed, this book has some value in the history of the business of "printing", hence the title "Brand Luther".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

      But 2 items finally prompted me to publish a blog post on this book.  The first was Pettegree's revelation of a comment by Luther in his later life concerning his Ninety-Five Theses.  At least there is some value in a report of Luther's own comment about himself, even if it is revealed here by Pettegree.  My interest in the Ninety-Five Theses stems from a statement made by Prof. Cameron MacKenzie (CTS-FW) which judged both Walther and Luther in an essay "celebrating" Walther in 2011:

(page 268) Clearly, Walther understands "gospel" in the Ninety-five Theses as Luther and Lutherans later defined it; many of us today would be hesitant to understand the theses in a similar manner.  But Walther's "mistake" – if we can call it that [?] – arose out of a misunderstanding of Luther's biography.  For Walther, Luther had come to a correct understanding of justification by faith before the Indulgence Controversy.  Already at the time of his pil­grimage to Rome when he climbed to the top of Pilate's stairway, he heard a voice resounding in his head, "The just shall live by faith." That Luther came to his new understanding of the gospel at that time or shortly there­after was a commonplace in Luther biographies at the time...

Indeed, Prof. MacKenzie said a mouthful! He says: 

"many of us today would be hesitant to understand the theses in a similar manner."  

Could it be that MacKenzie's "many of us" do not understand what the "gospel" actually is?  And wouldn't that mean that MacKenzie does not understand the import of the Ninety-Five Theses?

Pettegree reports that Luther too, like Mackenzie, passed judgment on his own Ninety-Five Theses, on page 73:

Luther, looking back on these events, did not take any great pride in the ninety-five theses.  Had he had any sense of their likely impact, he told a later correspondent, he would have taken far more care with them.

Luther did not hold up his Ninety-Five Theses to be as good as his later (and purer) teaching, neither did he reject them as not having Gospel teaching, only that he would have refined them.  I wonder that Prof. Cameron MacKenzie's teaching "resonates" (or "engages"?) with that of Andrew Pettegree who calls the Indulgences "precious certificates"?  I shudder to think what MacKenzie's "gospel" is...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

      But here too Pettegree reports another aspect of the events surrounding the Ninety-Five Theses.  It relates to Elector Frederick's relationship to Luther during the events surrounding the Theses.  I have often wondered about Frederick's use of relics even after Luther's warnings against them.  How could he possibly continue with them after Luther's warning??  Even Wikipedia reports that "...he had little personal contact with Luther himself", and "He is considered to have remained a Roman Catholic all his life..."  Then it struck me as Pettegree reported the events in this manner (page 73):

"Although the ninety-five theses were squarely aimed at Tetzel and Albrecht, Frederick’s foe, if the elector had chosen to take offense, as well he might, Luther was finished." [emphasis added]

Pettegree does a marvelous job of stating what virtually all of today's "church historians" ignore.  He said that Elector Frederick's propensity to "finish" Luther was this:

"... as well he might,"

Pettegree had earlier pointed out how much Frederick had invested in his relics and gathered them at Wittenberg for his collection – according to Wikipedia an "inventory of 1518 listed 17,443 items". Even after Luther's warnings against putting any spiritual value in them as far as obtaining forgiveness of sins, Frederick did not immediately get rid of them.  Elector Frederick had always been a mystery to me.  These relics were his pride and joy!  Oh, but were they?  If they were so precious to him, then why did Elector Frederick not "finish" Luther?  He stood to lose a lot of money and prestige, not to mention putting himself in jeopardy with the Pope!  He could have easily squashed this new teaching! He could have taken great offense at Luther... "as well he might"!

But ask yourself: "Did Elector Frederick 'finish' Luther?"

All "church historians" report that he did not!  Could it be that the Gospel message of the Ninety-Five Theses was working in him?  Could it be that God worked a faith in Elector Frederick in the true Gospel, a Gospel that Prof. Cameron MacKenzie of Concordia Theological Seminary-Fort Wayne himself admits that he cannot see (just a "gospel")?  Could it be that if Cameron MacKenzie were in the place of Elector Frederick at that time, there would have been NO REFORMATION?... no restored Gospel?... no Church of the Reformation?... and Cameron MacKenzie would have "finished" Luther... as he does today?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      I will continue to read Pettegree's book for background information on Luther's life, but not for any spiritual content.  At least Pettegree's faults (as a non-Lutheran) are a little easier to stomach than the outright poison of the LC-MS professor at CTS-FW, Cameron MacKenzie who doesn't seem to understand what the "gospel" is. 

2 Tim. 3:7 – Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

American Civil War and... the Missouri Synod

      Continuing my project of presenting the full text of Franz Pieper's original Christliche Dogmatik....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      About 20 years ago, as I devoured everything I could find of the writings of the "altlutherische" Missourisynode, I wondered at times how the Civil War affected them.  As I scoured the "Convention Essays", Lehre und Wehre, and Der Lutheraner through the early years, there was almost a strange silence on the matter of the war that ravaged America.  --  Today's church historians like to spend time discussing the Civil War, but this seems more due to their lack of understanding of the old (German) Missouri Synod.  The old (German) Missouri Synod barely even mentioned the war.  Why?  Today's history treats this war as having a major impact on everyone who lived through it, so why was there almost no information on the events of the American Civil War?  --
      Then Franz Pieper largely answered that question in his Christliche Dogmatik, Vol. 1a, pg 195 (page 167, n. 228 in English edition), presented below in my translation. All highlighting is mine:

We would like to make a point relating to the unity in doctrine. This complete agreement in doctrine has given offense in this country and also in Germany, and there have often been made quite irrelevant comments and even attempts to show this as a result of submission under the authority of one man.  Nothing can be more perverse. We have known most fathers of the synod in person. They were not only fundamentally different, but partly also very strong and independent characters, so that, humanly speaking, it could be expected that they would soon move apart in different directions. That this did not happen appeared to us ever more as a testimony to the unifying power of God's Word.  The various political views  at the time of the American Civil War, which now and then strongly made itself noticeable and stood out even in public meetings, could not destroy the unity of faith, by Scripture-based working of the Holy Spirit.  They said to each other: "Politics has not brought us together, neither is it to drive us apart."

One fact stood out for me -- that Franz Pieper personally knew most of the fathers of the Missouri Synod.  Not only could he speak first-hand about Walther, but also about most the other professors, teachers, and pastors.  And so the best judge of the old Missouri Synod is... Franz Pieper.  And he fills in the blank concerning the relationship of old Missouri to the surrounding Civil War -- there was none to disturb the God-given unity in His Word.

Pieper on Walther's theology (Christliche Dogmatik, Vol. 1): what moderns hate... and fear

      Continuing my project of presenting the full text of Franz Pieper's original German edition of his Christliche Dogmatik.... (All volumes are polished, Vols. 2 & 3 are proofed; proofing Vol. 1a now)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      As I was proofing Vol. 1a (pages 187-188 in German, pg 160-161 in English edition), I ran into Pieper's own stated judgment of Walther's theology.  Walther had been judged by the great theologians of Germany and was considered undesirable and unimportant as a "repristination theologian" or a "citation theologian", lacking a scientific sense, ... and worse.  With all the scorn and censuring by these "great" theologians, Pieper injected his own judgment, and I sat up in my chair.  Here now is Prof. Franz Pieper's own judgment of Walther (my translation):

Should we summarize our own opinion of Walther, so we would like to call him the apologist of the Scripture theology of Luther and the Scripture theology of the old Protestant dogmatists, insofar as the latter have proved to be genuine representatives of Luther's Scripture theology.

This theology is what the modern theologians hated... and feared.  Pieper exposed their fear when he quotes from one of their own, Horst Stephan (page 187):

Also quite recently Horst Stephan soothes the modern theological camp initially with the assurance that "Today the doctrine of inspiration is given by scientific theology", but yet adds "It is only effective in the lay orthodoxists… who are still strong."  It stirs fear of a reaction from the laymen.

Could it be that the modernists today are scared of "lay orthodoxists" who are "still strong" in Scripture theology, and the Inspiration of Scripture?

"All Theology is Christology" = “Off on a Tangent”; the Golden Circle

[2019-03-04: added note at bottom in red]
      Continuing my project of presenting the full text of Franz Pieper's original German edition of his Christliche Dogmatik.... (All volumes are polished, Vols. 2 & 3 are proofed; proofing Vol. 1a now)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      As I was proofing Vol. 1a (pages 160 in German, pg 140 in English edition), I ran into Pieper's discussion of the importance the Doctrine of Justification in relation to all other doctrines.  I have previously highlighted the error of Prof. David P. Scaer, calling it a "Fork in the Road".  But this quote from Pieper brought another description for Scaer's error.  Now follows Pieper's clear instruction on what is most important in Christian teaching.

Translation by BackToLuther. Highlighting is mine.

The firmly closed inner connection of Christian doctrine from the center of the doctrine of justification is evident from the fact that without the article of justification, no other article of the Christian doctrine is actually believed.  It is not so that one can believe the articles e.g. of the Trinity or the Person of Christ and not believe the article of justification. Certainly, the fides humana [human faith] on those articles may be there, but not the fides divina [divine faith] which the Holy Spirit works.  For the Holy Spirit indeed only enters a man’s heart by faith in justification. (Gal. 3:1-3)  Only when I believe by the action of the Holy Spirit that God has forgiven me my sins for the sake of Christ's satisfactio vicaria, I also believe by the action of the Holy Spirit, that there is a God, that God is triune, that Christ is God and man, that there is a resurrection of the dead and eternal life, etc. So great is the article of justification in Christian doctrine “one continuous round golden circle” (unus quidam perpetuus et rotundus aureus circulus).

Wow!  Pieper not only refutes Scaer's "All Theology is Christology", he seals the importance (again) of Justification over "Christology" by saying that

"It is not so that one can believe the article ... of  the Person of Christ and not believe the article of justification."

and

"...without the article of justification, no other article of the Christian doctrine is actually believed."

This is basically the same as Pieper's other famous phrase:

"All praise of Christ, of grace, and of the means of grace, without the right doctrine of justification, is nothing.  All teaching in the Church must serve this article."

But I love the word picture Pieper attaches to the Doctrine of Justification:

“one continuous round golden circle”.

If one gets off that "golden circle", if one displaces Justification from its rightful center, then it can be said that Prof. David P. Scaer has not just taken a "fork in the road", but also

gone off on a tangent  

of that "golden circle" and spun out of control. — The great irony is that the author of the essay on Franz Pieper for the 1993 Handbook of Evangelical Theologians was... Prof. David P. Scaer.  That is the same irony as when the author of the official biography [2019-03-04 link updated] of Pieper after his death was... Prof. Theodore Graebner.

[2019-03-04: 20 years later, in 2013, Scaer was again called on to write a summary of Franz Pieper for Mark Mattes' compendium Twentieth-Century Lutheran Theologians.]

"Formula of Concord disagrees with Luther"?-Part 2 (Pieper answers on original sin)

      Continuing my project of presenting the full text of Franz Pieper's original German edition of his Christliche Dogmatik.... (All volumes are polished, Vols. 2 & 3 are proofed; proofing Vol. 1a now)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      As I was proofing Vol. 1a (pages 105-106 in German, pg 94 in English edition), I ran into Pieper's discussion of original sin in relation to the teachings of Luther and Chemnitz.  I immediately sat up because about 3 years ago in comments to a blog post, I had some rabid CTS-FW defenders of Profs. Scaer (elder) and MacKenzie attempt to impress me with their deep knowledge by asserting that the teachings of Luther and the Formula of Concord (Article I) disagree.  Their assertions and manner did nothing to allay my fears of how far that seminary has deteriorated from truly Christian teaching.  I now want to republish this assertion so that all can see what the Fort Wayne seminary teaches:

Anonymous (of 12/14/2012):

"Are you aware that Article One of the Formula of Concord disagrees with Luther? Luther says it is impossible to distinguish between Man's nature and sin. The Formula says that we must, or else Christ did not fully become Man. In the text itself, Andrea and Chemnitz make it clear they are actively disagreeing with Luther on this point. They say, in paraphrase, "Luther said you cannot distinguish, but we must distinguish."

And just so you don't think these were apostates who rejected the true Gospel, Walther required complete subscription to every teaching of the entire Book of Concord, as did Pieper. In other words, both Walther and Pieper unquestionably submitted themselves to the Formula and bound themselves under its authority.

So what will you do? Will you reject Walther and Pieper because they agreed that Luther had fault? Or will you find fault with the Formula because it disagrees with Luther? But if you do that, you're disagreeing with Walther and Pieper!

I'm sure you will find some clever loophole and continue to break the 8th Commandment as often as possible."

Let the reader review my comments on this assertion from 3 years ago.  It will be noted that I did not directly respond to their specific assertions then.  But Franz Pieper's discussion of "Open Questions" and "Original Sin" led to pertinent information and quotes by Chemnitz.  In the German edition, Pieper quotes Chemnitz in Latin, while the English edition has fortunately translated the Latin into English.  Here now is Pieper's text from the English edition:

Open questions may also be called "theological problems" if such problems are meant as cannot be solved on earth because God has not given us the solution in Scripture. A theologian may with a good conscience reply to many questions with an "I do not know" - nescio.

We cannot, for instance, answer the question how sin could originate, seeing that all creatures, including all the angels, were originally created "very good." Another open question: Is the soul of each individual created by God immediately (creationism) or mediately through the parents (traducianism)? 135 …

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

135 This question was discussed at great length during the Pelagian controversies, but also in later periods. See Chemnitz, Loci, I, "De Peccato Originis," ed. 1599, I, 567 sqq., for the historical material. On Luther’s position Chemnitz says: "Luther declared that publicly he would assert nothing in answer to this question, but that he, for himself, favored traducianism; furthermore, that the Papists must be censured for their audacity and presumptuousness in creating an article of faith in an obscure matter, without one clear testimony of Scripture, in order to subvert the Scripture doctrine of original sin." Chemnitz adds: "... let us learn from this example to cut short, piously, firmly, and in well-founded simplicity, these subtle disputations which endanger faith. As to the causa efficiens [of original sin], it is sufficient to know that the fall of our first parents justly resulted in this, that they transmitted to all their offspring the very same nature, both as to body and as to soul, as was theirs after the Fall. In what manner, however, the soul contracts this evil, faith can safely ignore, because the Holy Spirit did not want to make it known to us through certain and clear Scripture testimonies." Cf. also Baier's brief historical remarks, I, 67, nota c; Luthardt, Dogmatik, 11th ed., p. 168 f.

After I read this, I decided to also read Article One, briefly, and could then see that this assertion that the "Formula of Concord disagrees with Luther" is only a deception by my CTS-FW commenters, and also likely by their teachers.  For this "disagreement" is only a refinement in terminology to better distinguish the errors that had cropped up after Luther's death.  In fact, Article One draws heavily on... Martin Luther.

So I invite the reader to read Pieper's text above and Article One of the Formula of Concord to see if they agree with my commenter's assertion that "the Formula of Concord disagrees with Luther".

Religious Psychology – by F. Pieper (not DOXOLOGY)

      Continuing my project of presenting the full text of Franz Pieper's original German edition of his Christliche Dogmatik.... (All volumes are polished, but now proofing Vol. 1a)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      As I began proofing Vol. 1a, I ran into one of my favorite subjects from Pieper – Psychology.  I am interested because I was at one time being "treated" by "professional" Psychologists and Psychiatrists... so I know their "wisdom".  Let the reader pick up any book purporting to know about this subject, or watch/listen to the "pop" psychologists on TV or radio or on the Web.  You will probably get a dose of the world's "Psychology" when you meet with subjects like "leadership", "motivation", "parenthood", "marriage counseling", "stress management", also, "weight loss" or cures to stop smoking, etc, etc.  Even "pastoral counseling" gets into the act, e.g. Doxology's Director for Spiritual Care is a (woman) Professor of Psychology, a licensed clinical psychologist.   Doxology's claims (as previously noted) are as follows:

DOXOLOGY offers an innovative program of advanced study retreats to strengthen pastors for the task of faithfully shepherding the souls entrusted to their care.
DOXOLOGY provides pastors with a unique study and renewal experience, rooted in the classic art of the care of souls (cura animarum) and informed by the insights of contemporary Christian psychology. [all emphases are mine]

But how does Prof. Franz Pieper treat this subject of Religious Psychology?  On pages 13-15 in both the German and English editions of Volume 1, Pieper continues from the teaching of "only 2 religions in the world" to the subject of "Religious Psychology".

The following translation is mine; emphasis (underlining) in original, highlighting is mine:

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

But this point [of only 2 religions] was and is objected to in that the old theologians and even Luther have lacked the necessary psychological, historical and philosophical consideration of religions for the right classification of religions.  These branches of knowledge have been given due attention only in recent times. But even here there is a self-deception.  We also do not come about by means of the psychology of religion, the history of religion, and the philosophy of religion to the number of 2 significantly different religions.

Concerning the psychological  analysis of religion, it has been pointed out with great energy the "similarity" of the "psychological phenomena" in non-Christians and Christians.  Because the older theologians have overlooked this similarity, so it was not possible for them to put the Christian religion with non-Christian under one genus.  But the alleged similarity of psychological phenomena among Christians and non-Christians will disappear immediately once we examine them comparatively.  Instead of similarity there is the polar opposite.  In the non-Christian soul, we find the following psychological phenomena: the sense of guilt or a bad conscience, the fear of punishment and thus the internal flight from God, the desire to avert the punishment by their own works, and because the striving does not lead to the desired goal, the state of the fear of death and hopelessness. Eph. 2:12; Heb. 2:15.   In the Christian soul, we find the opposite conditions and movements: a good conscience through faith in the redemption that is in Christ Jesus [Romans 5:1], not internal flight from God, but joyful access to God [Romans 5:2],  not fear of death and hopelessness, but triumph over death [1 Cor. 15:55] and the certain hope of eternal life. [Rom. 5:2]  So  the "similarity" of the psychological conditions and phenomena is reduced to the fact that both classes, non-Christians and Christians, have only a purely formal  similarity of their common human nature in respect to a human soul and spiritual movements.  As regards the direction and the stated quality of the movements, so they are not a similarity, but an utter contrast exists.  It is also not to be forgotten in the study of religious psychology that the souls of the non-Christians, according to Christ's reliable testimony, are the dwelling and workplace of the “strong man armed” who “keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace” [Luke 11:21] while the Christian souls are inhabited and driven by the Spirit of God, [1 Cor. 3:16; Rom. 8:11-14] for which the Apostle Paul also appeals to the experience of former Gentiles and Jews, who have undergone both psychological stages. [Eph. 2:2-3; 1 Cor. 12:2; Eph. 2:11-12]  Because  now the prince of this world and the Holy Spirit do not produce essentially the same, but two different psychological phenomena in the soul directly opposite each other, so also psychology applied to religion leads us not on a uniform concept of religion, but rather on two essentially different religions.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So what happens when a church's teaching weakens from that of Franz Pieper, weakens from the strength of the Lutheran Confessions, weakens on the preaching of the Gospel itself?  It starts programs like... Doxology!... with "INNOVATIVE" programs of "ADVANCED", "UNIQUE" studies for "RENEWAL EXPERIENCES" informed by "CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGY" presented by "HIGH-ENERGY SPEAKERS".  A better name for this type of institution would be 'MIXOLOGY', (a contraction of 'mixed theology'), not 'DOXOLOGY'.  — Indeed, Pieper essentially equates two things:

1. The work of the Prince of this world and
2. Psychology applied to religion

==>> Note to Doxology:
Here is an advanced studies tip: Back To Luther!... teaching UOJ (Universal, Objective Justification).

Oh, and Doxology, I want to add that you may think that this blog post is only to warn against your type of counsel.  But you would be wrong in that I read my blog posts because I need true Christian counsel... regularly, and so I will be reading this blog post regularly to read over and over (ad nauseum) the true Christian counsel of... Prof. Franz Pieper.